Comments on: I am a Ticked off Taxpayer http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/2010/03/09/i-am-a-ticked-off-taxpayer/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:31:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: QuickTax, UFile Giveaway Winners & Links | Million Dollar Journey http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/2010/03/09/i-am-a-ticked-off-taxpayer/comment-page-1/#comment-41255 QuickTax, UFile Giveaway Winners & Links | Million Dollar Journey Sat, 13 Mar 2010 18:30:30 +0000 http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/?p=1445#comment-41255 [...] I am a Ticked off Taxpayer @ Canadian Dream [...] [...] I am a Ticked off Taxpayer @ Canadian Dream [...]

]]> By: Dave http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/2010/03/09/i-am-a-ticked-off-taxpayer/comment-page-1/#comment-41190 Dave Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:55:25 +0000 http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/?p=1445#comment-41190 We don't necessarily "borrow" money, we sell debt either through marketable bonds, t-bills, retail debt (Canada Savings Bonds), CPP Bonds, Marketable Foreign Currency Notes, and Canada Bills (not sure exactly what these are, but from what i could find they're very short-term (9-month) notes). We could make one product more attractive then others, but the net effect would be we'd still owe a bunch of money. I found this information here: http://www.fin.gc.ca/dtman/2008-2009/dmr0901-eng.asp#s5 We don’t necessarily “borrow” money, we sell debt either through marketable bonds, t-bills, retail debt (Canada Savings Bonds), CPP Bonds, Marketable Foreign Currency Notes, and Canada Bills (not sure exactly what these are, but from what i could find they’re very short-term (9-month) notes). We could make one product more attractive then others, but the net effect would be we’d still owe a bunch of money.

I found this information here:

http://www.fin.gc.ca/dtman/2008-2009/dmr0901-eng.asp#s5

]]> By: dlm http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/2010/03/09/i-am-a-ticked-off-taxpayer/comment-page-1/#comment-41189 dlm Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:31:51 +0000 http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/?p=1445#comment-41189 At what interest rate do we borrow money from other countries? Why can't the rate on Canada Savings Bonds etc be attractive enough to compete with banks? At what interest rate do we borrow money from other countries? Why can’t the rate on Canada Savings Bonds etc be attractive enough to compete with banks?

]]> By: Dave http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/2010/03/09/i-am-a-ticked-off-taxpayer/comment-page-1/#comment-41188 Dave Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:10:37 +0000 http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/?p=1445#comment-41188 @ Financial Student - So, our government, who presumably knows that the economy is never going to continue to roll right along like it did for the past decade decides that the only way we're going to be able to survive is to borrow money that we'll never pay back ever 10 or 15 years into perpetuity? I can accept the spending, what I can't accept is that there are no prior plans other then to borrow the money. I realize that having excess cash is draining to taxpayers (we'd be overpaying at that time), but to have zero dollars as a contingency fund for say a five-year period that we'd need $100 billion + dollars to continue on? I'd be more then fine with the borrowing, but as governments have shown in the past there is no initiative/incentive to pay down the debts that they or previous governments (usually a different party) have accumulated, hence our debt servicing costs continue to rise and become a larger and larger part of what our government is spending money on, rather then services or products that would better the taxpayer. @ Financial Student – So, our government, who presumably knows that the economy is never going to continue to roll right along like it did for the past decade decides that the only way we’re going to be able to survive is to borrow money that we’ll never pay back ever 10 or 15 years into perpetuity? I can accept the spending, what I can’t accept is that there are no prior plans other then to borrow the money. I realize that having excess cash is draining to taxpayers (we’d be overpaying at that time), but to have zero dollars as a contingency fund for say a five-year period that we’d need $100 billion + dollars to continue on?

I’d be more then fine with the borrowing, but as governments have shown in the past there is no initiative/incentive to pay down the debts that they or previous governments (usually a different party) have accumulated, hence our debt servicing costs continue to rise and become a larger and larger part of what our government is spending money on, rather then services or products that would better the taxpayer.

