There is something profoundly sad and uninspiring about recent federal budget debates. For the better part of two decades now, we have been preoccupied with issues of deficits, debt, cutbacks and now tax cuts. But budgets should, in an ideal world, be a reflection of a society's values and priorities. What does it say about us when the main budget debates are centered around tax cuts?
Government finance
The 2000 BC budget was accompanied by a great deal of howling over the size of the province's debt and deficit. The classic way of presenting this case is to list BIG numbers--$36.5 billion of debt, amounting to $9,000 per person, at a cost of $2.8 billion of interest costs this year. These numbers are definitely big, but when put into proper context, BC's fiscal environment is surprisingly strong.
Who knew BC's NDP government was into bondage? What else can explain the strange desire to handcuff itself with proposed balanced budget legislation (BBL)?
BBL may make for trendy public policy, but it is not good public policy. Balancing the budget is an important goal, however, it is only one of many, and should not be enshrined in legislation to the exclusion of other worthy goals.
What a difference a year and a half makes. Last week's announcement that BC booked a surplus of $52 million in the 1999/00 fiscal year runs contrary to the doom-and-gloom storyline that has been so prevalent the past few years. Instead, it signals that the economy is clearly on the rebound. And it shows the province's books in a stronger position than the government, and its critics, have been letting on.
Imagine a family with ten children. Some of the kids may be a little smarter or prettier due to the luck of the draw. But suppose one child of the ten is the beneficiary of a whopping inheritance that affords this fortunate son the ability to drive around in a fancy car, avoid a part-time job, and just be generally smug. It is not hard to imagine how this situation could be highly disruptive to the family unit.
According to recent polls, approximately half of British Columbians agree with the theory that tax cuts will increase government revenues. It's an appealing notion. After all, it's hard to say no when someone says you can have it all--tax cuts, increased revenues, and thus more money to fund health care and other public programs.
Problem is, the proposition is just plain wrong.
This week's report from the BC Ministry of Finance forecasts a whopping provincial surplus of more than $1 billion. The result is a unique opportunity to improve the lives of British Columbians, particularly the poorest among us.
Dans une étude publiée aujourd’hui, le Budget alternatif de l’Ontario affirme que les réductions d’impôt du gouvernement Harris sont la seule cause de la crise fiscale qui menace l’Ontario.
Chiffres à l’appui, l’étude démontre que les Perspectives économiques publiées par le ministère des Finances ´ sont une fausse représentation de l’état actuel de l’économie de l’Ontario, de ses perspectives à court terme, de la situation fiscale et des causes de l’aggravation de celle-ci ª.
Les concessions du gouvernement canadien face aux grandes sociétés pharmaceutiques multinationales, y compris le prolongement à vingt ans de leur monopole sur les nouveaux médicaments, ont eu pour effet de faire grimper en flèche le coût des ordonnances médicales, éventuellement de bloquer la création d’un programme national d’assurance-médicaments et de faire du Canada un complice dans le refus de permettre aux pays en développement d’avoir accès à des médicaments d’importance vitale.
Ottawa–Une mise à jour économique alternative publiée aujourd’hui démontre qu’entre l’élection de 1997 et l’exercice financier 2001, les Libéraux n’auront consacré que 2 p. cent du dividende fiscal aux investissements sociaux et 98 p. cent aux réductions d’impôt et au remboursement de la dette.
Cela contredit leur promesse électorale de 1997 d’allouer 50 p. cent du dividende fiscal aux programmes sociaux.