HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > St. John's

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2015, 12:00 PM
statbass statbass is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: St. John's
Posts: 1,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoscStudent View Post
I hate this move to raise the HST.
You and many others. But, unfortunately, something has to give and increasing sales tax seems to be a 'better' way of increasing revenues without hacking and slashing specific groups/sectors (not to say that won't happen as well).

What I hate about it is that it's a precedent setting move. Once this goes up, regardless of how things improve in the future, the chances of it coming down will be slim... IMHO.

Last edited by statbass; Apr 30, 2015 at 12:25 PM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2015, 12:41 PM
overboard overboard is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 59
You really think so? Lower taxes are the easiest sell there is. Most people would sign their souls to the Liberals if they promised to lower them again when oil prices rise.

While income taxes are preferable to sales taxes, I'm glad the government has at least looked at the revenue side of the equation. David Cochrane mentioned on Twitter that they may be revamping tax brackets as well, which is a great thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2015, 1:18 PM
PoscStudent's Avatar
PoscStudent PoscStudent is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St. John's
Posts: 3,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by statbass View Post
You and many others. But, unfortunately, something has to give and increasing sales tax seems to be a 'better' way of increasing revenues without hacking and slashing specific groups/sectors (not to say that won't happen as well).

What I hate about it is that it's a precedent setting move. Once this goes up, regardless of how things improve in the future, the chances of it coming down will be slim... IMHO.
I'd rather see an overhaul of how government is run to reduce spending rather than raise taxes to largely maintain status quo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2015, 2:03 PM
Copes's Avatar
Copes Copes is offline
Millennial Ascendancy
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 1,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoscStudent View Post
I'd rather see an overhaul of how government is run to reduce spending rather than raise taxes to largely maintain status quo.
Absolutely. Reducing government spending is far more sustainable, and will likely keep the population happier than these measures.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2015, 2:52 PM
goodgrowth goodgrowth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoscStudent View Post
I'd rather see an overhaul of how government is run to reduce spending rather than raise taxes to largely maintain status quo.
The only way I could see that possibly working is some sort of balanced budget legislation that would also restrict tax increases. Skeptical that would ever happen though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2015, 3:50 PM
overboard overboard is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 59
Surely cutting jobs and programs is the road to a happy population.

I'm sure there are areas where money could be saved or services simplified, but the idea that there are vast sums that could be saved through "efficiencies" has never been backed up. Sure, you can get some wages off the books through privatization, but don't you think there's a cost? Ontario privatized its highway snow clearing. They saved something like 0.05% of their budget but service suffered drastically and accidents worsened. We still end up paying for the service, but people on the bottom are even further hurt, and wages and services often suffer. Like, how do you think the private sector is able to provide a similar service while raking in profit? Service levels or compensation are lowered, pay at the top balloons, and the government still ends up paying through subsidies to private business.

Now is a great time to be in debt, to fund services and employ people. We're only worse for it because we've been down for so long. When oil prices recover hopefully our politicians can find a way to make a decent profit, and put some away for the next time.

And "balanced budget legislation" is a political ploy. You can't tie the hands of a future government by definition. If anyone promises that one they are pandering; it's unenforceable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2015, 3:59 PM
PoscStudent's Avatar
PoscStudent PoscStudent is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St. John's
Posts: 3,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by overboard View Post
Surely cutting jobs and programs is the road to a happy population.

I'm sure there are areas where money could be saved or services simplified, but the idea that there are vast sums that could be saved through "efficiencies" has never been backed up. Sure, you can get some wages off the books through privatization, but don't you think there's a cost? Ontario privatized its highway snow clearing. They saved something like 0.05% of their budget but service suffered drastically and accidents worsened. We still end up paying for the service, but people on the bottom are even further hurt, and wages and services often suffer. Like, how do you think the private sector is able to provide a similar service while raking in profit? Service levels or compensation are lowered, pay at the top balloons, and the government still ends up paying through subsidies to private business.

Now is a great time to be in debt, to fund services and employ people. We're only worse for it because we've been down for so long. When oil prices recover hopefully our politicians can find a way to make a decent profit, and put some away for the next time.

And "balanced budget legislation" is a political ploy. You can't tie the hands of a future government by definition. If anyone promises that one they are pandering; it's unenforceable.
If we have programs that aren't working and employees who do not have enough work to justify a job then why not cut? Government isn't a make work project.

