CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1453
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 5:34 pm
 


Politically, 2013 wasn’t much different than previous years. In Toronto, Rob Ford accused his opponents of wanting to keep the “gravy train” going, while his opponents accused him of hypocrisy and failing to live up to his promises. In Ottawa, the Conservative government accused the opposition parties of wanting to drastically raise taxes to pay for their political promises, while the official Opposition accused the Conservatives of slashing essential services and transfers to Canadians. In St. Albert, critics of the city government’s current direction stated that our current level of spending is unsustainable, while people satisfied with the current direction accused the critics of wanting to eliminate many of the services we’ve come to rely on as residents.

By itself, there’s nothing wrong with these types of debates. They’re what democracy is supposed to be all about. However, what risks happening is that public opinion becomes polarized between one option or the other. We can either pay very few taxes and get very little in the way of services, or we can have very good services but have to pay through the nose for them. Anyone who wants to see good services is automatically accused of wanting to jack income taxes up to 80 or 90 percent, while anyone who wants to see taxes and spending cut is accused of wanting to slash and burn public services.

What I don’t get is why it has to be an all-or-nothing thing. Who says we only have to have a highly taxed welfare state, or a radically laissez-faire society? Why can’t we recognize the benefits of both government programs and private enterprise? Sometimes taxes or spending might need to be increased, while at other times they could be cut.

In 2014 and beyond, we could probably all benefit by defining how far we think things should go. What level of public ownership, environmental regulations and social spending would conservatives be willing to accept, for instance? What limits would progressives be willing to accept on business regulations, income taxation or social spending? By more clearly defining just how far different groups are willing to take these policies, it becomes that much more difficult for the worst and most polarizing voices among us to accuse people of wanting to take things too far.

Canada has never thrived solely through government action or through private enterprise. Rather, Canada has come as far as it has through a healthy balance of government action and private business, of individual initiatives and collective action. Of course taxes can sometimes be too high, and regulations can be too much of a hassle. When that happens, they can and should be reduced. But they are not inherently bad in and of themselves, as they’ve helped set up the social, physical and environmental infrastructure we take for granted today.

In 2014, and beyond, we as Canadians could all benefit from more clarity and discussion, and more of a search for the common ground that exists, than we have in past years.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:12 pm
 


JaredMilne JaredMilne:



What I don’t get is why it has to be an all-or-nothing thing. Who says we only have to have a highly taxed welfare state, or a radically laissez-faire society? Why can’t we recognize the benefits of both government programs and private enterprise? Sometimes taxes or spending might need to be increased, while at other times they could be cut.



That's actually what happens. Rhetoric on this site and in the political arena aside, the differences between the parties are pretty small - Harper has found out his vision of turning us into Randtopia north won't keep him in power, so he's backed off his initial vision. We are mixed economy. I might like to see us move a bit more toward the Scandinavian model, the rational righties on this forum (ie not the foamers) might like to see us back off a bit more, but Canada as a whole is pretty centrist on all this. Somewhat to the right of dead center on economic matters, more to the left on social issues.

Totall agree with looking at where spending should be increased ,where cut. I mean Broadbent did a good job of talking about corporate welfare bums. Even the Taxpayers group (forget their name) spends time complaining about corporate subsidies, not just social programs. My model for all this would be Tommy Douglas. To the left but very frugal with a dollar.

One problem is that the middle class just loves to be bribed with its own money. Take OTI's love of the sports and deductions. Those sorts of bribes cost us a lot in tax revenue, while accomplishing absolutely nothing nor changing behavior. But Harper knows how to aim those sorts of bribes at precisely the people he's trying to woo for votes. Of course all parties play that game. Bullshit deductions for personal and business is one place where we could generate a lot more money for govt, and/or cut overall taxes.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1453
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 7:21 pm
 


andyt andyt:

That's actually what happens. Rhetoric on this site and in the political arena aside, the differences between the parties are pretty small - Harper has found out his vision of turning us into Randtopia north won't keep him in power, so he's backed off his initial vision. We are mixed economy. I might like to see us move a bit more toward the Scandinavian model, the rational righties on this forum (ie not the foamers) might like to see us back off a bit more, but Canada as a whole is pretty centrist on all this. Somewhat to the right of dead center on economic matters, more to the left on social issues.

Totall agree with looking at where spending should be increased ,where cut. I mean Broadbent did a good job of talking about corporate welfare bums. Even the Taxpayers group (forget their name) spends time complaining about corporate subsidies, not just social programs. My model for all this would be Tommy Douglas. To the left but very frugal with a dollar.

