# 2021 federal budget and the CAF



## MilEME09 (18 Apr 2021)

Alright so the budget drops tomorrow and I think many if us are predicting cuts, I wonder what else will be there for the CAF.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Apr 2021)

If there's no cuts, there won't be a single mention. If they were smart, they could do make infrastructure improvements to CF Bases (and surrounding towns) as a big stimulus package, but unicorns could also fly around Parliament Hill for Canada Day.


----------



## TCM621 (18 Apr 2021)

What would happen if we got a rash of VRs the day after a budget dropped? Do you think it would make any difference?


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Apr 2021)

Not in the slightest. It'd be a cheaper FRP for them.


----------



## Remius (18 Apr 2021)

Class B cuts coming, reduced hiring.  More talk about being leaner and meaner but with no real details or plan other than reallocating defence money to to other programs.  Have to pay for UBI somehow


----------



## medic5 (18 Apr 2021)

I wonder if the plans laid out in SSE will still be followed considering the circumstances.

I'm guessing Trudeau thinks there is more money to be squeezed from the CAF to pay for more politically popular programs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Apr 2021)

Safest place in the DND= NDHQ


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Apr 2021)

From last November, but it could play out this way:


Former top soldier worries feds could slash military budget after coronavirus​
One of Canada’s former top soldiers says he worries a federal government looking to slash spending once the time comes to rein in the coronavirus deficit could look to the military as an “easy” target.

In an interview with _The West Block_‘s Mercedes Stephenson, retired Gen. Rick Hillier — who will be leading Ontario’s vaccine distribution effort — said even as the military ramps up to help roll out vaccines across the country, he is already hearing concerns they could see cuts in the years that follow.

“I’d be lying if I said I weren’t worried because, yeah, it’s crossed my mind numerous times,” said Hiller when asked whether he thinks the government could look to cut spending by slashing military budgets.









						Former top soldier worries feds could slash military budget after coronavirus - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Retired Gen. Rick Hillier, leading Ontario's COVID-19 vaccine rollout, said he worries the federal government could eye the military as 'easy' way to slash spending.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## TCM621 (18 Apr 2021)

Remius said:


> Class B cuts coming, reduced hiring.  More talk about being leaner and meaner but with no real details or plan other than reallocating defence money to to other programs.  Have to pay for UBI somehow



How much leaner can we get?


----------



## MilEME09 (18 Apr 2021)

TCM621 said:


> How much leaner can we get?


I know of a few useless Class B junkies, some close to retirement who I bet won't have replacements


----------



## Kilted (18 Apr 2021)

There is also the possibility that the budget is intentionally ridiculous to cause an election.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Apr 2021)

Kilted said:


> There is also the possibility that the budget is intentionally ridiculous to cause an election.


Imagine voting for the budget, but with stated verbal reservations by, perhaps, leader of the opposition, so that the poison pill is not swallowed, and Team Dauphin has to find another reason to try to cause an election to be called? 🤔


----------



## MilEME09 (18 Apr 2021)

Canada's budget to include digital and luxury levies, but no wealth tax: Reuters sources
					

Canada's first budget in two years, to be presented to parliament on Monday, proposes a sales tax for online platforms and e-commerce warehouses, a digital services tax for Web giants and a luxury tax on items like yachts, government sources familiar with the document said.



					www.ctvnews.ca
				




No word about DND but some new taxes coming according to leaks


----------



## CBH99 (19 Apr 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Canada's budget to include digital and luxury levies, but no wealth tax: Reuters sources
> 
> 
> Canada's first budget in two years, to be presented to parliament on Monday, proposes a sales tax for online platforms and e-commerce warehouses, a digital services tax for Web giants and a luxury tax on items like yachts, government sources familiar with the document said.
> ...


Taxes that the government would be hard pressed to collect, if targeting online platforms and e-commerce.  The folks behind the keyboards that advise their respective companies' management are WELL AWARE of how to 'manipulate' those platforms to avoid such taxes.

Guess we will have to wait & see...


Do we (CF/DND) still return $1B to $2B back to the treasury annually, btw??


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Apr 2021)

Any News yet ?


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Apr 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Any News yet ?


Nothing mentions DND yet, so that's good news


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Apr 2021)

Money promised for military sex misconduct fight, NORAD upgrades
					

The federal Liberals are promising millions of additional dollars to help fight sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces as they seek to address anger and frustration over how the government and military have handled the issue.



					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Loachman (19 Apr 2021)

Regardless of what businesses and such get taxed, that only gets passed down to y'all and me.


----------



## Weinie (19 Apr 2021)

Loachman said:


> Regardless of what businesses and such get taxed, that only gets passed down to y'all and me.


"More than $77 million in new money is being added to the battle against military sexual misconduct while the government says it will be *redirecting another $158 million from other parts of the Armed Forces to address the issue in the ranks."*

Oh-oh. I have seen re-direction before and it never bodes well.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Apr 2021)

There's additional money for Health Services to deliver care to CAF members as well.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Apr 2021)

Weinie said:


> "More than $77 million in new money is being added to the battle against military sexual misconduct while the government says it will be *redirecting another $158 million from other parts of the Armed Forces to address the issue in the ranks."*
> 
> Oh-oh. I have seen re-direction before and it never bodes well.



$158M is peanuts in the grand scheme of things...


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Apr 2021)

Weinie said:


> "More than $77 million in new money is being added to the battle against military sexual misconduct while the government says it will be *redirecting another $158 million from other parts of the Armed Forces to address the issue in the ranks."*
> 
> Oh-oh. I have seen re-direction before and it never bodes well.



Ironically, the issues that got the current government into hot water didn't occur 'in the ranks'.


----------



## Weinie (19 Apr 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> $158M is peanuts in the grand scheme of things...


Yeah, you are right. Less than 1% of our budget. There are nuts and then there are "peanuts." Oftentimes the real nuts of the CAF get sacrificed IOT prioritize the current crisis. How many absolutely necessary/future capability projects are operating with a less than $158M budget? How many of them will lose a member or two to realize these savings?   #deathofathousandcuts.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Apr 2021)

Weinie said:


> Yeah, you are right. Less than 1% of our budget. There are nuts and then there are "peanuts." Oftentimes the real nuts of the CAF get sacrificed IOT prioritize the current crisis. How many absolutely necessary/future capability projects are operating with a less than $158M budget? How many of them will lose a member or two to realize these savings?   #deathofathousandcuts.



That's only about 3 x Res F CBGs worth


----------



## dapaterson (19 Apr 2021)

The $158 is over 5 years.

There is also +$252M over 5 years for NORAD modernization; $847M over 5 years incremental for NATO; $134M incremental over 5 years for military health care...

Page 297: https://www.budget.gc.ca/2021/pdf/budget-2021-en.pdf


----------



## Weinie (19 Apr 2021)

dapaterson said:


> The $158 is over 5 years.
> 
> There is also +$252M over 5 years for NORAD modernization; $847M over 5 years incremental for NATO; $134M incremental over 5 years for military health care...
> 
> Page 297: https://www.budget.gc.ca/2021/pdf/budget-2021-en.pdf


Cuts tend to materialize, program increases meet realpolitik, and get decreased.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Apr 2021)

Is there $ to purchase navy blue, airforce blue and olive drab gun tape?

I'm being facetious of course.


----------



## ballz (19 Apr 2021)

Weinie said:


> Yeah, you are right. Less than 1% of our budget. There are nuts and then there are "peanuts." Oftentimes the real nuts of the CAF get sacrificed IOT prioritize the current crisis. How many absolutely necessary/future capability projects are operating with a less than $158M budget? How many of them will lose a member or two to realize these savings?   #deathofathousandcuts.



Yup. It's a lot easier for all the GOFOs to unanimously agree to cut a Unit CO's budget than get rid of one of the many negative-value sacred cows that is the brainchild of one of their own....