As for taking on debt we may soon surpass paying out $1 billion a year to service our debt. How can that be realistic? I believe we are spending more on servicing debt now then we are spending on education. That's not sustainable. Government needs to figure out why we are spending so much more per capita then other provinces and why outcomes aren't better despite the extra cost.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2015, 4:35 PM
goodgrowth goodgrowth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by overboard View Post
Surely cutting jobs and programs is the road to a happy population.

I'm sure there are areas where money could be saved or services simplified, but the idea that there are vast sums that could be saved through "efficiencies" has never been backed up. Sure, you can get some wages off the books through privatization, but don't you think there's a cost? Ontario privatized its highway snow clearing. They saved something like 0.05% of their budget but service suffered drastically and accidents worsened. We still end up paying for the service, but people on the bottom are even further hurt, and wages and services often suffer. Like, how do you think the private sector is able to provide a similar service while raking in profit? Service levels or compensation are lowered, pay at the top balloons, and the government still ends up paying through subsidies to private business.

Now is a great time to be in debt, to fund services and employ people. We're only worse for it because we've been down for so long. When oil prices recover hopefully our politicians can find a way to make a decent profit, and put some away for the next time.

And "balanced budget legislation" is a political ploy. You can't tie the hands of a future government by definition. If anyone promises that one they are pandering; it's unenforceable.
Well we have very different fundamental views on government and the economy...so this will just spin into and endless argument.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2015, 5:04 PM
overboard overboard is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 59
No need to spin out of control. You're stating your views, I'm stating mine. Sometimes these topics need opposition for balance.

Though if I know you're wrong about something, such as balanced budget legislation, I will point it out.

Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by overboard View Post
You really think so? Lower taxes are the easiest sell there is. Most people would sign their souls to the Liberals if they promised to lower them again when oil prices rise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NL Liberal Caucus ‏@NLOppTweets
@DwightBallMHA says @nlliberals would rollback the 2 per cent HST increase #nlpoli reaction to Budget 2015
Grab your pens!

Last edited by overboard; Apr 30, 2015 at 5:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2015, 6:09 PM
PoscStudent's Avatar
PoscStudent PoscStudent is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St. John's
Posts: 3,619
Not impressed with this budget. Doesn't seem to be much in the way of actually do anything different. I was pleased with the pre-budget announcements over the last week and was hoping for better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2015, 7:08 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is offline
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 24,541
The biggest change seems to be amalgamating the administration of all the health boards.

A few unfortunate big increases that will push people to the Libs.

10% increase on everyone's power bill won't help (8% rebate now gone, plus 2% increase to HST).
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2015, 9:37 PM
PoscStudent's Avatar
PoscStudent PoscStudent is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St. John's
Posts: 3,619
Health boards should have been merged to two or three. Eastern Health is huge in comparison to the others and operates fine, for the most part.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2015, 9:56 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is offline
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 24,541
Fair - the only... BUT I have is:

They established an organization to digitize health records, so you could go to a hospital in St. John's, Grand Falls, or Corner Brook, and the doctor could instantly bring up your health record.

That's the core of the administration. And that was already one for all. This amalgamation just merges everything else into that facility as well.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted May 1, 2015, 12:02 AM
PoscStudent's Avatar
PoscStudent PoscStudent is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St. John's
Posts: 3,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post
Fair - the only... BUT I have is:

They established an organization to digitize health records, so you could go to a hospital in St. John's, Grand Falls, or Corner Brook, and the doctor could instantly bring up your health record.

That's the core of the administration. And that was already one for all. This amalgamation just merges everything else into that facility as well.
You still have CEOs and what not.

Last edited by PoscStudent; May 2, 2015 at 12:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted May 1, 2015, 8:05 PM
goodgrowth goodgrowth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 120
In the budget estimates it shows that the money to be appropriated to Nalcor this year alone is $760,000,000.

And we still have several more years of those types of numbers in order to complete Muskrat Falls...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted May 7, 2015, 1:03 PM
PoscStudent's Avatar
PoscStudent PoscStudent is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St. John's
Posts: 3,619
Quote:
People in N.L. 'a little delusional' about state of economy: Don Mills


A pollster is warning the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador isn't doing as well as people seem to think — and there are solutions to the province's problems, but they may not be popular.