One problem is that the middle class just loves to be bribed with its own money. Take OTI's love of the sports and deductions. Those sorts of bribes cost us a lot in tax revenue, while accomplishing absolutely nothing nor changing behavior. But Harper knows how to aim those sorts of bribes at precisely the people he's trying to woo for votes. Of course all parties play that game. Bullshit deductions for personal and business is one place where we could generate a lot more money for govt, and/or cut overall taxes.


You don't need to tell me about Harper moving closer to the centre, even if he doesn't want to. I've alluded to it on this site, tying it into the fact that Red Toryism isn't nearly as dead in Canada as some of the more prominent voices on the right like to claim. And, of course, I agree with you about Canadians being centrist in general. In fact, this is one area where I feel a lot of average Canadians are actually disconnected with some of the more hardline activists out there, including activists on the right.

I'm more criticizing the political rhetoric we see all too often in this country, rather than all of the actions that are taken. If you support more oilsands pipelines being built (even if, in the case of Northern Gateway, you'd prefer to see it taken along a different route to address the concerns of B.C.ers), then in the eyes of some you're almost depicted as a Captain Planet villain. If you think Harper's tax cuts were a bad idea and should be reversed, then to some people you're Canada's answer to Hugo Chavez. If you support tougher criminal sentences for violent offenders, some people will believe that you want to see pot-growers working on chain gangs. If you think we need to seriously review and update our international trade deals, then some critics will claim that you obviously hate capitalism.

Unfortunately, it seems like the loudest voices have taken over more and more of the discussion, attacking not only their opponents but people who might share some of their beliefs but don't go as far. Anyone who's not part of the ideological or political "tribe" is not a fellow citizen with a disagreement-they're an enemy who needs to be crushed. That's the vibe I get from some of the more hardcore conservative pundits and bloggers out there, and it also applies to some progressives, such as those who are determined to have the oilsands shut down at all costs.

That's what I'm criticizing, not the more pragmatic actions that can be taken by various governments, including Stephen Harper's. As much as I dislike a number of the things Harper's done, there *are* several other things he's accomplished that I very much support, such as his support for Arctic sovereignty, his changes to the Criminal Code, his legislating the gas tax revenues into an infrastructure fund for municipalities, and so forth.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:00 pm
 


JaredMilne JaredMilne:

I'm more criticizing the political rhetoric we see all too often in this country, rather than all of the actions that are taken. If you support more oilsands pipelines being built (even if, in the case of Northern Gateway, you'd prefer to see it taken along a different route to address the concerns of B.C.ers), then in the eyes of some you're almost depicted as a Captain Planet villain. If you think Harper's tax cuts were a bad idea and should be reversed, then to some people you're Canada's answer to Hugo Chavez. If you support tougher criminal sentences for violent offenders, some people will believe that you want to see pot-growers working on chain gangs. If you think we need to seriously review and update our international trade deals, then some critics will claim that you obviously hate capitalism.



Here's one guy's reason why:
$1:
Cash-starved parties are dumbing down our politics
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Cash+s ... story.html

I don't think it's the whole reason for it but he makes a good case.

Personally I think it's more:
$1:
The best lack all conviction, while the worst. Are full of passionate intensity.
Ie a Fin de siècle situation.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1067
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:40 pm
 


Once again, a very good article, Jared. Allow me however to offer a few contrary thoughts.

I agree wholeheartedly that the left-right debate in Canada has become too binary. And I agree that all but the most leftward support at least some level of private enterprise.

The key differentiator as I see it though is not so much support for the existence of private enterprise as that for *competitive* private enterprise. Many left and centre-left politicians in Canada are perfectly fine with private companies operating within the economy, as long as *they* get to pick the winners, choose favourites and micromanage corporate policies (e.g. hiring).

The dynamism of a competitive business sector is simply too chaotic for those who see the economy as a centrally-managed project. Better to build up loyal supplicants through subsidies, tariffs, favourable regulations and sole-sourced procurements, while nationalizing those sectors most resistant to their benevolent oversight.

Those on the centre-left in particular tend to me more fond of monopolies (private or public) than those on the libertarian right, who prefer more competition and a meritocratic and dynamic (rather that cronyistic and stable) business environment. Of course, there are "crony capitalists" and their supporters on the right as well, but I see them more as hypocrites than anything.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.