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Apr 2021)

ballz said:


> Yup. It's a lot easier for all the GOFOs to unanimously agree to cut a Unit CO's budget than get rid of one of the many negative-value sacred cows that is the brainchild of one of their own....


Don't be so sure of that, reading around ACIMS on the DWAN, one can find many things that indicated we my see a cow or two sacrificed soon....


----------



## dimsum (19 Apr 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> Is there $ to purchase navy blue, airforce blue and olive drab gun tape?
> 
> I'm being facetious of course.


Great.  Now you've done it...


----------



## dapaterson (19 Apr 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> Is there $ to purchase navy blue, airforce blue and olive drab gun tape?
> 
> I'm being facetious of course.



Money for NORAD modernization, money for NATO missions (over a billion combined in new money over 5 years), $134M over 5 years for military health care.

Given past budgets rarely mentioned operations or modernization or even the CAF, those being explicitly written into the funding are important signals.


----------



## Lumber (19 Apr 2021)

Give it to me straight, Doc, do I get my ships or not?


----------



## dapaterson (19 Apr 2021)

Depends on when the GoC calls the Irving's bluff.


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> Give it to me straight, Doc, do I get my ships or not?


from what I have read, anything currently funded is safe, including the CSC but do not expect any new projects.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Apr 2021)

Our CSC after the pandemic is done with the budget


----------



## dimsum (20 Apr 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Our CSC after the pandemic is done with the budget
> 
> View attachment 64959


I'd be more afraid of the cobra chicken than the cat.


----------



## Altair (20 Apr 2021)

dapaterson said:


> The $158 is over 5 years.
> 
> There is also +$252M over 5 years for NORAD modernization; $847M over 5 years incremental for NATO; $134M incremental over 5 years for military health care...
> 
> Page 297: https://www.budget.gc.ca/2021/pdf/budget-2021-en.pdf


Some people will always find something to complain about.


----------



## CBH99 (20 Apr 2021)

dapaterson said:


> The $158 is over 5 years.
> 
> There is also +$252M over 5 years for NORAD modernization; $847M over 5 years incremental for NATO; $134M incremental over 5 years for military health care...
> 
> Page 297: https://www.budget.gc.ca/2021/pdf/budget-2021-en.pdf


I’m guessing the $158 million is more for optics than anything?  Shows the public that the CAF takes sexual misconduct seriously, has acknowledged the problem, and is ‘funding’ part of a solution.

Because I don’t understand how $158 Million (which may be chump change in terms of federal budgets - but we forget how far that can go) — I don’t understand how spending the money will somehow magically fix this type of problem.

Don’t be an unprofessional, sexist, creepy, racist, person who gropes co-workers (or worse) — it isn’t hard to not be a scumbag.

Having trouble understanding that sexual assault or sexual misconduct is wrong?  Rapidly terminate member.  Perhaps even make a public announcement for good measure (so folks know that if they engage in this type of thing, there are real consequences.)

I just don’t see how $158 million is going to fix it?  That’s a lot of power points & presentations on “don’t be sleazy.”  🤷🏼‍♂️


----------



## dapaterson (20 Apr 2021)

Page 288-289 are the gameplan:



> Addressing Sexual Misconduct and Gender-based Violence in the Military
> The federal government has no tolerance for sexual misconduct or gender-based violence in the Canadian Armed Forces. Recently reported stories about misconduct are shining a light on the scope of the problem. The members of Canada’s military make enormous sacrifices to protect Canadians and, regardless of rank or gender, have an inalienable right to serve in safety, in a respectful and dignified work environment. Since the 2015 External Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces, important progress has been made, but there remains much work to do. The government is committed to taking further action to strengthen accountability mechanisms, promote culture change in the military, and provide a safe space for survivors to report misconduct and access the services they need. In addition to the Budget 2021 measures below, the federal government will have more to announce in the coming weeks on  next steps.
> Budget 2021 proposes to provide $236.2 million over five years, starting in 2021-22, and $33.5 million per year ongoing to the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada, including $158.5 million over 5 years and $29.9 million per year ongoing funded from existing resources to expand their work to eliminate sexual misconduct and gender-based violence in the military and support survivors. Specifically:
> 
> ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Apr 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Page 288-289 are the gameplan:



I'm no expert, but that sounds like a pretty good start to me. Especially the capacity building stuff.


----------



## Loachman (20 Apr 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Page 288-289 are the gameplan:


"The federal government has no tolerance for sexual misconduct or gender-based violence in the Canadian Armed Forces."

It's a pity that the federal government still lacks the same level of intolerance for the same things attributed to certain prime ministers:

Woman who accused Justin Trudeau of groping her at music festival speaks out
The incident referred to in the editorial did occur, the woman says
Andrew Buncombe 07 July 2018

A woman who accused Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of groping her almost two decades ago has broken her silence – saying she stands by her account but considers the matter closed.

​


----------



## Lumber (20 Apr 2021)

Loachman said:


> It's a pity that the federal government still lacks the same level of intolerance for the same things attributed to certain prime ministers:





And, to not be accused of the same, I'll actually add something to the conversation:

I think the CSC project, in mostly its entirety, is safe in the long term, post-covid reality. If big spending is what the LPC thinks is what the doctor ordered, what's better that $70B spent _in Canada, _supporting Canadian jobs.

edit: spelling


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Apr 2021)

> what's better that $70B spent _in Canada_


_

$50B spent elsewhere to get the same stuff, giving the foreigners 50 billion Canadian dollars to (ultimately) spend in Canada and giving us $20B to spend on other stuff.  $70B gets spent in Canada, but we get the ships AND $20B more worth of stuff._


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Apr 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> _$50B spent elsewhere to get the same stuff, giving the foreigners 50 billion Canadian dollars to (ultimately) spend in Canada and giving us $20B to spend on other stuff.  $70B gets spent in Canada, but we get the ships AND $20B more worth of stuff._


Normally, I am with you Brad. But not on warships.

If you don’t build them domestically, you also don’t get to refit and maintain them domestically and there is usually a catch on the IP as well. So- yeah, upfront purchase price might look better, but the O&M will kill you down the road.

So, you probably don’t get the $20B to spend on other stuff. You give that to a foreign yard, too, eventually.


----------



## YZT580 (21 Apr 2021)

haven't we learnt our lesson yet?  If we don't make it we can't control it which is one of the reasons for our poor showing in the vaccination process.


----------



## MilEME09 (21 Apr 2021)

YZT580 said:


> haven't we learnt our lesson yet?  If we don't make it we can't control it which is one of the reasons for our poor showing in the vaccination process.


We have also learned if we try to force our selves to make it, we don't do it right. There is nothing wrong with buying off shore if local industry cannot make a product of sufficient quality and cost. How much money did we waste trying to make combat boots in Quebec before we gave up and got BOOTFORGEN?


----------



## dimsum (21 Apr 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> How much money did we waste trying to make combat boots in Quebec before we gave up and got BOOTFORGEN?


Wasn't BFG just a temporary stopgap?


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Apr 2021)

dimsum said:


> Wasn't BFG just a temporary stopgap?


----------



## YZT580 (21 Apr 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> We have also learned if we try to force our selves to make it, we don't do it right. There is nothing wrong with buying off shore if local industry cannot make a product of sufficient quality and cost. How much money did we waste trying to make combat boots in Quebec before we gave up and got BOOTFORGEN?


that is because we tried to make it in Quebec and long after we had lost most of our quality shoemakers to China


----------



## QV (21 Apr 2021)

Not shocked to see this government is going to spend billions a year on child care forever.  Is child care really the responsibility of the federal government?


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Apr 2021)

QV said:


> Not shocked to see this government is going to spend billions a year on child care forever.  Is child care really the responsibility of the federal government?



