Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    ont.politics    |    Ontario politics    |    90,757 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 89,577 of 90,757    |
|    Widgetmkr to All    |
|    Ottawa's version of a 'fudgit budget'    |
|    05 May 15 16:30:06    |
      XPost: can.politics       From: WidgetmKR@noyb.boy              CBC News Posted: May 05, 2015              $2.7B employment insurance surplus balanced Joe Oliver's books       New 7-year break-even system doesn't start until 2017                     Remember two decades ago, when surpluses in the employment insurance fund       started giving the Chrétien government billions in extra revenue to repay       debt,       cut taxes or fund other things?              For two years only — just until 2017 — those days are back. And how       convenient: it's just enough to nudge Joe Oliver's books into the black in time       for this year's election.              The last recession dipped the EI account balance into the red, accumulating a       deficit of $9.2 billion by 2011. But as of 2015, that's paid off.              A rate freeze by former finance minister Jim Flaherty in 2013 — ostensibly to       protect employees and employers from more rate increases — is keeping       contributions higher than necessary to maintain that balance.              That translates into an extra $2.7 billion for 2015-16. Without it, Stephen       Harper wouldn't have his balanced budget.       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^              Next year, it'll be worth $1.4 billion extra.              Then starting in 2017, contribution rates will be based on a seven-year       "break-even" formula. Premiums will drop to a level that keeps the account in       balance, not surplus.              The overall goal? More transparent rates. And an end to multibillion-dollar       dipping into EI funds to finance the ambitions of future governments.              But first, a final windfall.                            *'Slush fund … needs to stop'*                     The Canadian Federation of Independent Business was among those "screaming and       yelling" about payroll tax unfairness.              But president Dan Kelly says that while his members want lower premiums, they       understand you need surplus years to balance out deficits.              "I am generally supportive of the government's approach," Kelly said, "and I       say that with a bit of a heavy heart, because this year and next, because of       this new formula, rates are not coming down as much as they could come down,       and so the economy is missing out on that benefit."              "Right now, the EI surplus is subsidizing the books of the government of       Canada, I think that's a fair statement," Kelly said.              But by that logic, in bad times the government subsidized the EI account.              "That's why we haven't been lighting our hair on fire on this," he said,       emphasizing that consistent rates are what counts.              Kelly said his group asked for a chart in the budget to track the EI account       over time. (And sure enough, there is one.)              "We wanted to have that accountability," he said. "EI has been used as a bit       of a slush fund for decades and that needs to stop."                     Election 'jiggery-pokery'                     Liberal deputy leader Ralph Goodale said that while in theory the idea of a       seven-year rate-setting mechanism is anti-cyclical — stabilizing rates over       time rather than making them rise and fall with economic fortunes — the way       the       Harper government implemented this was pro-cyclical, making things worse at a       time when job creation was supposed to be the priority.              "This is not a time to play jiggery-pokery with EI rates," he said.              Leading up to 2013, the revenue from payroll premiums increased by $600 million       in each of the years 2011, 2012 and 2013. Then premiums were frozen at that       "artificially high" level. Add it together up to 2017 and you've got $14.4       billion in additional revenue for the Harper government, Goodale said.              The former Liberal finance minister — who also enjoyed a hearty EI surplus in       his budgeting days a decade ago — said Tories have "used it in such a       shameful       fashion, all the while proclaiming that they weren't."              "This one was deliberately contrived to suit their election timing," he said.        "It was clearly intended to pad the government's books."              Come 2017, Finance Canada confirmed Friday it will not apply its five cent cap       on premium increases or decreases. Instead, premiums are expected to drop       more substantially — from $1.88 to $1.49 per $100 of insurable earnings —       to       begin the new break-even strategy.              "They'll drop the rates in a dramatic fashion and say 'Oh my! What a good boy       am I!" Goodale said,                     'Almost like a tax'                     The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is disappointed that the government continues       to treat EI surpluses like general tax revenue.       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^              "The current government is not going quite [as far as previously], but the       principle is the same," said federal director Aaron Wudrick.              "Our big fear is that governments become dependent on it, and start to bake it       into their assumptions," he said.              Extra revenue risks government "getting a little loose" with spending, Wudrick       said. But if surpluses were used to pay down debt, he'd support that.              "Some people might argue that it's not a big deal that it goes into general       revenue," he said. "But we think it is reasonable that the government be       honest about what it's doing with the money."              In 1998, former Reform party critic Monte Solberg told then finance minister       Paul Martin the government had a "moral obligation"       to pay back the extra billions belonging to the "waitresses and plumbers and       all those people who have contributed to the EI fund."       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^              Few Conservatives of Solberg's vintage are left to feel discomfort now that the       shoe is on the other foot.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca