Staus Quo, please

It's a great testament to the present policies of the Liberal government and Carole Taylor that the surplus is strong.

Clearly the policies of this government are successful. For this to continue the responsible thing to do is pay down the debt, as IAMC suggests. Anyone knows full well that when one has money in ones account the prudent thing to do is pay off some of ones debts. Thinking of the future generation is what we should all do. (Incidentally, I have no children so I say this purely from an unbiased common-sense perspective). To burden the future generation with debt due to overspending is absolutely wrong and unfair. Large debts have to be serviced with large interest payments that 'steal' money from other government programmes. We must not be greedy at the expense of the children.

The second thing to do is lower taxes again. There was some tax relief given at the start of the present government's term and this has obviously stimulated confidence and investment in British Columbia that has led to increased revenues and a healthy surplus.

Any naysayers that yelped when the tax cuts were bought in can now accept that the Liberals had the right policy for stimulating growth and tax revenue, as predicted. Those that criticized any tax cuts will now agree that the policy does indeed work and government revenues do, in fact, increase! The fact that substantial funds are being dispersed for health-care and infrastructure while at the same time the government is in a strong surplus position sends a clear message that Carole Taylor and the Liberals are governing well.

Further lobbying of the Federal Government for equitable distribution of funds for infrastructure and development as well as assistance in solving some of the social problems should be continued. People must be encouraged to help themselves. All studies and philosophies suggest that when people help themselves they are better for it, so governments must be careful to stand back and only help those that are really in need. A culture of entitlement is destructive and a culture of self improvement is positive. The Liberals have found a reasonable balance but more tax cuts are needed and will help us all, and society in general, much more.

More tired, welfare state ideas

Good ideas realisticman. The author of the article is trotting out the same failed NDP ideas. Everytime you have some money you can always depend on someone from BC's left to say throw it away on welfare. Then, they find out it's not working so they push the govt into debt to fund more wasteful social programmes.

Major increases in welfare only encourages more people to stay on welfare. Welfare isn't supposed to be a way of life. Child benefits and family bonus is an inefficient way of redistributing benefits. Tax breaks are the way to go.

It's simply too expensive in today's housing mkt to build alot of social housing in Vancouver. Better to move them to cheaper areas like Yellowknife. If you're poor you can't expect the govt to fund your lifestyle in one of the most expensive cities in North America.

This author only proposes more big govt involvement with master programmes controlling income redistribution. BC needs infrastructure improvements that will help business create jobs.

This is our democracy, isn't

This is our democracy, isn't it? A constant petitioning of our masters to please share the wealth. Please? In other words, not a democracy at all. It's very clear that the people don't want anyone living in poverty or in the streets. Our elite, however, couldn't care less while their personal net worth gets ever fatter.

There is no lack, there is no shortage of anything we need to eradicate poverty. There is only the tyranny of those who writhe in the abyss of power and privilege.

You must be joking!

As if paying down the debt has done the poor any good in BC since the Campbell government came to power?

In fact, BC's position relative to social issues, homelessness and poverty - particularly of children - is a scandal, next to worst among Canadian provinces and for an economy that has already reduced the taxes of the top 20 percent of income earners to the point where they feel 'entitled' to be rich no matter what happens to the other 80% the last thing that's needed is to pay down the debt.

If the economy is really growing the debt will very shortly look after itself as service charges become a smaller portion of the budget every year.

We need a new tax regime and much higher government spending on the things that are bad and getting worse in this province.

Happily there aren't more than a handful of regulars here who don't see that.

Carole Taylor is an embarrassment and I think she knows it; if Campbell doesn't resign soon, look for her to be gone (and soon forgotten) before 2009.

If the Tsawwassen turn down the bribe the government has set for them on the 25th - and Campbell appears to have pulled out all the stops to convince them not to - things are likely to get very interesting by the fall.

Please see: http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/
for further details.

ludicrous?

It's not ludicrous that the government "would allow a person to work full-time, full-year and still wind up below the poverty line." It's fully consonant with the BC Liberals' priorities, which are allowing corporations to maximize profits. The income of workers, let alone the unemployed, is hardly worth discussion.

Social scientists can provide piles of data showing that children who grow up poor end up with more social and health problems as s, including unemployment. Our society would be better off in many ways, including economically, if we eliminated child poverty. Several European countries have managed to do it. But in BC, it might hurt the next quarterly profit report--so just forget about it.

Civilizations cost money

Civilizations cost money to run. Lots of it. Other forms of society don't. For those who hate taxes, why not visit Aghanistan? Or how about Haiti? You have lots of choices. The reality is, socially just demoncracies need to recyle their wealth back into the community. Otherwise, history has taught that wealth is hoarded to the loss of the population. Great article Tyee!

isn't BC child poverty 23.5%?

I don't believe that BC child poverty has dropped from 23.5% (2004 tax data, http://www.firstcallbc.org/documents/publicationsresearch/BC%20Child%20Poverty%20Fact%20Sheets%202006.pdf to 15.9% (quoted in article from Stats Can 2005 data, please provide source) in only a year.

In fact, it looks like child poverty is increasing around the province because of rapidly rising accommodation costs.

And LICO (Low Income Cut Off) estimates of poverty are outdated as they are based on 1992 percentages of income spent on shelter. And given rising accommodation costs this percentage must have spiked upwards.

That Child Poverty Stat

First of all, I doubt few Tyee readers know what REAL poverty is, which accroding to the UN is living on less than $2 a day.

Beneath that poverty statistic lurks a deep, dark, dirty secret that nobody who posts here wants to bring up. It is a problem that thorwing money at will not solve. Anyone have the guts to say what it is?

Lefties have a hard time believing this but there is no money tree in Victoria. I don't have one, either. If I want to spend more in one area then I have to cut in another. However, in my household, the first thing I do every month is pay my debts. I don't let them ride because I know the interest payments will come back with a vengence.

Taking that surplus and paying down debt will make the government's options in the next recession much better.

It is tempting to spend a windfall. I'd rather save it for a rainy day and that is what the government is going to do, since that is what the people who voted for it want.

And if there is one thing the Liberals know how to do, its win elections.

Pay down the debt.

Working Man: "It is tempting to spend a windfall. I'd rather save it for a rainy day and that is what the government is going to do, since that is what the people who voted for it want."