No... and that's the thing, apparently. As a result, this is likely another crazy Utopian idea dreamt up by the Chateau Generals in Ottawa that will die in the trenches before the troops 'hit the bags'. 

And, by the way, if the pandemic proved the greatest need is for health care dollars, why are they pushing for transit and child care? It's all too bizarre to contemplate, of course:

Budget 2021: Welcome back, standard operating procedures​Paul Wells: The budget focuses on the sort of things a government like Canada's should be working on right now. But the big bet is on childcare—and the devil is in the details.

"Since it became clear the premiers were unanimously _and reasonably_ calling for increased health transfers, they’ve had three answers from Ottawa: “No;” “we’ll give you $3 billion a year for public transit;” and “we’ll give you $8 billion a year for daycare.” No federal government is ever obliged to do what provincial governments demand. But child care will mostly be administered by provincial governments, so the disagreement over the best use of the next transfer dollar is not merely academic. It’ll directly affect the tone, and perhaps the success or failure, of necessary negotiations on program design."









						Budget 2021: Welcome back, standard operating procedures - Macleans.ca
					

Paul Wells: The budget focuses on the sort of things a government like Canada's should be working on right now. But the big bet is on childcare—and the devil is in the details.




					www.macleans.ca


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Apr 2021)

QV said:


> Not shocked to see this government is going to spend billions a year on child care forever.  Is child care really the responsibility of the federal government?


It is if you believe in cradle to grave government.


----------



## Altair (21 Apr 2021)

Childcare is 1800-2000 dollars a month in some places.

More than people make after taxes for many jobs.

This leads to people staying at home to raise kids rather than join or rejoin the workforce. Mostly women.

So the only question I have is does more people entering the workforce and being productive that way give us more economic benefits than the billions spent on childcare.

Looking at the Quebec model, one can argue yes.


----------



## Weinie (21 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> Childcare is 1800-2000 dollars a month in some places.





Altair said:


> More than people make after taxes for many jobs.


Maybe in some Montessori schools. And I doubt that people putting their kids there worry about the cost

Average is more like what you see in the article below. 

Ottawa promised $10-a-day child care in the 2021 federal budget. How would that work? A guide




Altair said:


> This leads to people staying at home to raise kids rather than join or rejoin the workforce. Mostly women.
> 
> So the only question I have is does more people entering the workforce and being productive that way give us more economic benefits than the billions spent on childcare.


Depends. Newton's Third Law. More people in the workforce means more commuting, more money spent on infrastructure and heating and cooling, more fuel consumption, more greenhouse gases and emissions, more green taxes collected in order to meet compliancy targets, more offsets. We may have an answer in 20 years.


Altair said:


> Looking at the Quebec model, one can argue yes.


Considering since 1957, Quebec has received about 50% of federal equalization payments, I wouldn't hold that up as a model.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> Childcare is 1800-2000 dollars a month in some places.
> 
> More than people make after taxes for many jobs.
> 
> ...


What about parents (of either gender- I make no judgement there) that want to stay at home and raise their own kids?

too bad, so Sad?


----------



## Altair (21 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> What about parents (of either gender- I make no judgement there) that want to stay at home and raise their own kids?
> 
> too bad, so Sad?


How are they missing out on anything? They are still saving money at the end of the day. 

Childcare in the Quebec system isn't free, its just affordable.


----------



## Altair (21 Apr 2021)

Weinie said:


> Maybe in some Montessori schools. And I doubt that people putting their kids there worry about the cost
> 
> Average is more like what you see in the article below.
> 
> ...


That may explain the money in the budget for public transit. Thinking ahead.


Weinie said:


> Considering since 1957, Quebec has received about 50% of federal equalization payments, I wouldn't hold that up as a model.


Considering that Quebec put universal childcare in 1997, and going from there, they have had more women in the workplace and higher workplace participation than Ontario in the years following. 



> Fertility rates and labour force participation among women in Quebec and Ontario
> 
> 
> Using data from the Canadian Vital Statistics Birth Database and from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), this study examines the relationship between fertility rates and labour force participation among women aged 15 to 44 in Ontario and in Quebec between 1996 and 2016, two provinces that followed...
> ...



Interestingly enough, Quebec has been performing better economically since 2010, able to produce balanced budgets with the help of equalization, but also even without the equalization payments, their deficits were smaller as a percentage of GDP than Ontario. While there are many factors at play here beyond childcare, having 6 percentage points more women in the workforce has to be a net benefit for Quebec. 

And if we can duplicate this nationally, that will show up later on.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> How are they missing out on anything? They are still saving money at the end of the day.
> 
> Childcare in the Quebec system isn't free, its just affordable.


Presumably, they are not being “subsidized” to be at home.

We do all agree that daycares, at $10.00/day/kid, will be subsidized by some taxpayer, somewhere, right?


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> We do all agree that daycares, at $10.00/day/kid, will be subsidized by some taxpayer, somewhere, right?


So?  If it brings a net positive for the country, so what?


----------



## Altair (21 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Presumably, they are not being “subsidized” to be at home.
> 
> We do all agree that daycares, at $10.00/day/kid, will be subsidized by some taxpayer, somewhere, right?


I don't understand why you think parents who stay at home are somehow losing out on money. Currently a parent outside Quebec spends 15-20k annually on childcare. A parent staying at home spends nothing. 

Under a Quebec model a parent spends 3k annually on childcare. A parent at home spends nothing. 

So what is the parent at home losing out on? 

And yes, while all taxpayers are paying for it, there is a corresponding increase in tax revenues by people who are now working, who are earning money, and spending that money in the economy. So it evens out? Or better yet, Canada comes out ahead?


----------



## Weinie (21 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> I don't understand why you think parents who stay at home are somehow losing out on money. Currently a parent outside Quebec spends 15-20k annually on childcare. A parent staying at home spends nothing.


And a parent spending money on daycare, outside Quebec, might make 60-70K or more in salary that gets re-injected into the economy.



Altair said:


> Under a Quebec model a parent spends 3k annually on childcare. A parent at home spends nothing.
> 
> So what is the parent at home losing out on?
> 
> *And yes, while all taxpayers are paying for it, there is a corresponding increase in tax revenues by people who are now working, who are earning money, and spending that money in the economy. So it evens out? Or better yet, Canada comes out ahead?*


An increased workforce brings increased costs. Whether that translates into a net increase in Canadian economic well-being would have been easy to ascertain in the 60's and 70's. With the current increased emphasis on green, and what economic growth, as currently calculated and understood, implicates for is far less easy to predict.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Apr 2021)

Nothing,....if they just work for 3k in Quebec or 15-20k anywhere else.   Since those are all below the minimum wage i don't think that happens.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> I don't understand why you think parents who stay at home are somehow losing out on money. Currently a parent outside Quebec spends 15-20k annually on childcare. A parent staying at home spends nothing.
> 
> Under a Quebec model a parent spends 3k annually on childcare. A parent at home spends nothing.
> 
> ...


Presumably, the parent at home is missing out on employment (obviously, by choice, in my example) and subsidizing somebody else’s daycare through taxes. If someone chooses to raise their own children, should they not get a tax break for doing so?

As to Max’s point about “who cares?”- it matters when we begin to run out of taxpayers to pay for all of this.

As was pointed up thread, the Quebec example is funded on the back of 50 percent of all equalization payments in Canadian history and the highest income tax rates in the country. And every time Quebec coughs, the federal government finds a way to shovel money at them. My question is: how is any of this permanent, structural  program spending possible without generally raising taxes across the board?


----------



## Altair (21 Apr 2021)

Weinie said:


> And a parent spending money on daycare, outside Quebec, might make 60-70K or more in salary that gets re-injected into the economy.


Exactly. Now they make even more. 


