canadian austerity

just curious

Canadian liberals cut government services (healthcare etc.) and raised taxes in a ratio of $7 in cuts to $1 in tax increases in 1995 to save their economy

Note that the canadian sky didn't fall with all those cuts.

I could back a 7-1 ratio as long as enetitlements take a hit to make them sustainable, could you?

This will not happen with americans btw.
 
Canada lives and dies on commodity prices, and trade with the US. I suspect (I'm not certain) you'll see why the sky didn't fall if you look at the former for the mid-90s.

Here's news from this morning:

Canada’s deficit soars by $5 billion due to falling commodity prices, tax revenues
Deficit to hit $26 billion as balanced budget target pushed back a year to 2016-17
By Julian Beltrame, CP November 13, 2012 10:06 AM

"OTTAWA, Ont. — Canada will miss its deficit targets in each of the next four years, because global economic weakness has carved into commodity prices and tax revenues, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said today.

"His Fall economic update showed a bottom line worse than many expected, with the deficit at $26 billion, up $5 billion from the March budget forecast.

"Flaherty also said it will take a year longer than predicted to balance the budget.

“Canada has clearly been affected by volatile and falling world commodity prices since the budget in late March,” he said in notes for a speech to a Fredericton business audience.

“And the forecast of private sector economists is consistent with the view that world commodity prices will remain below the level anticipated at the time of the budget.”

"Because of the weakness, the government expects revenues to be on average $7.2 billion below what it had counted on in the budget during the five-year horizon period.

"Flaherty made clear that he remains on track in keeping government costs down. Program expenses edge down as a percentage of the country’s gross domestic product during the period.

"But the numbers show the government can’t overcome the lower revenues, which were first noticed in the final accounts of last year’s budget period. They carry on this year and into future years.

"Ottawa now projects its deficit will rise to $26 billion this fiscal year, which ends in March, as opposed to the predicted $21.1 billion. Going forward, the deficit is now projected at $16.5 billion next year, compared with the budget estimate of $10.2 billion, and $8.6 billion in 2014-15, as opposed to $1.3 billion.

"The March budget anticipated a $3.4 billion surplus in 2015-16, but now Flaherty expects a $1.8 billion deficit that year. The new calculation is that Ottawa will finally show a surplus of $1.7 billion in 2016-17.

"The projections do include a $3 billion margin of error, or so called “risk adjustment,” so it is possible that Ottawa could still come in on target if those risks do not materialize, or if the economy performs better than expected.

"In his speech, Flaherty cautioned that the world is full of risks and again expresses concern about a U.S. fiscal crisis if Congress and re-elected President Barack Obama cannot come to an agreement before Jan. 1.

"But he also said there is also some cause for optimism, in which case both the Canadian economy and government finances will improve.

“Growth in Canada could be significantly stronger than expected if the United States policy-makers are able to reach an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff in 2013, while implementing a medium-term plan to reduce their debt and deficit,” he said."
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
 
Quote from Ricter:

Canada lives and dies on commodity prices, and trade with the US. I suspect (I'm not certain) you'll see why the sky didn't fall if you look at the former for the mid-90s.

Here's news from this morning:

Canada’s deficit soars by $5 billion due to falling commodity prices, tax revenues
Deficit to hit $26 billion as balanced budget target pushed back a year to 2016-17
By Julian Beltrame, CP November 13, 2012 10:06 AM

"OTTAWA, Ont. — Canada will miss its deficit targets in each of the next four years, because global economic weakness has carved into commodity prices and tax revenues, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said today.

"His Fall economic update showed a bottom line worse than many expected, with the deficit at $26 billion, up $5 billion from the March budget forecast.

"Flaherty also said it will take a year longer than predicted to balance the budget.

“Canada has clearly been affected by volatile and falling world commodity prices since the budget in late March,” he said in notes for a speech to a Fredericton business audience.

“And the forecast of private sector economists is consistent with the view that world commodity prices will remain below the level anticipated at the time of the budget.”

