Originally Posted by Vorkuta
I guess what I'm getting at is that to avoid the tax increases of $n, you'll need to make cuts to the tune of $n instead... Sorry if that grossly oversimplified.
I'll echo what some others have said in that while I agree with those things in principle, I doubt (given the number of people involved) that it might make as huge a dent as expected. NB faces some of the same issues (thought not as acutely or as deeply as NL does at the present moment) and will have to wrestle with this same problem soon. I guess what is needed is a true accounting of what it takes to "support" rural communities... will a "cull" really go far enough? It's easy to say "cut smarter, not more!" and "encourage diversification!" but those are largely platitudes, IMHO... strategic thinking is great and all but takes decades to filter down and won't address NL's current monetary woes.
Yeah well relocation etc is a long drawn out process, with the returns only really kicking in a generation later.
You have to give huge pay outs to people who live on worthless land.
You are directly involved in interventionist actions with respect to the real estate market.
It's also partly that people that live in rural are relatively useless. Even if they live in the city, it takes time for them to reach the average productivity levels.
It's a long drawn out effort that takes time to pay off.
This should of been started when we had the oil money to cover the expenses of relocation.
But it's a real tricky mess, at best I'm all for discontinuing paving of roads etc.
It seems like in the 70s it was normal to drive on dirt roads, than for some reason it became a right no matter where the fuck you live(likely because of corruption between the road paving crews and government.