Weinie said:


> An increased workforce brings increased costs. Whether that translates into a net increase in Canadian economic well-being would have been easy to ascertain in the 60's and 70's. With the current increased emphasis on green, and what economic growth, as currently calculated and understood, implicates for is far less easy to predict.


That sounds like a good problem to have. I don't see a increased workforce as a bad thing, usually.


----------



## Altair (21 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Presumably, the parent at home is missing out on employment (obviously, by choice, in my example) and subsidizing somebody else’s daycare through taxes. If someone chooses to raise their own children, should they not get a tax break for doing so?


Yeah, no. If they want to stay home and raise their kid, that is their choice, and power to them. 

But they don't need to be subsidized to do it. Their subsidy is not paying anything for childcare. They likely already get the CCB anyways.


SeaKingTacco said:


> As to Max’s point about “who cares?”- it matters when we begin to run out of taxpayers to pay for all of this.


This literally makes more taxpayers, so it solves itself.


SeaKingTacco said:


> As was pointed up thread, the Quebec example is funded on the back of 50 percent of all equalization payments in Canadian history and the highest income tax rates in the country. And every time Quebec coughs, the federal government finds a way to shovel money at them. My question is: how is any of this permanent, structural  program spending possible without generally raising taxes across the board?


Quebec has been doing better economically since putting this in place. Isn't that a good thing? Or is Quebec bashing just easier?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> Yeah, no. If they want to stay home and raise their kid, that is their choice, and power to them.
> 
> But they don't need to be subsidized to do it. Their subsidy is not paying anything for childcare. They likely already get the CCB anyways.
> 
> ...


It is not Quebec bashing to point out the fact that they are and have been the biggest beneficiary of the equalization payment in Canada and that they have some of the highest taxes in Canada.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Apr 2021)

I love Quebec Altair, I can't wait to hit Pizza Youville again, but SKT is correct,....you will only defend it because someone you worship is from there.  So once again no facts matter to you....


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> It is not Quebec bashing to point out the fact that they are and have been the biggest beneficiary of the equalization payment in Canada and that they have some of the highest taxes in Canada.


So?  How does that discredit a childcare program?


----------



## Altair (21 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> It is not Quebec bashing to point out the fact that they are and have been the biggest beneficiary of the equalization payment in Canada and that they have some of the highest taxes in Canada.


Quebec is the biggest beneficiary of the equalization payment in Canada in total funds (The atlantic provinces has it beat per capita).

But how does that mean that a program they have doesn't work?

Quebec being the biggest beneficiary of the equalization payment in Canada in total funds mean that their hydro electric dams don't work?


----------



## Altair (21 Apr 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I love Quebec Altair, I can't wait to hit Pizza Youville again, but SKT is correct,....you will only defend it because someone you worship is from there.  So once again no facts matter to you....


You're right. I do worship myself.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Apr 2021)

I don't see how millions of dollars (especially taken from other areas of the CAF) will combat sexual harassment and assault in the CAF. 

Is that hush money to stop people from reporting? 
Are we paying people bonuses to stop sexually harassing and assaulting people?  Like a FORCE TEST incentive? 
Are going to pay a research company millions of dollars to tell us what the problem is? 
Maybe a new head quarters and command staff, nice new building?


----------



## Weinie (21 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> Quebec is the biggest beneficiary of the equalization payment in Canada in total funds (The atlantic provinces has it beat per capita).
> 
> But how does that mean that a program they have doesn't work?
> 
> Quebec being the biggest beneficiary of the equalization payment in Canada in total funds mean that their hydro electric dams don't work?


Their dams seem to be doing fine. What is does means is that subsidization from the rest of Canada allows any and all Quebec political parties to propose budgetary allocations to cater to a political diaspora (women who want to work but couldn't without $10 per day daycare) that allows them to elicit support from those women, thus enhancing their possibility of being elected. It has become a third rail in your province, and woe (and electoral disaster) to anyone who does not support it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Apr 2021)

Actually, Bruce and SKT are the ones full of s*&^ on this one.

You cannot simultaneously say that Quebec is the greatest beneficiary on the one hand and has some of the highest taxes on the other hand. One statement is in aggregate and the other one on a per capita basis, so cannot be compared. And since equalization is set up on the basis of taxation, it is - and has always been derived and paid on a per capita basis.

To say in that context that Quebec is the largest beneficiary of Equalization is like saying that Ontarians are the most taxed Canadians by far, since they contribute 250 billion dollars to the overall Canadian 600 billion dollars raised in Federal/aggregate provincial revenues raised last year. Of course they did: because they are 40% of the country's population. BTW, Quebec would be the second payer in aggregate terms with 18% of all aggregate tax payments, for a total of 105 billions, far ahead of Alberta which only pays 65 billions.

Do I need to stress that looking at it that way is ridiculous? Per capita is and has always been the proper way to look at it. And on that basis (which is the way it is calculated in Ottawa anyway), on a per capita basis, Quebec currently is the province that gets *the least *equalization, at about $1400 per person, followed by Manitoba at about $1550 per person, and it goes downhill from there with the maritime provinces (NL excluded) at about 2600, and PEI at a little over 3000 - followed not even closely by the three territories at $8,000 per person.

And all that is only calculated to provide a taxation revenue for the provision of the Government of Canada nationally mandated programs covered by equalization, such as the Health Act, so that those specific mandated program are about equal in standards and availability across Canada. The Child Care program in Quebec is not covered or included: Quebecers pay for it all by themselves, which is why now that the federal government wants to enter the fray, it will have to compensate Quebec on the same financial basis it will provide in the other provinces. It is not a bonanza for Quebec. it is a fair share of a new national program.

And how does Quebec pay for all its extra stuff then? We tax ourselves. 

Interestingly enough, there is something called the Tax Effort index. What it is is the following: If you take the tax base of each province as calculated by the Equalization formula (and that includes exactly the same elements in each province) and then you look at how much of this is actually taxed across the country and average it. You then go back to each province and see - in that specific province - how much the citizens of that province are asked to contribute in taxes in relation to the average national "effort". In that index, for the last year I found -2017 - Quebec required the greatest effort of all from its citizen, requiring a tax contribution of 127% of the national average. The least effort was that required of Albertans, at 72% of the national average tax effort. Once again: Quebec has more programs because we have accepted to tax ourselves to get them.


----------



## Weinie (21 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Actually, Bruce and SKT are the ones full of s*&^ on this one.
> 
> You cannot simultaneously say that Quebec is the greatest beneficiary on the one hand and has some of the highest taxes on the other hand. One statement is in aggregate and the other one on a per capita basis, so cannot be compared. And since equalization is set up on the basis of taxation, it is - and has always been derived and paid on a per capita basis.
> 
> ...


Nope. You cannot peel the grape that way. Equalization was always meant to establish a minimum level of infrastructure and services across the country. Building a road that will be driven in the territories that compares to ones in Quebec City was the intent. Having a comparable level of health care when you are vacationing in P.E.I. whilst visiting from Baie Comeau, and get into a car accident, and still get comparable health care across the country means that certain areas will be subsidized more heavily than others in order to achieve that, regardless of population. But the fact persists, Quebec has seen the bulk of equalization since it's inception, while at only 26% of the population.


----------



## Altair (21 Apr 2021)

Weinie said:


> Nope. You cannot peel the grape that way. Equalization was always meant to establish a minimum level of infrastructure and services across the country. Building a road that will be driven in the territories that compares to ones in Quebec City was the intent. Having a comparable level of health care when you are vacationing in P.E.I. whilst visiting from Baie Comeau, and get into a car accident, and still get comparable health care across the country means that certain areas will be subsidized more heavily than others in order to achieve that, regardless of population. But the fact persists, Quebec has seen the bulk of equalization since it's inception, while at only 26% of the population.


Per capita means nothing to you eh?