]]> By: Financial Student http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/2010/03/09/i-am-a-ticked-off-taxpayer/comment-page-1/#comment-41185 Financial Student Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:54:24 +0000 http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/?p=1445#comment-41185 @Dave: Macroeconomic theory (and practice) shows that this kind of spending does work. In the short-run our GDP is below the potential or long-run GDP. With or without spending we'll return to the long-run, but without the spending it will be slow and will cause deflation. Transfer payments such as unemployment insurance costs go up if we do nothing as well, so it's not a free ride regardless. The stimulus spending is to get us back to potential GDP as quickly as possible which I think is a good use of the money. It's kind of the best case scenario in a bad situation though. The less time spent in a recession means the less cuts need to be made. I'm not an economist, but that's my understanding from what I learned in my two economic courses. @Dave: Macroeconomic theory (and practice) shows that this kind of spending does work. In the short-run our GDP is below the potential or long-run GDP. With or without spending we’ll return to the long-run, but without the spending it will be slow and will cause deflation. Transfer payments such as unemployment insurance costs go up if we do nothing as well, so it’s not a free ride regardless. The stimulus spending is to get us back to potential GDP as quickly as possible which I think is a good use of the money. It’s kind of the best case scenario in a bad situation though. The less time spent in a recession means the less cuts need to be made. I’m not an economist, but that’s my understanding from what I learned in my two economic courses.

]]> By: Dave http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/2010/03/09/i-am-a-ticked-off-taxpayer/comment-page-1/#comment-41173 Dave Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:07:45 +0000 http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/?p=1445#comment-41173 @ Financial Student: I think that my main problem with "stimulus spending" is that it really isn't quantifiable. It generally seems that the government is just throwing money at a problem when money may not be what is needed, but taxpayers expect them to do something. My other issue is that it's not like the "investments in the future" or whatever the current government wants to call the overspending is going to increase revenues enough to cover the spending they are doing. The thing with good debt is that it eventually puts you in a better position than you are currently in - the whole goal of the current government is to get back to even, rather then generate a massive surplus to pay back the debt. @ The Rat - I'm not really sure that spending on the military would create any return on investment unless we started invading and pillaging other countries :) @ Financial Student: I think that my main problem with “stimulus spending” is that it really isn’t quantifiable. It generally seems that the government is just throwing money at a problem when money may not be what is needed, but taxpayers expect them to do something.

My other issue is that it’s not like the “investments in the future” or whatever the current government wants to call the overspending is going to increase revenues enough to cover the spending they are doing. The thing with good debt is that it eventually puts you in a better position than you are currently in – the whole goal of the current government is to get back to even, rather then generate a massive surplus to pay back the debt.

@ The Rat – I’m not really sure that spending on the military would create any return on investment unless we started invading and pillaging other countries :)

]]> By: Financial Student http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/2010/03/09/i-am-a-ticked-off-taxpayer/comment-page-1/#comment-41133 Financial Student Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:46:37 +0000 http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/?p=1445#comment-41133 I just finished my economics course and I thought it was very interesting when the text book was talking about federal debt. No clear judgment saying debt is wrong, only good debt and bad debt. If the debt is used to improve the economy it's worth it, while debt used for consumption was bad. Just like it is with personal finance. Being heavily in debt is very bad if the money is spend on consumption (i.e. New TV, New Car, etc). Debt that brings future income though is worth it (i.e. Real Estate, Schooling, Stocks, etc). The stimulus spending creates more jobs, more spending etc, which has a multiplier effect as the increased income creates more spending. So a billion from the government increases the expenditures by more than 1 billion. The oppositions objection are ludicrous. Spending more on Health Care is consumption. We don't get that money back. Not to get into a health care discussion, I'm just saying this isn't the way to address the problem. There were a lot of things I didn't like about the Rich Dad, Poor Dad books, but I did like how they addressed the good debt vs bad debt issue. If you think all debt is bad you'll miss out on some great income producing opportunities. I'd go on, but I've written far too much already ;) I just finished my economics course and I thought it was very interesting when the text book was talking about federal debt. No clear judgment saying debt is wrong, only good debt and bad debt. If the debt is used to improve the economy it’s worth it, while debt used for consumption was bad.