I somewhat agree. We need to put atleast some of that down on our debt. We don't want our children watching all the infrastructue we have paid for over the years crumbling down around them without anyway of replacing it. That being said, the fact that the min. wage is still $8 is a joke. The politicians gave themselves a 29% raise, and perhaps it is time that our poorest paid workers saw some benefit to a "booming" economy.

We might as well pay off some of the debt now because we will need money to pay the bills for the Olympics and the soon to be billion dollar scandal that is the convention center.

This is NO windfall

When paying off liabilities - most of which are more than secured by resource assets which are being given away - is more important than whether or not 80% of families will be able to afford to live here so that the Campbell Government's friends can continue their madness until the Olympic blowout - is your priority; then I think it's time for same 80% of citizens to rise up and take to the streets, the radio stations, the newspapers and the phone.

A 4.1 Billion dollar surplus is just another indication of the complete failure the Campbell government. It's time for the shareholders (all the shareholders – including the people who can’t find a doctor, a hospital bed or a decent place to live) to rise up - just as they did against the Conrad Black kleptocracy - and make their views known.

Utter incompetence!

I'd rather save it for a rainy day

Last I looked it was raining...raining for seven days straight now.

attacking poverty

While I have little quarrel with paying down debt as a prudent fiscal measure, I do disagree with placing such abstractions as "fiscal reality", "bottom line", "the economy" and so on above the concrete reality of human suffering.

Jesus once said that "the poor are always with us," but the neocon philosophy directing much of our government thinking seems to be intent upon making that observation remain true--forever. Jesus also said, "Sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor." Note that "ALL".

I'm not a Christian (contrary to the claims of the US president, our esteemed Prime Minister, and many other purveyors of right wing cant, whose actions seem to reflect the attitude, "Jesus loves me, so let's build up the military and go kill somebody.") That being said, I can at least acknowledge that Jesus had his heart in the right place.

John Maynard Keynes had what seems a sensible suggestion with regard to the balancing possibilities of government spending. During times of surplus, high productivity in the economy, etc., do the minimum necessary (by which he probably meant at least looking after the poor). During times of recession, pump up government spending to stimulate demand in the economy. Spend more during recession in order to shorten the downturn (still looking after the poor, but also beginning large public works projects, etc.).

Our governments, however, want to cut spending under all conditions. If we think poverty is bad now (and it is), wait until the next recession under the current administrations. I predict that both Federal and provincial social spending will continue to drop, at least as a percentage of GDP, and poverty will continue to proliferate in our national and provincial jurisdictions.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for poverty relief from Carole Taylor and the Liberals.

always with us

I`ve read that this quote credited to Jesus
was actually in the context of wanting to speak with Judas...who was about to leave and minister to the poor..Christ was saying " Just a minute J the poor will still be there ( The poor are always with us (sigh)) I first wish to speak with you a moment.

Maybe thats some kind of socialist interpretation.

Sharing Is Good

Working Man states:

I believe you may be misinformed, WM: your assertion is not what the UN uses to define poverty. That amount may be a feasible amount for people living in always warm equatorial countries that do not have the standards of education and health that we do. Further, other than the bush, there is no place that a person can live and survive in Canada on $2 per day. We have not trained (nor do we really allow) our poor to live in the bush. I challenge anyone to heat and light even the smallest most efficient apartment for $2 per day. After that, comes food, clothing, rent, health, transportation and sanitation needs. Even $10/day per person is an impossible amount in British Columbia. Further, after the very most basic of needs are met, poverty is always relative to the standards set by the society in which the person lives.

Here is something the UN actually says about poverty:

http://www.unhchr.ch/development/poverty-02.html

Its about commodities stupid

The economy of this province is commodity based. When they are hot "our" coffers increase. When the NDP is in power the commodity prices are less bullish, but that is a mere coincidence of course.

As for the disenfranchised children et al. who by and large do not vote. The masters don't give much of a frick really, you will not be served...

Do not despair about the public purse though because it is being spent on Olympics, unwanted transportation boon doggles, and other pals of up on high. You (the disenfranchised) will feel the love trickle down and up your backside, so smile and suck it up.

That is reality...Carole Taylor will continue to cultivate her largesse/image, as for the poor fuhgedaboutit.....

Change? yeah right wanna by a bridge?

Here we go again.

IAMC, realisticman and Bobby Peru all start off claiming the liberals should do nothing more than the same old thing the Reformers were claiming way back in the 80's and what they started out doing by making everyone pay more in taxes and fees. But make the rich pay less in taxes and everything will be fine. My heavens I have not recovered from the MSP increases in 2002 and they still want more of the same. Now "trickle up" is what makes the economy work.

World commodity prices will take a downturn and the bubble that these liberal cheerleaders live in will burst. It will happen right after the olympic party when we go back to normal. What then? Oh that is easy. We elect the NDP to punish the liberals and leave them there just long enough for the province to recover before we elect the thugs again. Can't happen you say? Oh but it did already.

Well, there's one thing we can be sure of

Taylor and her fellow MLAs will certainly look after themselves. You thought the pay raise they grabbed a few weeks ago was too much?

They've just given themselves another:

http://www.strategicthoughts.com/

Taxes and other Things

I am 100% with the spirit of this piece, and I hold no brief for the BC Liberals record or current policies, but I really think there are better things to do to fight poverty than legislate higher wages. Also, there is nothing wrong with tax cuts if you cut the right taxes. How about raising the no-tax threshhold (currently only $8,8858) to something more realistic like $16,000 and lowering the rate of tax in the lowest bracket from 6.05 % to something like 3 or 4 %. Then we could even introduce an earned-income supplement whereby people earning less than $10,000 a year got a refundable tax credit, and boost the social assistance rates too, for those who earn nothing, just as the writer suggested. Next, the government itself could offer to employ a quota of people at the proposed new minimum wage rate of $ 11 an hour instead of ordering other employers to do so. There is plenty of conservation work to be done up and down the province, and the competition for less-skilled labour would drive up rates in the private sector more sustainably (from an employment point of view) than would the proposed increase in the minimum wage. And finally if all this "social engineering" uses up most of the surplus, the Province could make up the difference with a slight increase in gas tax. Children below the poverty line do not, in general drive cars, so we don't have to worry about the negative income effect. Perhaps though, the increase in the gas tax could be confined to urban areas with public transit, to make sure it is well targeted.