----------



## Weinie (21 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> Per capita means nothing to you eh?


No, it's like magic.


----------



## Altair (21 Apr 2021)

Weinie said:


> No, it's like magic.


Honest, I like that.


----------



## Altair (21 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Actually, Bruce and SKT are the ones full of s*&^ on this one.
> 
> You cannot simultaneously say that Quebec is the greatest beneficiary on the one hand and has some of the highest taxes on the other hand. One statement is in aggregate and the other one on a per capita basis, so cannot be compared. And since equalization is set up on the basis of taxation, it is - and has always been derived and paid on a per capita basis.
> 
> ...


Everyone likes dunking on Quebec, but don't realize that if NS, NB, or PEI had the same population as Quebec, they would be receiving anywhere from 22 billion to 25 billion a year, compared to Quebecs 12.

Or the territories would be getting 68 billion. Because context matters. But its so much easier to say "hurr durr, Quebec is a leech, they get the most"

Back to childcare, its much worse. Quebec has a program that has lead to increased birthrate, increased labour participation, and less money going to childcare leaving more money for other sectors of the economy, and people have the gall to knock it because....equalization.


----------



## Weinie (21 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> Everyone likes dunking on Quebec, but don't realize that if NS, NB, or PEI had the same population as Quebec, they would be receiving anywhere from 22 billion to 25 billion a year, compared to Quebecs 12.
> 
> Or the territories would be getting 68 billion. Because context matters. But its so much easier to say "hurr durr, Quebec is a leech, they get the most"
> 
> Back to childcare, its much worse. Quebec has a program that has lead to increased birthrate, increased labour participation, and less money going to childcare leaving more money for other sectors of the economy, and people have the gall to knock it because....equalization.


Uh no!. My household has a certain amount of money to spend, and me and my wife set it up to maximize the hierarchy of needs. 

And then boom, we get an extra bit of money every year, and at first we consider where we could maximize it, but then our kids realize that we have more money than we claim, and in order to minimize their plaints and keep power and harmony we start to accede to their demands, just to keep calm within the house. And then this becomes accepted practice, because who wants a crazy yelling house?


----------



## Altair (21 Apr 2021)

Weinie said:


> Uh no!. My household has a certain amount of money to spend, and me and my wife set it up to maximize the hierarchy of needs.
> 
> And then boom, we get an extra bit of money every year, and at first we consider where we could maximize it, but then our kids realize that we have more money than we claim, and in order to minimize their plaints and keep power and harmony we start to accede to their demands, just to keep calm within the house. And then this becomes accepted practice, because who wants a crazy yelling house?


Sounds like you need universal childcare.


----------



## Weinie (21 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> Sounds like you need universal childcare.


Perhaps. Or maybe we need to put one of our kids into intensive therapy, to re-adjust them to real life.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Apr 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> I don't see how millions of dollars (especially taken from other areas of the CAF) will combat sexual harassment and assault in the CAF.
> 
> Is that hush money to stop people from reporting?
> Are we paying people bonuses to stop sexually harassing and assaulting people?  Like a FORCE TEST incentive?
> ...


 
Maybe GoC is planning to contract WE to conduct the next 5 years of anti-sexual misconduct/harassment/assault training?


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Apr 2021)

These conversations always remind me of when I was a kid listening to my dad say we didn't have enough money for XYZ and my mother saying "Well Christmas is coming so figure it out".  

Its all about balance to me.  Do we have; and are we projecting to continue to have the tax paying base to continue to be able to cover all of our government spending ?  

As for Que.  I love the province but I cant help but wonder where it would be without the rest of Canada injecting money into it every year.  Sometimes I feel like Canada is being extorted for its own existence.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> These conversations always remind me of when I was a kid listening to my dad say we didn't have enough money for XYZ and my mother saying "Well Christmas is coming so figure it out".
> 
> Its all about balance to me.  Do we have; and are we projecting to continue to have the tax paying base to continue to be able to cover all of our government spending ?


People should love this policy. It literally creates a bigger tax base.






						Fertility rates and labour force participation among women in Quebec and Ontario
					

Using data from the Canadian Vital Statistics Birth Database and from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), this study examines the relationship between fertility rates and labour force participation among women aged 15 to 44 in Ontario and in Quebec between 1996 and 2016, two provinces that followed...




					www150.statcan.gc.ca
				





After four decades of similarity, fertility rates have been slightly higher in Quebec than in Ontario since 2005. In 2016, Quebec’s total fertility rate was 1.59 children per woman, while Ontario’s was 1.46.
The difference was mostly driven by women in their twenties, who tend to have more children in Quebec than in Ontario. This is partly because the proportion of women in their twenties who are in a couple is higher in Quebec (39%, versus 28% in Ontario in 2016).
As fertility rates increased in Quebec, the labour force participation of women aged 15 to 44 also increased, exceeding that of women in Ontario after 2003. In 2016, the participation rate of women was 81% in Quebec, compared with 75% in Ontario.
Most of the relative increase in female labour force participation in Quebec occurred among women with young children. Between 1996 and 2016, the labour force participation rate of women whose youngest child was under the age of 3 increased by nearly 20 percentage points in Quebec, compared with a 4 percentage point increase in Ontario. The Quebec–Ontario difference was smaller among women without children under the age of 13.
Changes in the composition of the population of women aged 15 to 44 and differences in real wage growth for this population do not explain the divergent trends observed in female labour force participation in Quebec and Ontario after 1996. At the same time, the costs associated with child care and housekeeping services grew less in Quebec than in Ontario over the period.
So take women, between the ages of 18-44, and have 81 percent working as opposed to 75 percent.

There are 6.77 million women between the ages of 18-44 in Canada.

Take out quebecs 26 percent of the population, 5m even, more or less.

so if 75 percent, going off ontarios numbers, are working, you have 3.75m women working.

bring that up to 81 percent, you're at 4 million.

250,000 more women. The national average salary in Canada is 54,600, so that's an extra 13.6 billion dollars in economic activity annually. Not including all the money saved by those who are dropping 20k a year on childcare.


Halifax Tar said:


> As for Que.  I love the province but I cant help but wonder where it would be without the rest of Canada injecting money into it every year.  Sometimes I feel like Canada is being extorted for its own existence.


I wonder if you feel this way about PEI,NS, NB.


----------



## lenaitch (22 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> People should love this policy. It literally creates a bigger tax base.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I recall somebody once wrote that Canada is a nation held together by bribes; although we are far from alone in that regard.


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> I wonder if you feel this way about PEI,NS, NB.


 
Sure do!  I've lived in Halifax for 20+ years.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Sure do!  I've lived in Halifax for 20+ years.


I love how I spend time to do the math, and you focused on this one snippet.


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> I love how I spend time to do the math, and you focused on this one snippet.


I think you're being overly defensive.  I'm not disagreeing with your position. 

I see the reason for equalization payments and it make sense that all Canadians should expect the same basic levels of things like medical care where ever they live.  I also think places like Que and the Maritimes are allowed to live outside their means, somewhat, because of that.  And any mention of readjustment of this will lead to howls of separation from certain segments of Ques citizenry.

I'm also cool with universal child care.  If we can afford it as a nation.  What I am not cool with, is my tax rate going up.  If I have to live within my means so should every government at every level, especially when they exist solely on my involuntary contributions.


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Apr 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I think you're being overly defensive.  I'm not disagreeing with your position.
> 
> I see the reason for equalization payments and it make sense that all Canadians should expect the same basic levels of things like medical care where ever they live.  I also think places like Que and the Maritimes are allowed to live outside their means, somewhat, because of that.  And any mention of readjustment of this will lead to howls of separation from certain segments of Ques citizenry.
> 
> I'm also cool with universal child care.  If we can afford it as a nation.  What I am not cool with, is my tax rate going up.  If I have to live within my means so should every government at every level, especially when they exist solely on my involuntary contributions.



That's an interesting point of view from someone living from said taxes.


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Apr 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> That's an interesting point of view from someone living from said taxes.


Who also pays taxes, same as every other Canadian.  

Am I not to be concerned about where our tax dollars are spent, or our level of taxation ?


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I think you're being overly defensive.  I'm not disagreeing with your position.
> 
> I'm also cool with universal child care.  If we can afford it as a nation.  What I am not cool with, is my tax rate going up.  If I have to live within my means so should every government at every level, especially when they exist solely on my involuntary contributions.


As more women enter the workforce after giving birth the more affordable this becomes. if we get to Quebec workplace participation, and 13.6 billion more in economic activity is generated, I think it more or less pays for itself.


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Apr 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Who also pays taxes, same as every other Canadian.
> 
> Am I not to be concerned about where our tax dollars are spent, or our level of taxation ?



My comment was more about you last part about the "involuntary" contributions, as if it was a bad thing.  

Would you have the same reservations if that $2B was invested in the CAF instead?


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> As more women enter the workforce after giving birth the more affordable this becomes. if we get to Quebec workplace participation, and 13.6 billion more in economic activity is generated, I think it more or less pays for itself.


Then I'm cool with it.  Just dont tax me any further, use what's already given.


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Apr 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> My comment was more about you last part about the "involuntary" contributions, as if it was a bad thing.
> 
> Would you have the same reservations if that $2B was invested in the CAF instead?


Involuntary meaning the Gov does not ask me for my money they take if before I get it. 

I don't give a sweet hoot where they put the GD money.  All I am saying is don't raise my taxes. 

And no; I wouldn't support more funding for the CAF it meant my taxes went up either.


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Apr 2021)

So, there is no tax hike announced with this budget. Why is childcare an issue for you then??


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Apr 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> So, there is no tax hike announced with this budget. Why is childcare an issue for you then??
> Did you read this correctly:





Halifax Tar said:


> I think you're being overly defensive.  I'm not disagreeing with your position.
> 
> I see the reason for equalization payments and it make sense that all Canadians should expect the same basic levels of things like medical care where ever they live.  I also think places like Que and the Maritimes are allowed to live outside their means, somewhat, because of that.  And any mention of readjustment of this will lead to howls of separation from certain segments of Ques citizenry.
> 
> I'm also cool with universal child care.  If we can afford it as a nation.  What I am not cool with, is my tax rate going up.  If I have to live within my means so should every government at every level, especially when they exist solely on my involuntary contributions.


Its called a cautionary statement.  Meaning I'm cool with it, but don't take more of my income.  If no more of my money is taken there is no issue.

You seem to be trying to find malcontent where there is none.  #trollmuch ?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> So, there is no tax hike announced with this budget. Why is childcare an issue for you then??


Borrowing money just delays the tax cut...…... so those kids raised by the day care nanny state have to pay for us living like the dirtbags we are.  We need to bring them into a future where we haven't spent them broke before they even grow up.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Borrowing money just delays the tax cut...…... so those kids raised by the day care nanny state have to pay for us living like the dirtbags we are.  We need to bring them into a future where we haven't spent them broke before they even grow up.


despite those kids parents, especially mothers, returning to the work force, contributing around 13.6 billion more to the economy, thus having the program more or less pay for itself.

dirtbags indeed.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2021)

If it "pays for itself" then why would we need it????


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> If it "pays for itself" then why would we need it????


Increased productivity, increased GDP, increased disposable income, increase workplace participation, just to name a few.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2021)

Or those parents going back to work can pay for their own with that 13 billion number you throw around....


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Or those parents going back to work can pay for their own with that 13 billion number you throw around....


Except they are not going back to work. The Data shows that. Why would you go to work when 20k of your salary goes to childcare, and you may make 30k after taxes?

The data is clear, workplace participation for women ages 18-44 in Quebec is 81 percent, Ontario is 75 percent. Before Quebec put in universal childcare, the rates were identical. 

You can argue all you like, but the numbers are clear.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2021)

Are you saying they'd pay enough taxes to pay for the daycare then??    So 6% extra workers can pay that much into the economy??


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Are you saying they'd pay enough taxes to pay for the daycare then??    So 6% extra workers can pay that much into the economy??


I did the math earlier. 

there are 6.77m women ages 18-44 in Canada

take out quebecs 1.7 million.

5m in the rest of Canada.

Using ontarios numbers, 3.75 are working, 75 percent.

If we get to 81 percent, thats 4 million.

difference of 250k 

average income in Canada is 54,600.

That's 13.6 billion alone. Then add all the extra disposable income that isn't going to childcare, about 15-17k difference. 

Toss in income tax and consumption tax, yeah, it pays for itself.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2021)

> Quebecers pay for it all by themselves



Dollars are fungible and cannot be sequestered.  Money granted to provinces for purpose "X" allows provinces to spend on something else or forgo some revenue (taxation).  Every transfer to a province is a subsidy to provincial taxpayers; whether the province and its voters choose to have and abide by higher taxes is irrelevant to that point.

The supposition that freeing more parents up to work will generate more tax revenue has to be calculated based on actual circumstances, not medians and means.  Based on what I've read, here is what we would find: most of the parents who would pay useful amounts of income tax are already working because they want to work and are paying for child care because they can already afford it; most of the non-working parents who would like to work but can not afford child care would not be high-income earners and would contribute little tax revenue.

The only equitable child care financing scheme is a straight per-child grant.  Anything else is a subsidy from some taxpayers to other taxpayers.  The case that reasonably well-off parents deserve subsidies from less well-off taxpayers is difficult to make.  If we have to throw more money at parents with children, just increase the existing program payouts under the existing terms and let them decide what to do with it.

Child care would be more widely available if parents were not so stingy.  Take the limit on the number of children per worker in a facility; multiply by the cost per child.  Figure that not all of that money can go straight to the worker's salary.  Expect to find that the remaining amount for salary is not large.

If schemes are pursued to mandate more facilities and thus employ more child care workers, expect to find that it is an enterprise ripe for widespread unionization, which will happen, and that costs will increase accordingly.  I don't care about whether or not childcare workers unionize or behave collectively in much the same way as teachers' unions; the point is that the extra cost should be anticipated and planned for before anyone jumps in.  I suppose that eventually childcare workers would be compensated very much like teachers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2021)

I hope you don't fudge your income taxes like that....CRA might not be happy.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> ... it pays for itself.


In the same way in which the budget will balance itself?


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Child care would be more widely available if parents were not so stingy.  Take the limit on the number of children per worker in a facility; multiply by the cost per child.  Figure that not all of that money can go straight to the worker's salary.  Expect to find that the remaining amount for salary is not large.


Lol.....





__





						Ontario
					

Who’s responsible? Who to contact Ministry of Education, Early Years Division Website (416) 325 - 2929 1 800-387-5514 In Ontario, the Ministry of Education is responsible for child care and kindergarten overall. The Early Years Division of the Ministry of Education adminis




					findingqualitychildcare.ca
				






> According to the Government of Ontario’s Licensed Child Care Survey, median monthly fees were $1,320 for an infant, $1,080 for a toddler and $940 for a preschooler. (2019)
> 
> A 2019 national survey of child care fees, found that Ontario cities had the highest median full-time centre based and regulated home child care infant fees in the country at $1,774 a month or $21,288 annually. Fees in rural areas in Ontario tended to be comparable to fees in nearby cities.



Stingy.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I hope you don't fudge your income taxes like that....CRA might not be happy.


If you want to point out where you do not agree with my math, or where you think I made a mistake, feel free to point it out. 

Otherwise, pound sand.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2021)

> Stingy.



1. Parents complain about the cost.  Ask people who work in daycare.
2. Look up what daycare workers can command as hourly wages.