"Because of the weakness, the government expects revenues to be on average $7.2 billion below what it had counted on in the budget during the five-year horizon period.

"Flaherty made clear that he remains on track in keeping government costs down. Program expenses edge down as a percentage of the country’s gross domestic product during the period.

"But the numbers show the government can’t overcome the lower revenues, which were first noticed in the final accounts of last year’s budget period. They carry on this year and into future years.

"Ottawa now projects its deficit will rise to $26 billion this fiscal year, which ends in March, as opposed to the predicted $21.1 billion. Going forward, the deficit is now projected at $16.5 billion next year, compared with the budget estimate of $10.2 billion, and $8.6 billion in 2014-15, as opposed to $1.3 billion.

"The March budget anticipated a $3.4 billion surplus in 2015-16, but now Flaherty expects a $1.8 billion deficit that year. The new calculation is that Ottawa will finally show a surplus of $1.7 billion in 2016-17.

"The projections do include a $3 billion margin of error, or so called “risk adjustment,” so it is possible that Ottawa could still come in on target if those risks do not materialize, or if the economy performs better than expected.

"In his speech, Flaherty cautioned that the world is full of risks and again expresses concern about a U.S. fiscal crisis if Congress and re-elected President Barack Obama cannot come to an agreement before Jan. 1.

"But he also said there is also some cause for optimism, in which case both the Canadian economy and government finances will improve.

“Growth in Canada could be significantly stronger than expected if the United States policy-makers are able to reach an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff in 2013, while implementing a medium-term plan to reduce their debt and deficit,” he said."
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

then maybe services should be cut again, what's your point? The canadians had a debt problem and fixed it with service cuts.
They were export/ commodity heavy in 1995 as well
 
Quote from Mav88:

then maybe services should be cut again, what's your point? The canadians had a debt problem and fixed it with service cuts.
They were export/ commodity heavy in 1995 as well
Spending is being cut, moderately, as mentioned in the article.
 
http://www.americadeathwatch.com/why-cant-we-be-like-canada.php

....In the early 1990s Canada was going through an economic recession and downward spiral—just as the U.S. has been doing under Obama. Everything came to a head in 1995. Canada was running huge deficits each year. Entitlements and government spending were getting out of control reaching 53% of GDP. 1/3 of Canada’s revenues were used just to pay the interest on the debt. And the Canadian dollar was falling fast, with many pundits fearing it would go the way of the peso.
....

The Liberal Party of Canada (yes, the Liberals) announced a new austerity budget, a deliberate anti-Keynesian agenda of “smaller and smaller government.” They cut spending by 10% over two years, laid off 60,000 Federal workers (equivalent to several hundreds of thousands in the U.S.) over three years, and eliminated the budget deficit in two years. For the next 11 years Canada ran a surplus, cut the national debt in half, and reduced the SIZE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from 53% of GDP to 39%.

And they did all of this WITHOUT RAISING TAXES. In fact, fiscal surpluses coupled with strong economic growth rates (from downsizing the government) allowed Canada to CUT TAXES.

CUTTING “UNTOUCHABLE” PROGRAMS

At the same time the Canadian Government tackled three “untouchable” entitlement programs: The Canadian Pension Plan, unemployment insurance, and welfare, cutting down all three. There is also talk now of reforming Canada’s creaky socialistic healthcare program (in this regard please refer to the companion essay on INCONVENIENT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE TRUTHS.

CANADA’S PROVINCES

Canada’s ten provinces then also got into the act by cutting spending and DEREGULATING BUSINESS. Saskatchewan, long a bastion of socialism, deregulated its economy, CUT TAXES and SPENDING, and then sat back and watched its own miracle. Other provinces followed suit.

In the beginning Keynesian economists were alarmed by Canada’s austerity program and warned that a collapse of “demand” (in the supply and demand equation), and a decline in employment would ensue. They were proven wrong by events—as they have been every single time throughout history. Canada transformed itself into one of the top performing economies in the world. Canada’s JOB CREATION exceeded the employment growth of all other G-7 countries. Fewer Canadians are on welfare and unemployment insurance than before (because everyone has jobs now). And, the Canadian dollar has steadily advanced against other major currencies.