Michael Barkusky

Bobby Peru

Too bad there's no evidence of that eh? Yep, there must just be oodles of economists out there who believe tax cuts help the poor more than direct benefits huh? Oh man it was hard to write this without laughing but then I took economics and you didn't.

And as soon as you find an economist who believes that nations get richer by shipping their poor out of the country and dumping them on someone else I want to be the first to read his collected works!

In other words business can only create jobs if the government pays the freight. Why don't we cut out the middleman and give the money directly to the poor and they can spend it and create jobs that way? Wow, talk about efficient!

Rodney Dangerfield Syndrome

You have to laugh at some of the comments above. Imagine if the Liberals had not lowered taxes for those earning the least, had not increased spending on health-care, education and infrastructure and then announced a budget deficit! Would they then be praised by the left-wing posters?

So many posters are obsessed with their ideology that they can only rant and rage. The hate they express for a successful policy that has put British Columbia solidly in the black is truly laughable.

The eagerness they express for splurging the surplus on more social programmes and thereby transferring more debt to the next generation betrays their greed and the constant references to the so-called rich betrays a most distasteful emotion, namely, envy. What belongs to someone else belongs to them. It's so old fashioned and Victorian. It's also reminiscent of those who's ears perk up when they hear that someone has money, they want in and if it's extortion or 'squeeze' that's OK too.

Whatever happened to 'Thou Shalt Not Covet thy Neighbour's Goods?'.

Practically speaking, a lowering of the corporate tax rate is now called for to encourage more companies to locate in B.C. This will bring more employment and further grow the government's revenues allowing for more services and improved infrastructure.

Not about money

Our current situation (billion$ surplus) coupled with minute help for the poor, points once again to the fact that helping or not helping the poor has little to do with money. If the surplus were to double or triple, there would still be little attempt to adddress the poor. Why? Because it is not about the money!
Engrained in the blood of those we stereotype as "the right" is the idea that people are responsible for themselves, everyone is to make it on their own. To help someone will cause them not to strive to help themselves - they will ljust become "users".
I think most parents follow this line of thinking when raising their children. Initial training re allowances and chores, part-time jobs etc. all help kids to reallize that the world does not owe them a living, they must achieve what they want.
As I wander our streets, I see so many in need - beggars that are physically and/or mentally challenged to a point that only the heartless can expect them to make it on their own.
On the other hand I see the odd young soul who may best be helped with "tough love" and not a handout of any type.
I would suggest that this second category makes up 10% of those "in need." I am all in favor of not" giving them something for nothing."
What about that other 90%? Can those on "the right" get over their "self-responsibility on steroids" mentally long enough to see those, who through fault of their own or not, are in dire straights and not capable of making it on their own?
The unwillingness to help the needy is about self-centeredness, selfishness and this misguided attitude.
IT IS NOT ABOUT THE MONEY!

One chap mentioned that any

One chap mentioned that any company he ever worked for would have fired the financial wizard who wrote a budget that was so far off the mark. The cutbacks for so many things that hurt the folks mean nothing to Campbell. So the doctros can't get thier patients into a operating room, tough. so a guy spends four days sleeping in a hospital shower room . with excruciating back pain, tough. we need the money for the grossly overbudget convention center. Sad way to do things.

realisticman

You have evidence of such a policy? Or just a fuzzy memory? Because its not the most difficult job to go back and dig up the real numbers. Will McMartin has them in the archives on this site.

As far as health spending goes, what people dislike is the Liberal inability to manage that budget. They have thrown more money at it but in such a way that they are getting worse health care outcomes than the NDP managed with less dollars. Unless you think more dollars equals better health care? It doesn't, the dollars have to be spent wisely or they're wasted, which describes what happened when the Liberals took the reins.

As for the surplus, what would be wrong with spending it fighting poverty, child abuse etc instead of the Olympics and all the associated circuses?

Because that is the crux of the matter. Money left in the hands of the Liberals goes to circuses, not dealing with problems. If someone wanted tax cuts why didn't they speak up and decry the Olympian costs being foisted on us?

As for corporate tax rates, this is the 21st century, just because a corporation decides to call BC home doesn't mean any appreciable number of people are subsequently employed by said company. All it will do is lower the revenue from corporations available to gov't and increase the burden on the working class. Which is exactly what has transpired over the last couple of decades as any cursory glance at the declining overall percentage that corporate tax rates make up will demonstrate.

Green, green, it's green they say, ...

...
On the far side of the hill.
Green, green, I'm goin' away
To where the grass is greener still.

Fact is the budget is about 8% over anticipated revenues. I wish my budgeting could always be so close. Fact is 65,000 new jobs were created in 2006 in B.C. That's 65,000 that didn't need to be given money but ended up paying in taxes. That's a 130,000 gap. Fact is business investments were 7.6% up. That's also a huge growth, more like seen in Asia. Also bringing in more taxes.

Fact is, most so-called right-wing posters are quite pleased to contribute to helping those amongst us that in in dire need. What comes through, though, is that they are not at all excited at the prospect of giving cash to those amongst us that don't or shouldn't need it! That doesn't help anyone and perpetuates problems.

Don't confuse a differing of opinions as to how to ameliorate society's problems with an incorrect assumption of the compassion, or perceived lack thereof, held by so-called rightists.

There may be some truth to the old adage 'tough love'. I do feed the birds when the ground is frozen over but I try to not get them hooked to the point where they forget, or are too lazy, to forage for themselves.

Do-gooders sometimes cause more problems.

Is that the best you can do?

Over on the right - my end of town - we have pay down the debt and lower taxes. On the left we have a five point program. There is always a five point program.

I am a huge fan of both tax cuts and debt reduction but we might want to see if 4.1 billion could be used a bit more creatively.

Minimum wage: largely a joke in a province where there is an increasing labour shortage.

Social housing? Nice but wildly inefficient and there is never enough to go around. On the other hand, giving renters money directly and allowing them to deduct a certain portion of their rent as a tax exemption would create a demand for private sector rental construction.

Childcare? Why not set taxes in such a way as to make it feasible for mum or dad to stay at home and take care of their kids.

Welfare rates up: by all means; but do it in a market efficient manner. For example, instead of the paltry 100.00 a month a person can earn on welfare without clawback, kick that up to $500 or $1000. Basically use the welfare rates to encourage people to take the jobs which are currently going begging.

As for child benefits of every sort I think that is a great idea. But make sure you include everyone so that our birthrate begins to go up. We desperately need more kids and if money will help, great.

I suspect the government could meaningfully fund all of that and still have a billion or two left over for debt reduction and tax cuts.

The trick being to deliver the money directly to the people who need it without intervening layers of well paid sorters getting a cut. Send cheques not endless forms. Don't bother "trying to help" with social workers and case officers, just send money to people who need it.

Sure

The policy was to cut taxes-for all and particularly to raise the threshold for those at the bottom who would pay NO taxes. Also, to cut the red-tape for business and it has stimulated investment and growth. Look at the mining sector! Look at the increase in employment and the increase in business investing. The Olympics was initiated by the NDP and inherited by the Liberals and even Vancouver held a vote that approved it. The Sea to Sky needed upgrading and would have been done eventually. The transit line to the airport is also needed, although one can argue whether or not the right system is being deployed. Vehicular travel between Vancouver and its airport as well as Vancouver and Richmond will be less. The Richmond Oval is being paid for by Richmond alone and the funds have been found due to the growth and auctioning off of industrial lands for development. The Convention Centre will, like all convention centres, pay for itself with a substantial influx of visitors who will spend in the city.

Corporate tax rates do affect growth. See;
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070711.wreynolds11/BNStory/robColumnsBlogs/
Europe, which is so often cited by lefties as a model we should emulate, has learned the lesson that lower rates increase revenues.

jay Currie

And on the right there is always debt and taxes due to mismanagement I assume. As there has never been a federal left-wing party in power in Canada and yet right-wingers complain constantly about taxes and the debt burden I suggest Jay that you look in the mirror as to why you're being crushed under the two.

I for one am pleasantly surprised to hear there are no more working poor in BC.

And increase the construction sector's need for foreign workers so that we don't have to hire BC people. Good stuff. Because we all know we have to do something to rejuvenate the construction industry in BC. Its almost in crisis.

Perhaps mum can stay home with the kids and get a credit on her non-existent income because she stayed home with the kids. brilliant. Sounds like a good way to force all those uppity women to get married.

Sounds like the whole point of a revolutionary idea called "universality" to me.

some say size doesn't matter

But truly, it's not the size of her heart that is as important as how cold it is.

More Neil Reynolds - I should have known

Spare me Realisticman. Every dollar, no matter how earned is a dollar available for tax - no more special deals for phony capital gains and dividend income. This was a fairer country until the 70s and it has been getting worse, measurably worse, ever since. The more we get like our American neighbours - and even they have an earned income tax credit - the worse things will be for the 80% of families who are losing under Taylor, Campbell and the rest.

It’s time the masters of the universe started paying their share instead of eating the poor and the middle class.

How about some other commandments?

You shall not steal the wealth and assets of the people.

You shall not give away to your friends in Pt Grey and West Vancouver opportunities which by right belong to all the people of this province.

You shall not auction off the rivers of this land or sacrifice the forest resources for next to nothing.

You shall not covet the labour of the working man and the sweat of his brow for a minimum wage of $8.00 per hour. You will not sell off the services of this country to foreign buyers.

You will not ignore the Charter of Rights when dealing with your employees.

You shall not ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada when you have broken the rules.

You shall not charge royalties to your friends in the energy industry that would be an embarrassment in Alberta.

You shall not limit the power of municipalities to favour the welfare of their own citizens.

You shall not use unfair methods to promote agreements that favour your friends.

You will not pretend to do things for First Nations people when you are actually promoting industrial expansion and development.

I could go on.

The coveting is all on the other side, Realisticman.

Frank

First, we are talking provincially here and there have certainly been left win parties in power in BC. But the debt is the proud creation of both the right and the left for reasons of mismanagement and also for investment. We are not arguing the morality of the debt; rather we are considering to what degree we should spend "surplus funds" on reducing it.

We are in a period of increasing labour scarcity. (See your comment as to construction below.) We are not at Alberta levels yet but we appear to be getting there in parts of the province. While increasing the minimum wage might have some limited effect the real world of the market is going to drive wages up rather more quickly. the big difference being that when the boom ends - and they all end - market wages will fall but a legislated minimum wage is not likely to be reduced regardless of market conditions. Which, of course, hurts poor people because they will simply not be hired.

Your remarks as to the construction industry are rather odd: we agree we want high wage jobs and the construction sector has those jobs in abundance at the moment. Problem is that those jobs are building condos with starting prices in the 500K range. Why? Because that is where developers see the most money. Rental housing, at whatever price point, can't compete. I am suggesting incentives in the hands of renter which would make new rental housing, at a variety of income levels, an attractive business proposition.

Frank II

[Ooops, response got away with me]

It would seem to me that we have - as you rightly pointed out - undervalued the work that mothers do. A point which, it appears, we have in common. And the predictable consequence of this is that women go out into the marketplace and sell what skills they have. However, as I have written about on my blog this means that the family is deprived of that woman's labour. Which leads to a demand for child care (low paid), processed food and restaurant food (low paid), cleaning ladies (low paid). While this choice may make sense for women who can earn, say, $30.00 per hour it makes next to none for women who work for less than that amount. And that is to, of course, entirely ignore the non-monetary benefits of having mum at home when a kid comes home from school.

In our current system it makes next to no economic sense for low market skill women (or men) to work rather than raise their kids. I am suggesting that we encourage such people to stay at home and take care of the kids. And the way to do that is to value the work that they are doing with actual cash.

I am a big fan of universality and it is indeed a revolutionary idea. I fear that I subscribe to the subversive idea that the best thing we can do is give them what they need most - money. While counseling, support, education and the like are all very well, when you have no money what you need, and what your kids need, is not a social worker or a financial aid officer; you need cash.

Jay Currie

13 years of NDP government in the last 107. No way you can blame the NDP for the mess this province is in. Certainly not now.

pay down the debt, of course!

the sensible thing to do, in order to benefit this and future generations is to use that money to pay down the debt. Less debt equals less money spent to service debt in the long run equals more money to spend on services. Pretty basic concept.

I'd really like to know why people think that raising minimum wage will do anything to help out those working for minimum wage??? When minimum wage goes up, employers have to raise costs to cover the increased wages. And who has minimum wage staff? The businesses that often serve minimum wage earners.