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Apr 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> 1. Parents complain about the cost.  Ask people who work in daycare.


Yeah, because it's frigging ridiculously expensive.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2021)

Why would a parent not be willing to pay as much per child before K-12 as during K-12?


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> 1. Parents complain about the cost.  Ask people who work in daycare.


21,288 annually.

It cost more to send a kid to daycare than send them to university.


Brad Sallows said:


> 2. Look up what daycare workers can command as hourly wages.


You cannot command the market, if you don't want to pay 21,288 annually, you don't get a spot.


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Apr 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Why would a parent not be willing to pay as much per child before K-12 as during K-12?


It is a lot cheaper to send a kid to school than daycare. Because school is subsidized.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Apr 2021)

I think you've made assumptions that need to be more realistic. For example, you presume that the 250k additional women working will make the average income of 56400. The real likelihood is that they'll make closer to 35000, which reduces the income generated to 8.75B. Then you need to take 27% which represents the amount of income tax collected to 2.36B, which will in no way allow the program to pay for itself.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> I think you've made assumptions that need to be more realistic. For example, you presume that the 250k additional women working will make the average income of 56400. The real likelihood is that they'll make closer to 35000, which reduces the income generated to 8.75B. Then you need to take 27% which represents the amount of income tax collected to 2.36B, which will in no way allow the program to pay for itself.


Why do you say this?

You think only lower income women stay home?


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Apr 2021)

For the most part, yes. If you can afford daycare, you work. If you can't, you don't. Those on the lower end of the income spectrum are most likely not able to afford daycare, and therefore most likely to not work.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> For the most part, yes. If you can afford daycare, you work. If you can't, you don't. Those on the lower end of the income spectrum are most likely not able to afford daycare, and therefore most likely to not work.


someone making 55k has take home of 42k. Half their disposable income is going to daycare. A lot of people aren't going to do that.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2021)

Good.....id rather see them stay home and raise the most important things in their lives then worry about a second hot tub.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Apr 2021)

You fail to take into account those that can. Your use of the $56400 number is based on everyone in the non-working population being average. This is a flawed premise. High income earners will drag the average to the right, but they're likely not highly represented in those who chose not to work due to child care costs. Lower income earners are the ones hardest hit, and are going to form the lion's share of the population, thereby pulling the real average lower.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Good.....id rather see them stay home and raise the most important things in their lives then worry about a second hot tub.


Wow.

How about buying a house? Or saving money? Or starting a business?

Maybe your generation is off buying hot tubs, but I don't think my generation is.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> You fail to take into account those that can. Your use of the $56400 number is based on everyone in the non-working population being average. This is a flawed premise. High income earners will drag the average to the right, but they're likely not highly represented in those who chose not to work due to child care costs. Lower income earners are the ones hardest hit, and are going to form the lion's share of the population, thereby pulling the real average lower.


Maybe you're right, but by how much? 15K average? I doubt that. Maybe you can do a economic breakdown of who earns what and how many there are, but I will stick to the average thank you kindly.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2021)

Actually no hot tub, never been to a resort, both vehicles have over 300,000 km on them.

But we raised , and spent tons of time with,  two amazing Daughters and that is worth more then any physical thing that exists.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Actually no hot tub, never been to a resort, both vehicles have over 300,000 km on them.
> 
> But we raised , and spent tons of time with,  two amazing Daughters and that is worth more then anything physical thing that exists.


Bet you could afford a house...


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Apr 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> For the most part, yes. If you can afford daycare, you work. If you can't, you don't. Those on the lower end of the income spectrum are most likely not able to afford daycare, and therefore most likely to not work.


So you further marginalize minority groups and, in the process, miss an opportunity to diversify your workforce (which has many added benefits).  Great plan.



ModlrMike said:


> You fail to take into account those that can. Your use of the $56400 number is based on everyone in the non-working population being average. This is a flawed premise. High income earners will drag the average to the right, but they're likely not highly represented in those who chose not to work due to child care costs. Lower income earners are the ones hardest hit, and are going to form the lion's share of the population, thereby pulling the real average lower.


No. Even if people have the means, people paying more than half of their income won't go back to work.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2021)

I'll bet your severance, vacation pay, and pension contributions would get you a down payment after 10 years in...


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Apr 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I'll bet your severance, vacation pay, and pension contributions would get you a down payment after 10 years in...


So, we have to choose between a house and an eventual retirement?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2021)

Too good for you??  Wasn't too good for me at the time...

And the house is now worth more then my army pension would have been.


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Apr 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Too good for you??  Wasn't too good for me at the time...
> 
> And the house is now worth more then my army pension would have been.


My faith in the housing market is not the same as yours.  I like to diversify my assets and putting all my money into the housing market is more a gamble to me.  I lost money on every house because of shitty timing.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

even with my pension and contributions and BMO CAF/Vets mortgage, I would be hard pressed to make a significant enough down payment to have a affordable house.

I am lucky my investments are working out, otherwise I would be nowhere close.

And I am doing better than many in my generation. So please don't go running your mouth talking about nonsense like hot tubs. Like new parents are shopping for hot tubs. 

Christ.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2021)

> It cost more to send a kid to daycare than send them to university.



You're comparing the full cost of daycare to the subsidized cost of university?  Regardless, it should cost less for university - each student's share of "worker" (instructor) time is small, and university students require (I hope) much less direct adult supervision.



> Half their disposable income is going to daycare. A lot of people aren't going to do that.



Many people do exactly that, when their measures of the utility of working plus plus take-home exceeds whatever thresholds they've established for themselves.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (22 Apr 2021)

You are choosing to live in expensive to live areas. Where I live, you can afford a house on minimum wage. Might not be the nicest house in the best neighbourhood, but it is doable.

The government shouldn't be getting involved in child care, odds are the main people able taking advantage of it are people who weren't earning much to begin with and thereby aren't paying for the program. It isn't the governments responsibility to raise your kids, it is yours. That goes for all child benefits, and payments. We need serious cutbacks on government spending, departments slashed, funds saved, not making new and more inventive ways to spend money and continue our debt spiral. Give it a decade or two and we shall be like Greece. And then we shall be crying about how unfair it is all our gold standard benefits are having to be cut, rather than simple corrections made decades earlier to prevent it.


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Apr 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Many people do exactly that, when their measures of the utility of working plus plus take-home exceeds whatever thresholds they've established for themselves.


Many more people could do it if childcare wasn't so expensive.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> You are choosing to live in expensive to live areas. Where I live, you can afford a house on minimum wage. Might not be the nicest house in the best neighbourhood, but it is doable.


The entire housing market is overheated, it matters little where you live these days.


Eaglelord17 said:


> The government shouldn't be getting involved in child care, odds are the main people able taking advantage of it are people who weren't earning much to begin with and thereby aren't paying for the program. It isn't the governments responsibility to raise your kids, it is yours. That goes for all child benefits, and payments. We need serious cutbacks on government spending, departments slashed, funds saved, not making new and more inventive ways to spend money and continue our debt spiral. Give it a decade or two and we shall be like Greece. And then we shall be crying about how unfair it is all our gold standard benefits are having to be cut, rather than simple corrections made decades earlier to prevent it.


You are making assumptions that have no basis in fact.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2021)

> So you further marginalize minority groups and, in the process, miss an opportunity to diversify your workforce (which has many added benefits).  Great plan.



How is acknowledging the actual circumstances of the people not currently working because they can not afford childcare a marginalization, let alone a "plan"?  It is not a moral calculation or judgement, or assignment of social status.  If economic arguments are going to be advanced involving the calculation of whether there's a net benefit (cost of subsidies < increased taxation revenue), then the proponents must be realistic about the right side of the inequality.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2021)

> Many more people could do it if childcare wasn't so expensive.