Just like it is with personal finance. Being heavily in debt is very bad if the money is spend on consumption (i.e. New TV, New Car, etc). Debt that brings future income though is worth it (i.e. Real Estate, Schooling, Stocks, etc).

The stimulus spending creates more jobs, more spending etc, which has a multiplier effect as the increased income creates more spending. So a billion from the government increases the expenditures by more than 1 billion.

The oppositions objection are ludicrous. Spending more on Health Care is consumption. We don’t get that money back. Not to get into a health care discussion, I’m just saying this isn’t the way to address the problem.

There were a lot of things I didn’t like about the Rich Dad, Poor Dad books, but I did like how they addressed the good debt vs bad debt issue. If you think all debt is bad you’ll miss out on some great income producing opportunities.

I’d go on, but I’ve written far too much already ;)

]]> By: Candidate # 2 (The Rat) http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/2010/03/09/i-am-a-ticked-off-taxpayer/comment-page-1/#comment-41107 Candidate # 2 (The Rat) Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:20:09 +0000 http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/?p=1445#comment-41107 @Dave: hopefully there wasn't too much 'back slapping' going on! :) In all seriousness, I think we need to look at what the Conservatives have been doing with the public purse. Forget stimulus spending for a moment, let's call a spade a spade - the boatload of cash that has been spent on equipment for our foreign efforts abroad in Afghanistan and supporting the war effort is astronomical. Let me be clear - I'm not saying that I do or do not support our efforts abroad, all I'm saying is that we have been spending BILLIONS. In late 2006 alone, the Harper gov't announced it was going to spend $15 billion announced $15 billion on military vehicles, including transport planes, heavy-lift helicopters, troop carrier ships and trucks. I also read somewhere that it is plausible that by 2027, Canada will be spending 30 billion a year on its military budget. @Dave: hopefully there wasn’t too much ‘back slapping’ going on! :)

In all seriousness, I think we need to look at what the Conservatives have been doing with the public purse. Forget stimulus spending for a moment, let’s call a spade a spade – the boatload of cash that has been spent on equipment for our foreign efforts abroad in Afghanistan and supporting the war effort is astronomical.

Let me be clear – I’m not saying that I do or do not support our efforts abroad, all I’m saying is that we have been spending BILLIONS.

In late 2006 alone, the Harper gov’t announced it was going to spend $15 billion announced $15 billion on military vehicles, including transport planes, heavy-lift helicopters, troop carrier ships and trucks.

I also read somewhere that it is plausible that by 2027, Canada will be spending 30 billion a year on its military budget.

]]> By: Dave http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/2010/03/09/i-am-a-ticked-off-taxpayer/comment-page-1/#comment-41087 Dave Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:59:57 +0000 http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/?p=1445#comment-41087 @ Tim - I love this idea. I think that this plan is too sensible and contains too much long-term planning for governments to undertake. They seem to generally look 3-5 years ahead and put up blinders after that point (when they're no longer in office). @ Tim – I love this idea. I think that this plan is too sensible and contains too much long-term planning for governments to undertake. They seem to generally look 3-5 years ahead and put up blinders after that point (when they’re no longer in office).

]]> By: Canadian Dream http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/2010/03/09/i-am-a-ticked-off-taxpayer/comment-page-1/#comment-41084 Canadian Dream Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:52:49 +0000 http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/?p=1445#comment-41084 Ok, this is something I don't get. Why do governments need to operate in debt all the time? Is there some rule that they have to? Perhaps a more obvious solution is pay off the debt and then keep building a portfolio that in time will make taxes not even required. Now I'm fairly certain all parties would love to tell people they have a plan to reduce their taxes to zero in a few decades. Anyway, just an idea. Tim Ok, this is something I don’t get. Why do governments need to operate in debt all the time? Is there some rule that they have to? Perhaps a more obvious solution is pay off the debt and then keep building a portfolio that in time will make taxes not even required. Now I’m fairly certain all parties would love to tell people they have a plan to reduce their taxes to zero in a few decades.

Anyway, just an idea.

Tim

]]>