Don Mills, CEO of Corporate Research Associates, said the province placed last in economic growth over the last seven years.

Mills was in St. John's Wednesday to talk to the business community and he had a message that may be difficult to swallow for some people.

"People are a little delusional in this province in terms of how well the economy is going," he said.

According to Mills, part of the problem may have been former premier Danny Williams.

"The downside of Danny Williams, and I have a lot of respect for him, is that he doubled the provincial budget within that timeframe too," said Mills.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfou...ills-1.3064131
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted May 7, 2015, 1:52 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is offline
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 24,541
Very true.

I just love the sense of entitlement. We have that a bit on the federal level as well - but the idea that a guy doing seasonal work in Gallants and paying a pittance in property taxes is not getting what he's paying for cracks me up. Sure buddy your $300 property tax is keeping the province afloat.

They don't pay enough taxes in their lifetimes to cover the cost of the hydro pole by the house. It's all subsidized by the urban areas. Yes, we all pay, but the urban areas are the only places where enough people pay for services that can be more affordably provided to create the tax surplus used to keep everywhere else going.

We have, what, 15 hospitals and 29 clinics. For a province with the population of a small city. We spend about $12,500 per person in provincial expenditures. Every other province is in the $7,000-$9,000 range. It can't go on.

People have to choose: electricity, running water, roads, and government services OR living where Pop did.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted May 8, 2015, 12:56 PM
Copes's Avatar
Copes Copes is offline
Millennial Ascendancy
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 1,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post
Very true.

I just love the sense of entitlement. We have that a bit on the federal level as well - but the idea that a guy doing seasonal work in Gallants and paying a pittance in property taxes is not getting what he's paying for cracks me up. Sure buddy your $300 property tax is keeping the province afloat.

They don't pay enough taxes in their lifetimes to cover the cost of the hydro pole by the house. It's all subsidized by the urban areas. Yes, we all pay, but the urban areas are the only places where enough people pay for services that can be more affordably provided to create the tax surplus used to keep everywhere else going.

We have, what, 15 hospitals and 29 clinics. For a province with the population of a small city. We spend about $12,500 per person in provincial expenditures. Every other province is in the $7,000-$9,000 range. It can't go on.

People have to choose: electricity, running water, roads, and government services OR living where Pop did.
Preach it buddy.

My question constantly though, is what is the answer? You obviously can't forcibly remove people. So do you just shut down the services? The heartless and pragmatic side of me says yeah, close down a few hospitals and schools. But I don't think any politician is going to do that.

So what is the solution? I honestly don't know, aside from relocation. Have any politicians in the past put forward any reasonable alternatives?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted May 8, 2015, 1:12 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is offline
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 24,541
The solution is certainly that when Nippers Harbour votes en masse for relocation, the Province says yes. Even if moving them costs a few million more than keeping them going for 10 years where they are. Such measurements don't take into account the symbolic value or the potential benefits those people will bring to their new, larger community.

Beyond that... There's not a lot we can justly do. We can start by regionalizing hospitals and schools. We should be able to service the entire province with 5-10 large hospitals. Not 15. Then we need to have community clinics in regionalized schools. They should be attached like a booze store on a Sobeys. Minimal staff for triage, light treatment, and referral if necessary.

We need to provide an incentive for individuals to move to a town with, say, 3,500 people or more. You should have some financial incentive to move from Goobies to Clarenville.

It's a good time to make big moves. Old folks love moving to the nearest town with a hospital. And these especially rural areas are aging fast.

And then we also need some consideration for heritage. A place like Bonavista needs to survive no matter what. It is who we are.

Beyond that I don't know. But healthcare and education are more than half of our budget. If we can get those working, we will be fine for a generation or more.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted May 8, 2015, 2:09 PM
rthomasd rthomasd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 274
Quick question - What happens to Nippur's Harbour if we relocate the residents? Do we burn down the houses, tear up the roads, etc? I'll bet you that the relocated residents assume that they can keep their old houses as summer places and unlike an island, even an old dirt road can get them there, but we will still have road costs. Is the Gov't committed enough to stop that?

I've heard that we came very close to closing Bell Island some years ago. People were paid for their properties etc, but Frank Moores government promised to reopen it if elected and when he did get in sold the properties back to the residents for $1, anyone know if there's any truth to that?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > St. John's
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:06 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.