WHY THE U.S. CAN’T DO IT

So why can’t we do it? Because outside of the “tea party” there are no voices in the U.S. crying for reform.


I do not think we are Canada and it would not be as simple, but certainly the only voices of fiscal reason we have are coming from the tea party and there is NO movement at all from the left... more from Forbes this last summer...


http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmi...t-obama-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-canada/


With President Barack Obama claiming the government builds success, not individuals, Mitt Romney should look north to a story Obama would rather Americans didn’t notice. Canada is outperforming the U.S. on every economic front and they’re doing it with policies Republicans say they’d like to implement.....



So how is Canada outperforming the U.S.?

First of all, the Conservative Party of Canada has reduced its federal corporate tax rate from 22% in 2006 to 15% in January 2012. (It was cut to 18% in January 2010 and 16.5% in January 2011.) Meanwhile, U.S. rates have been consistently higher than the average of all major industrialized nations. In April 2012, Japan reduced its corporate tax rate to 36.8%, making the U.S. total corporate tax rate (39.26%) the highest.

The Conservative Party of Canada, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, also passed a budget loaded with real cuts last March. Clement explained, “We cut 2% from the overall budget, but we didn’t touch health care and other entitlement spending, as we’d promised not to. Our overall budget is about $250 billion. We focused on the $80 billion that’s outside of health care and other social programs. Of this portion our goal was to cut between 5% and 10%. We ended up cutting 6.9%.”....
 
<IMG SRC=http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=EXCAUS&scale=Left&range=Custom&cosd=1990-01-01&coed=2004-10-31&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Monthly&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2012-11-13&revision_date=2012-11-13>

<IMG SRC=http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=CUAEEFCAA052N&scale=Left&range=Custom&cosd=1950-01-01&coed=2008-01-31&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Annual&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2012-11-13&revision_date=2012-11-13>

Ye olde let the currency depreciate along with relying on a booming US economy to export their way out.
 
Quote from Covertibility:

<IMG SRC=http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=EXCAUS&scale=Left&range=Custom&cosd=1990-01-01&coed=2004-10-31&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Monthly&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2012-11-13&revision_date=2012-11-13>

<IMG SRC=http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=CUAEEFCAA052N&scale=Left&range=Custom&cosd=1950-01-01&coed=2008-01-31&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Annual&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2012-11-13&revision_date=2012-11-13>

Ye olde let the currency depreciate along with relying on a booming US economy to export their way out.

you did notice that the scales don't line up right? The loonie was tanking pre crisis and that was part of the problem to be addressed, it appeciated 1992-2002 and their economy recovered. You seem to be saying it depreciated.
 
That's the trick with reading currency charts, up does not necessary mean appreciation. The scale is the amount of canadian dollars it takes to buy one american dollar. If it takes more canadian dollars to buy an american dollar, then the canadian dollar is depreciating relative the american dollar.

Example that's more familiar:

<IMG SRC=http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=DEXUSEU&scale=Left&range=Max&cosd=1999-01-04&coed=2012-11-02&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Daily&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2012-11-13&revision_date=2012-11-13>

The scale is US dollar to Euro. The Euro appreciated against the dollar since 2002. The rise means it takes more american dollars to buy a Euro because of the dollar depreciation relative to the Euro.
 
Quote from Covertibility:

That's the trick with reading currency charts, up does not necessary mean appreciation. The scale is the amount of canadian dollars it takes to buy one american dollar. If it takes more canadian dollars to buy an american dollar, then the canadian dollar is depreciating relative the american dollar.