If minimum wage goes up, its not the people who buy BMWs who are impacted - it's the people who struggle to buy bread and milk as the price of bread and milk go up.

I argued this with a Sociology prof in college (she never taught business majors again, BTW) - and never did get a satisfactory answer.

It's like the current civic strike...the workers want more money...which is paid for by property tax dollars. When they get their raises, property taxes will go up to cover them. And then the civic workers will again complain about the costs of living in Vancouver.

*sigh*

Why is the extreme left so committed to fuzzy logic? I'm a moderate lefty, but I'm one who can do basic math...

G West

I wasn't blaming the NDP - though there is lots to blame them for - rather I was clarifying a point Frank made. Ms. Taylor is a provincial Minister of Finance. Frank merrily announced that there has never been a left wing party in goverment at the federal level. He missed the point as broadly as you missed mine.

The Usual Stereotypes...

The lefties here engage in their usual, tiresome stereotyping of anyone who doesn't share their beliefs or who share their beliefs, but don't share the way the want to go about doing things.

If you are conservative or fiscally prudent then you must hate the poor or don't want to help children. Or corporations are necessarily evil. You hear their usual rant again and again vilifiying big oil, corporations and 'the rich'.

Who are the 'rich'? Can you accurately define it for me? Is it Jim Pattison? Is it any household making $100,000 a year? Is it $50,000? Who is this Darth Vader you speak of?

And the silly remarks about Carole Taylor- that she is a failure after producing a big surplus? Fact is, the BC Govt has been a far more effective fiscal manager than the NDP was ever. And we can only tackle our housing, poverty problems if there is enough money. Going into debt to do so means programmes are unsustainable.

And don't hate corporations so much. We need the jobs they provide. I don't know how many of you work for a corporation, but many working families in BC do. Before you think of crazy policies remember who you are putting out of work.

who are the rich?

I would think that just about everyone in BC could agree that anyone having a post-tax income of $125,000 a year and a balance sheet tipping $5,000,000 in his or her favour could and should be considered among the wealthy. A balance sheet of that size could guarantee just about anyone with a lick of sense an income and lifestyle that would require little or no work on his or her part. Anyone with a net worth of over 5 million could be taxed quite heavily on their income that exceeds $125,000 and they should be able to cope.

Nope - Jay Currie

I didn't miss your point and I don't think Frank did either.

This is what you wrote, remember?

And that was precisely the point I was addressing. If one looks at cumulative debt, the responsibility for that simply must be allocated to left and right on a proportional basis - to wit 13/107ths.

You started your comment with this:

So it's not exactly unremarkable that one might assume you were coming at this from a right-wing point of view. Consequently, credit where credit is due was the genesis of my remark.

Now, as to the other point, in a situation where the province with the worst homelessness and child poverty chooses to use its surplus funds to pay down structural debt rather than address these problems or the mess they've made of universal health care (among other things I won't get into) I don't think it's too difficult to apportion the appropriate responsibility.

As to whether or not the NDP were good money managers, the economic situation and world-wide commodity prices were very different in the 90s than they are now and still, under much more difficult (especially as regards federal transfers) circumstances, those governments did not do all that badly.

As for your remarks about women and families - I'm sorry you're so very out of date. There's an interesting column in the New York Times this morning by Judith Warner on the subject - unfortunately, it's behind subscription so there's no point in posting a link.

how big is carol taylor's heart

. If you're poor you can't expect the govt to fund your lifestyle in one of the most expensive cities in North America.

are you suggesting that Vancouver be only for the affluent that can come and colonize from other parts of the country.? If you happen to be born here and have family born here and community - the rich should be able to push you into Yellowknife to be isolated in poverty there? Why doesn't this government support it's own?

debt reduction? Tax the rich and collect it!

Debt reduction can be done really easily----by not having the olympics; by taxing the rich and corporate; by not allowing funds to cross the border--Money made in Canada stays in Canada. We must collect the "deferred" forever taxes from deadbeat corporations like Imperial Oil. We must charge more for our resources and make sure not a single raw log crosses our borders. We must rebuild Canadian companies, or takeover the ones moved to Mexico. We can run them ourselves, as we did before and what Argentineans are doing now. We need to take back what was stolen from us--CNR, BC Rail, Air Canada, Petro-Can, etc. Then less money goes across the border. Corporations don't "provide" jobs. There are always jobs to be done--it's just theh people doing them want to be paid enough to live on. We don't have a labour shortage--we have a wage shortage. Some people take too much of our commonwealth and don't want to share a damn dime. The rich and their mouthpieces in the Fraser Institute -- have this insane idea that they're rich because they deserve it! They think the poor are poor because they didn't work hard enough, and they need to be encouraged to "help themselves", by depriving them of needed funds. Well, if the rich didn't help themselves to so much of the commonwealth, there'd be lots left over for everyone. Most people work too hard for the paltry wages they receive. It's unequal--we're way out of whack. Barring bringing back the guillotine, we need to stop inequities of funds/resources. We need to make sure every kid has enough to eat, enough clothing and a decent home with sane parents. Mental illnesses need to be treated--not shoved out onto the street, saying "it's their choice". The mentally ill are ill! They are incapable of making such choices. We need to treat the mentally ill, not condemn them. Greed is a mental illness, too... so let's lock up the super-rich and treat them and maybe they will consider joining humanity as equals by redistributing their hoarded loot.

The logic of the righties.

"When minimum wage goes up, employers have to raise costs to cover the increased wages. And who has minimum wage staff? The businesses that often serve minimum wage earners."

Th above assumes that the employer can not live with a lower profit margin. It is all about making more money. Give the working poor a decent wage and the right comes out with a nonsense about how a 5 % increase in wages results in a 5% increase in the cost of the service. Nonsense! It only would if labour was 100% of your overhead and you did not make a dollars worth of profit. Talk about fuzzy logic.

Maybe when the government focusses on who really benfits from all the giveaways in resources and who benefited from all the services and fee increases in the Liberals fist term you might convince me that there are no other options. Taylor's surpluses are built on the misery of those who can afford the least, those who were gouged in the Campbell's first term when they knew that commodity prices were going up ( the trend was clear) and they knew they did not have to cut programs to the poor.

Once more we get the same debate from all those righties who want us to believe the CanWest version of events. Sorry folks we have had the tyee and other independent sources foa a while and if you want to keep reading Vancouver Pravda go right ahead but it won't work here.

Jay Currie

Okay, let's ignore the Feds even though that's where most of our taxes go. We had lots of debt and taxes in both Canada and BC long before the NDP ever won their first mandate in BC.

And the way that tends to work, again, at least at the federal level, is lower taxes and reduced services which means its the people that need those services that pay the freight to get rid of a deficit they weren't the cause of. Anyone can look at the numbers as to when our debt took off federally and we all know it wasn't because Mulroney was spending wildly on social programs.

You should read this article from the Vancouver Sun by an economist.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=7219cc4a-aa33-49e3-9f04-bfd397a1b921

The problem is that we have been "booming" for years yet wages have not "boomed". We should be looking at why that is perhaps? For one thing our unemployment rate still remains quite high. I know you disbelieve that but look at the employment numbers as opposed to the unemployment numbers. Not a big change at all. The problem with the unemployment number is that a lot of people simply aren't counted. We see the effects of this constantly when we hear about all these new jobs being created but that was balanced by "more people looking for work". Well, in my opinion, those people were just as "unemployed" a month earlier but they weren't counted. Since it keeps happening I can safely assume that our unemployment rate means nothing substantial at all.

Politically, the Liberals are also being hailed as economic saviours for being in office while people retire. Again, look to the overall employment numbers and ask why those numbers barely move. Could all these new hires be balanced to a great degree by the number of new "seniors" leaving the work force?

In the meantime this province is full of a lot of people making minimum wage or within a dollar of it. If the boom was as great as is claimed by Liberal fan-boys why hasn't the market worked for the hundreds of thousands employed in the service sector? You would think with an economic boom and a "shortage" of younger workers that service sector wages would be rising dramatically wouldn't you? I see the odd help-wanted sign in front of the hasty markets, burger joints and video stores but they don't seem to have an insurmountable problem finding people to work for low wages. Nor are these people recent immigrants, just average young people.

Jay Currie 2

And yet, many of them are not interested in training the unemployed as the article at the link I gave you shows. I think you would agree with me at least on the surface that the construction industry should be offering to train people before they ask gov't to intervene and bring in foreign workers instead?

And Jay, I'm sure your heart is in the right place but I disagree that incentives for business are what's needed.

Agreed.

Agreed again. And I'm happy to hear you support universality. Because many on the right don't. They'd rather spend half the money available to hire a small army to hunt down the "undeserving".

Bobby Peru

One doesn't have to mean the other, it usually just does. Perhaps its just a coincidence? You for example seem to spend every waking moment complaining about people on welfare if one is to judge you on the basis of your comments here.

You need to spend some time in a Stats class. Here's a thought, find out what percentage of Canadians own half of Canada. Compare it to the percentage of Canadians that own the other half. Then come back to me and tell me we're an equal society.

The NDP of the 90's outperformed the Socred/Liberals of the '80s and the economic conditions Carole Taylor enjoys now were moving healthily along before the Libs were even elected. But I guess that's why you think they are so great at managing an economy? Because they can make good economic conditions appear even before they're elected?

Too bad all those impressive management skills don't work in the health sector where they keep throwing money at it but can't even sustain the same results the NDP got in the 90's.

I will give them credit for building circuses and boondoggles however, they seem to be experts at that.

Brilliant. Next thing you'll be doing is dancing around Stonehenge asking us to thank the "earth mother" every solstice for giving us air to breathe and food to eat.

Home is where you are

arrowis

What are you suggesting, those born in B.C. be given property? I wonder how that would work. Do you think people born in New York should be given a piece of property in Manhattan? Those born in California a pad in Beverly Hills?

Marysue

Interesting, Marysue. Will you be running for office on this platform?

SharingIsGood

They already are. This is the way Canadian tax laws are structured!

GWest

He wants to take away the present tax exemption for the lowest earners!

I wonder how 'happy' these people would be if commodity prices were down, unemployment was up, business investments were down, interest rates were up, the deficit was high and government programmes were being cut? Obviously, based on their profound insights and suggestions we are in for fun times.

Nikkal

"If minimum wage goes up, its not the people who buy BMWs who are impacted - it's the people who struggle to buy bread and milk as the price of bread and milk go up.

I argued this with a Sociology prof in college (she never taught business majors again, BTW) - and never did get a satisfactory answer."

Perhaps that is because your logic is so flawed. Given your thinking, we should make the min. wage $1 an hour so those workers can benefit from the lower prices. Show me the evidence that proves that raising the minimum wage will actually decrease those workers' purchasing power. If you truly are a business major, I hope they taught you that labour costs are only one of the costs of doing business. I accuse you of voodoo economics.

Not at all

"He wants to take away the present tax exemption for the lowest earners!"

NOT

In fact, I want to replace it with an earned income tax credit not all that different from what's used in Saskatchewan and, wait for it….the United States.

This is, as you well know, all old old stuff R/man - if you weren't in it just for the annoyance factor you'd realize we've been through all this before.

Check out the Carter Royal Commission on Taxation - called by - another surprise - John Diefenbaker.

I'll be happy when the masters of the universe either pay their fair share of the costs to run this country or bugger off to somewhere they will be a lot happier sniping away at 'socialist' Canada from some other location. Just like my old friend Conrad. Just so they remember they don’t get to use their BCMedical card anymore once they’ve graduated to those ‘greener’ pastures.

As a matter of fact I’d be willing to start a collection right now to send Gordon to Maui on the next available flight – as long as he promised never to return.

Bye.

And R/Man

Do you actually understand the current tax structure and the applicable rates?

If you like, I'll post the info for you when I get home from work so you can leave another delusion about "high taxes" for people of various levels of income - earned in different ways.

Chris and Skywalker...

where did I say that $1 increase in minimum wage meant $1 increase in the price of bread and milk? Please point that out.

And why should a small businessperson, who is probably already making minimal profits, decrease their profits even further? I know few small business people who can afford to do that. Don't forget - as salaries increase, so do costs borne by the employer...a $1/increase in salary costs the employer more than $1.

One simply cannot deny that the increases we've had in minimum wage over the years have not done one thing to reduce poverty. Show me ONE person who has been elevated from poverty by an increase in minimum wage. All it does is change the dollar figure that is used to measure the "poverty line". I will acknowledge that increases in minimum wage may not have parallelled increases in cost of living, but even had it kept pace, people would still be poor.

Spend all the time you want justifying the fuzzy logic that says "throw money at the poor, that will solve the problem" - it never has...

I attended a seminar a few years ago which was largely attended by gov't social workers. They were upset because the gov't was telling them they needed to help people find ways to get off welfare - like education/job training. It's not what they were used to - they were used to just giving people money. They got VERY angry and confused when the facilitator suggested that helping them to get education and jobs that would take them off welfare would help them more than just giving them another $100 occasionally...

Now, if the gov't wanted to take that surplus and fund more positions at medical schools, or improve applied training programs, or expand apprenticeship programs, I'd say that was almost as good an investment as paying down the debt. And it would help to make minimum wage less relevant.

Nikkal

People can be told to get training till the cows come home. Unless that training is actually provided and the means to live while taking that training is provided it means nothing. Also, when people do get training they should be hired at something higher than minimum wage or what's the point?

Meanwhile the business sector doesn't want to pay for training and pushes gov't to allow more foreign workers to enter the country so they won't have to raise wages. That certainly sends the wrong economic signal to anyone even contemplating getting training.

When it comes to fuzzy logic it helps to be able to see where the fuzz actually lies.

Nikkal

Show me one that wasn't helped at least a little bit by an increase in their wages.

Perhaps, as Chris pointed out, you think the minimum wage should be lowered so as to make it easier for your beleagured businessmen straining under the high cost of minimum wage labour?

You say you're a left-winger, are there any actual left-wing touchstones you agree with?

Quote:The lefties here

And the award for "Most Ironic Statement Made By a Tyee Poster in 2007" goes to ... BobbyPeru!

Nikkal

"Spend all the time you want justifying the fuzzy logic that says "throw money at the poor, that will solve the problem" - it never has..."

Raising the min. wage is throwing money at the poor? When you work for your money, no one is throwing money at you.

The fact is that raising the min. wage will benefit those workers making that salary. The price of milk is unlikely to rise because Save-on-Foods employees, the trucker, and the dairy farmer all make more than min. wage already. Where might people pay more? Maybe restaurants like McDonalds, but they have obscene profit margins anyways. The poor businessman who can't afford to pay more than min. wage likely has very few employees and does most of the work himself. Heck, I can rarely find a baby-sitter to work for min. wage. I suggest that the only ones who work for min. wage are those that are easily exploitable: new immigrants, women, and young people.

The scare tactics you employ about raising the min. wage are just that. Will it end all poverty? No. But, it may lift some to a more livable wage and inpsire some on social assistance that can work to do so. What are you so scared of? That people won't be so easily exploited? I hope that isn't what the taught you in business school.

Fudge-it Budget

I thought overestimating provincial income was what had everyone so angry at the NDP in the mid-nineties. But when the Liberals dramatically underestimate income, it's okay?

When the federal Liberals did this in 2004, predicting a 1.9 billion $ surplus but ending up with 9.1 billion, the Conservatives were foaming at the mouth. I believe Harper refered to the Liberals as "liars" and said that they were misleading the public.

Quote:Fact is, the BC Govt

Liberal fiscal (mis)management: waste billions in ridiculous capital projects then hide the costs in P3s. This way, debt becomes "future obligations".

The new wave....

One thing most Tyee posters seem to agree on is that governments spend our money stupidly….Is that ground swell support that I hear for less government spending?

Jimmy

One of the reasons that you will never have honest budgets is that the game of overestimating expenditures while underestimating revenue was perfected by WAC.. It became the smoke screen escape valve to hide all fiscal incompetence. A government, and they were all right-wing governments never had the difficult task of actually having to be honest about their predictions. When the NDP tried it they were close to their targets but the fact that they didn't balance the budget as they said they would is all that anyone cares about. It matters not that they were as accurate or better than most of the Socred budgets had been in the 80's.

Taylors budget is all about giving the impression of competence to a naive electorate led by the nose by the CanWest Liberal Media. None of the Carole fan club posters here want to deal with the facts. If the Liberals increased taxes or cut revenue and by doing so hurt every citizen and then came up with a 10 billion dollar surplus they would still think they were wonderful.

Remember when the Fraser Institute announced that the Liberals had pushed up tax freedom day by a couple of day back in 2002. I remember many a business type in the Heartland crying the blues. They still supported them. I guess they could not recognize the cause and effect of Government policies unless it was the NDP. Then they had all the answers.

Whither the Sun?

Skywalker:

I agree. CanWest Global's silence on the matter of the Liberal's creative accounting has been deafening. Actually, the first Sun article, that I can recall, that discusses any of the negative aspects of P3s is this one:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=be4c05c2-444b-4624-afbb-fb98ac8b799e

and even then Craig McInnes pulls every punch he can. Many tough questions are asked, but it seems McInnes could not bring himself to actually answer any of them.

This article:

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/09/26/BizBCLibs/

has some interesting discussion (the last half) about wildly differing budget figures depending on what accounting scheme is used to analyse the Provinces finances. It also mentions some of the tricks previous governments have used to cook the books.

With funding of the Auditor General's office below 2001/2002 levels, and a Liberal appointed Auditor General, we are less likely now than ever to get an idea of the true status of the province's finances.

So much for open and accountable government.

oops...

That should be "...scheme is used to analyse the province's finances." not "...scheme is used to analyse the Provinces finances."

typical

once again, the attribution of ideas I have not expressed fascinates me...do your psychic powers tell you what colour underwear I'm wearing too?

please, show me where I said minimum wage should be reduced or rescinded?

and show me where I said that people should take training without having some reasonable expectation of gainful employment afterward? I said I would support the gov't funnelling the surplus towards creating more training spaces for a variety of careers, and I said that getting training is a better way of getting people out of poverty than simply giving them money. I don't see how either of those statements are somehow part of an evil right wing conspiracy, or that I feel employees should be exploited.

In fact, I think that businesses who pay minimum wage should be avoided...because they are showing a fundamental lack of respect for the efforts of their employees by paying them the lowest amount of money they're legally allowed to. Hell, I pay my twice a month cleaning lady almost 3 times minimum wage because that's what I think the job is worth (and I have a cleaning lady because I'm physically disabled, not because I'm a rich capitalist overlord, before you make yet another assumption).

And yet one of you thinks its a problem that you can't get childcare for minimum wage...

I'm not engaging in scare tactics when I point out the simple fact that raising minimum wage does nothing to improve poverty rates - the only thing that its done is change the dollar figure used to determine the poverty line.

I've asked to be shown ONE person who has been lifted out of poverty by a raise in the minimum wage...just one. Surely if it's the answer to the problem of the working poor, there must be hordes of people whose lives have been greatly improved in the long run by a raise in minimum wage.

I eagerly await their testimony.

So far on this site I've indicated that I don't think free transit is the way to improve transit ridership, and indicated that I don't think raising minimum wage reduces poverty. How on earth does this equate to me being right wing?

If you'd like to provide a list of "things you think are left-wing ideas" I'll provide a response that indicates what I think of said ideas.

realisticman: Quote:What

realisticman:

By "giving cash to those amongst us that don't need it", do you mean tax cuts for the affluent?

http://www.straight.com/article/think-vancouver-convention-centre-ii-boon-or-boondoggle

Nikkal

You might find the following of interest in your quest to understand the imperative of 'increasing' the minimum wage significantly and regularly. And, when you've read that, I have plenty of other information for you.

http://www.sfl.sk.ca/pdfs/brief%20b.pdf

Catch up, Jimmy

Jimmy, your link is to a Charlie Smith article that's over 2 years old.

Check this one, it's fresh yesterday:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=c411b1b4-e584-4adb-9d55-b67541b268c7

But arrowis

The point simply is, and the statistics prove it, that ridiculous real estate prices and property speculation create situations where 80% of the working population cannot afford to own and live in the city where they work: To wit Vancouver.

Many of them still try and, over-extended and stressed beyond endurance, find themselves failing and falling into poverty.

At the same time we have a disingenuous government that:
a. pleads poverty;
b. misrepresents revenues;
c. spends billions on mega-projects and things like the Olympics; all the while
d. creating a budgetary surplus which could be used to address the real problems of the 80% of the population who cannot reasonable afford to live here and, therefore,
e. fall into poverty with their children.

This is hardly rocket science. It is, instead the evidence of either incompetence or wilful neglect of the true and proper obligation of a democratic government.

I know what I think it is, and it is far from irrelevant.

There are many more connexions that can be made, both in this area and others - I'm happy to be able to spell it out for you.

Work on it, buddy

I'm sure our net would qualify.

but arrowis

all i know is i raised my kids in poverty during NPD and Liberal rule and the result is still the same...whether the minimum wage is raised or lowered, training programs and lunch programs given and removed - the children are always forgotten in the equation while those in government deem themselves worthy of raises - the olympics go on. Obvoiusly the idea that "hard working parents" can afford to live here is ludicrous. When we can stop selling out our communities to foreign investment and specualation is the only humane approach.

well arrowis

The NDP, during the 13 years they held power out of the last 107 have done more for working people, minimum wages, affordable education and sustainable agriculture than other governments - Campbell, Socred and what have you - combined.

You know commodity prices tanked and federal transfer program funding disappeared during the last 10 years the NDP was in power - not that that is any excuse for them not doing more.

But, the fact of the matter is that the Campbell government does nothing but crow about how wonderful things are in BC these days, creates a 4 billion dollar surplus and STILL doesn't address the REAL problems. Therefore children and families are neglected. I can read the evidence and I think I can draw the appropriate conclusions. How about you?

They are either incompetent or they don't care and it's time people like you started speaking up and taking to the streets or NOTHING is ever going to change. There is no excuse for any of this and the majority of British Columbians know it. It’s long past time they started making their feelings known. This current government is, in my opinion, the worst we have ever had – every time Campbell shows his face in public he should be booed into silence; every time they spin another pile of lies in the papers the editor’s desk should disappear under the tide of angry letters.

These are people who pay OIC appointment public servants to phone talk shows to spin lies on their behalf; a government that pays spies to send reports from a public courtroom twice daily from Vancouver to Victoria; a government that has more than 200 people on huge OIC salaries with the public affairs bureau to write nice things about them.

Wake up people – it is way past time the Campbell government was forced to drop the screen and stand up and take the credit for what 6 years of their administration has done to this province and its people. All British Columbians are citizens of this place – not just Gordon Campbell’s friends and the folks Carole Taylor ‘does lunch’ with.

G. West

got anything that doesn't have such a readily obvious bias? Or that actually answers the question I've posed (i.e. who has been lifted out of poverty by an increase in the minimum wage? or Why is it that every time the minimum wage increases, the income level known as the poverty line increases?)

I did misstate one thing earlier - I suggested that the minimum wage had not kept up with inflation levels. I was wrong. Increases in the minimum wage over the last 20 years have actually surpassed inflationary levels. Had increases in minimum wage been restricted to CoLA as determined by the CPI, minimum wage would currently be about $6.

Did you read the material I posted?

I disagree with your second paragraph I don't believe that the minimum wage has kept up with inflation, particularly in BC with its ridiculous 'training' wage and the effect if has on average take home pay for new workers. Furthermore, even if your conclusion is correct, it's a meaningless factoid since the minimum wage began as horrendously inadequate and it still is - period.

Of course, I freely admit to being biased in favour of working people who are not getting a fair shake from a government that is proud of itself for running a $4 billion unbudgeted surplus in the last fiscal year - a government made up of obvious incompetents which has just finished voting the premier more an increase of more than 50 % and ordinary MLAs an increase of 29%. Evaluated in that light, I think it's obvious why the minimum wage is an embarrassment to every British Columbian and a stain on its government. Why would I not feel that way?

As to the defined levels of so-called poverty, I agree with you. These measures, like the levels at which workers have to start to pay income tax on their meagre earnings in this country, are utterly ridiculous.

You might find the following material from Ontario interesting as well:
http://www.incomesecurity.org/documents/Pre-budgetsubmission2006web.pdf

You might also want to check

a study from Schellenberg and Ross which concluded that:
Between 1976 and 1995, for example, the real minimum wage rate fell by more than 25% in eight of the country's ten provinces when adjusted for inflation.

You can find more data in this report from Human Resources and Social Development Canada.

Hope it helps.

And, when you've finished with that, there is this excellent study published in March of 2007 by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:
http://policyalternatives.ca/Reports/2007/03/ReportsStudies1565/index.cfm?pa=A2286B2A