Example that's more familiar:

<IMG SRC=http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=DEXUSEU&scale=Left&range=Max&cosd=1999-01-04&coed=2012-11-02&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Daily&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2012-11-13&revision_date=2012-11-13>

The scale is US dollar to Euro. The Euro appreciated against the dollar since 2002. The rise means it takes more american dollars to buy a Euro because of the dollar depreciation relative to the Euro.

of course, you are right
 
Canada has a MUCH HIGHER personal income tax rate, as well as a national sales tax rate, and zero army, also Canada capped salaries in the healthcare industry, and learned to ration healthcare over the years, keeping healthcare costs much lower than the states, at the same time we got a much shittier product.

And guess where Canada is headed in the next 10 years? Exact same goddamn cliff the U.S. is. Yet liberals for some reason can not see the fact that spending is a problem, and the social safety net is doomed.



Accenture Report: Canada Economic Growth Won't Match Demand For Services

TORONTO - Canada's federal, provincial and municipal governments must be prepared to address a $93 billion shortfall by 2025 if they hope to keep pace with the needs of the country's rapidly aging population, a global consulting giant said Tuesday.

A report from Accenture said demands for public services will outpace Canada's economic growth over the next 13 years, leaving all levels of government unable to provide public services at present-day standards.

The country's growing group of senior citizens would bear the brunt of the shortfall, Accenture said.

People aged 65 or older currently make up 14.1 per cent of Canada's population, according to Statistics Canada. Accenture projects that number will increase to 20.6 per cent by 2025.

Joel Marchildon, a managing director in the federal group at Accenture Canada, said this demographic trend does not bode well for the public purse.

"That portion of the population just does demand more in terms of public services," Marchildon said in a telephone interview from Ottawa. "That's what's going to largely create this gap. We're going to have more people in that age bracket, and delivering services to that group is going to increase in cost."

Canada currently spends about 28 per cent of its gross domestic product on providing public services such as health care, pensions and social supports that benefit the country's seniors, Marchildon said.


GDP is on pace to grow 2.3 per cent between 2010 and 2025, but the report found that wouldn't be enough to sustain the country's elderly residents.

Provinces and territories spend an average of $10,700 on people over 65, more than five times higher than the average of $2,000 required to care for those 64 or younger, the report said.

Marchildon said Canada would need to spend a larger chunk of its GDP in order to maintain the status quo. Programs are expected to cost $745 billion, or 32 per cent of GDP, by 2025.

Canada's total expenditure gap of 4.1 per cent of GDP is third highest among 10 countries analyzed for the report, trailing only the United Kingdom and United States. Italy boasted the narrowest gap of 1.3 per cent.

Marchildon said Canada's governments are well-positioned to address the shortfall if they commit to long-term cost-cutting measures.

The report found that reducing inefficiencies at all levels of government by 0.9 per cent each year would be enough to close the expenditure gap by 2025 and provide public services that stack up to today's standards.

Marchildon said the onus is on the public sector to avoid widespread tax hikes.

"We have to get smarter about how we deliver services to help close that gap, because the alternative is really either raising more revenue or changing the services and level of services that are available," he said.

Marchildon said Ottawa has already taken steps to streamline its operations by creating departments such as Shared Services Canada, a centralized information-technology provider that aims to bring all ministries' infrastructure needs under one roof.

He also singled out Ontario and British Columbia as provinces that have laid the groundwork for effective cost-cutting strategies, adding the rise of digital government would likely help most jurisdictions follow suit in time.

But not all observers believe cost-reduction is the answer.

David Macdonald, senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, said Canada's business community is well-positioned to shoulder some of the burden.

The changing nature of Canada's economy prevents tax-leery businesses from relocating too readily if corporate rates were to rise, he said. Companies that want to maintain access to the country's oil, minerals and other natural resources have little choice but to remain and do their share, he said, adding Canada's tax rates are already among the lowest among G-8 countries.

"I don't see what the big reticence is. It's not actually a dramatic estimate across all levels of government," Macdonald said of the projected shortfall.

"Increasing corporate income tax rates by about three or four per cent would cover that."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/1...omic-growth_n_2120790.html?ir=Canada+Business
 
Back
Top