Yes; many more people could do "X" if "X" wasn't so expensive.  So what?


----------



## blacktriangle (22 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> The entire housing market is overheated, it matters little where you live these days.


Where I grew up hasn't been affordable for the better part of 20 years, and yet many of us have moved away and manage to own homes in other locations.

So no, where you live does make a difference, even today. You're just now getting hit by a wave that hit more desirable places years ago. It sucks, I know. Now - what are you doing to change your situation?


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2021)

> You are making assumptions that have no basis in fact.



Which assumptions have no basis in fact?  Do you know, or even believe, that most governments that manage to set aside money to fund child care are distributing it to all parents equally rather than to those who can least afford child care?


----------



## QV (22 Apr 2021)

I’m just curious where in the Constitution Act of 1867 it lists babysitting as a federal responsibility In the division of powers. If the feds are going to hand out money, then the province should be able to decide where it‘s needed.  Quebec can spend it on child care and Alberta could spend it on say...a provincial police force.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

QV said:


> I’m just curious where in the Constitution Act of 1867 it lists babysitting as a federal responsibility In the division of powers. If the feds are going to hand out money, then the province should be able to decide where it‘s needed.  Quebec can spend it on child care and Alberta could spend it on say...a provincial police force.


I'm sure if alberta did they they would no longer be getting money from the feds.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Yes; many more people could do "X" if "X" wasn't so expensive.  So what?


Yes, lets not make life more affordable for Canadians, and have Canadians return to the  workforce, improving productivity, labour participation, average disposable income, and increase the tax base.

Silly plan.

Maybe lets let the electorate decide. I wonder how popular a plan this would be.


----------



## Weinie (22 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> despite those kids parents, especially mothers, returning to the work force, contributing around 13.6 billion more to the economy, thus having the program more or less pay for itself.
> 
> dirtbags indeed.


Let's not be too Keynesian here. It is specious to ascribe a result without actually seeing how it plays out.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Weinie said:


> Let's not be too Keynesian here. It is specious to ascribe a result without actually seeing how it plays out.


Take Quebec, apply it nationally.


----------



## Weinie (22 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> Take Quebec, apply it nationally.


I'm assuming you are only referring to child care.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> I'm sure if alberta did they they would no longer be getting money from the feds.


Money from the Feds?

You do realize Alberta is a net contributor, not recipient of equalization, right?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (22 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> The entire housing market is overheated, it matters little where you live these days.
> 
> You are making assumptions that have no basis in fact.


First off, just because the market is overheated that doesn't mean you buy in. Right now a smart person would be saving money in cash for when interest rates go up or the housing market crashes (both likely to happen soon, one will directly lead to the other). There will be deals soon enough might just take a year or two to materialize. Still plenty of houses out there which are affordable even with the current market situation. My one friend is looking at buying a 150k home on a large double lot at the moment. Long term it might subdivide the lot (50k of profit there) or build his dream house on the other lot and sell or rent the house that is currently there. Again its all about where you choose to live. I have lived in more expensive cities, I chose to move where I did. 

Secondly I am making reasonable guesses (which is all these can be) based off of realities on the ground. You are also working with assumptions, the largest of which is that they would be making 55k a year average. Odds are most stay at home parents aren't making 55k or more a year. Odds are they are going to be working more towards the minimum wage side of things. 





__





						Income of individuals by age group, sex and income source, Canada, provinces and selected census metropolitan areas
					

Income of individuals by age group, sex and income source, Canada, provinces and selected census metropolitan areas, annual.




					www150.statcan.gc.ca
				




In this chart which shows women from 2015-2019 in the age of 25-54 your median income for 2019 was 42,900$. So your 55k a year number is already way to high. Even at a average of 42,900 I suspect many will still be earning less than that as again this is based off your top earners and lowest earners in there as well, and I figure most staying at home would be in the lowest earner categories. Likely most would be making minimum wage to the low 20s if they were to rejoin the workforce. Not saying you won't find a few examples otherwise, but most cases that is how it ends up being divided.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Money from the Feds?
> 
> You do realize Alberta is a net contributor, not recipient of equalization, right?


Federal money for childcare will only go to childcare, take that to the bank.


Eaglelord17 said:


> First off, just because the market is overheated that doesn't mean you buy in. Right now a smart person would be saving money in cash for when interest rates go up or the housing market crashes (both likely to happen soon, one will directly lead to the other). There will be deals soon enough might just take a year or two to materialize. Still plenty of houses out there which are affordable even with the current market situation. My one friend is looking at buying a 150k home on a large double lot at the moment. Long term it might subdivide the lot (50k of profit there) or build his dream house on the other lot and sell or rent the house that is currently there. Again its all about where you choose to live. I have lived in more expensive cities, I chose to move where I did.
> 
> Secondly I am making reasonable guesses (which is all these can be) based off of realities on the ground. You are also working with assumptions, the largest of which is that they would be making 55k a year average. Odds are most stay at home parents aren't making 55k or more a year. Odds are they are going to be working more towards the minimum wage side of things.
> 
> ...


You do forget that women who needs to take time off for being the primary caregiver end up sacrificing their careers, thus earning less.

You see that played out in the link you shared. 

Quebec average female salary, 49500, men 63500.

Ontario average female salary, 49700, men 67500.

We all know Quebecers earn less than those in Ontario, but the gap between women in both provinces is marginal. One could attribute that to women not needing to set themselves back years sitting at home waiting until their kids are school aged. 

All things being equal, you can probably toss an extra 4k a year on the average womans annual salary going off of Quebec and Ontario here.


----------



## Weinie (22 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> *One* could attribute that to women not needing to set themselves back years sitting at home waiting until their kids are school aged.



No, you, not one, attribute this because it supports your argument. That does not make the case.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Weinie said:


> No, you, not one, attribute this because it supports your argument. That does not make the case.


Okay wise one, you explain it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2021)

> Yes, lets not make life more affordable for Canadians, and have Canadians return to the  workforce, improving productivity, labour participation, average disposable income, and increase the tax base.



Oh, if we're going to do that, I can think of a whole list of additional things: free car and free transit passes; free lunch money; free post-secondary education; free internship salaries; free housing (rent/purchase); free clothing/uniform/dress standard allowances; free child activity allowances...I'm not sure where it ends, only that there must be some kind of end.

Some people will have to be taxed more, and they won't only be "the rich", which militates against "life affordable for more Canadians" and "average disposable income".  Some Canadians would rather not be in the workforce, but the cost of taxes and living forces them to be there.  If working in childcare becomes more lucrative - as I expect it would - some people would choose to leave more economically productive but less socially enjoyable jobs, militating against improving productivity.  If many of the people who can't afford child care are in that situation because none of the jobs to which they could reasonably expect to be hired pay very much and thus don't meet thresholds to pay much income tax, that militates against increasing the tax base.  There are "unseens" to go along with the "seens". 

And, in advance to forestall the whinging by people who can never seem to see cause and effect, acknowledge that one effect of "life more affordable" is - always - upward pressure on residential real estate prices and rents (increased demand)...which makes life less affordable.

I see moral advantages in publicly-funded child care for low-income families, but it would be best to start there and assume it would be a net fiscal cost with net social benefits (which might ultimately translate to a net fiscal benefit which would be almost impossibly hard to tease out of the data, and absolutely impossible to prove in advance).



> Maybe lets let the electorate decide. I wonder how popular a plan this would be.



Depends on how the question is posed.  "Are you in favour of publicly-funded daycare?", or "Are you in favour of publicly-funded daycare, payed for by rate increases in the following tax brackets and/or a rate increase of the GST/HST to X%?"


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2021)

> You see that played out in the link you shared.
> Quebec average female salary, 49500, men 63500.
> Ontario average female salary, 49700, men 67500.



That means jack with respect to trying to figure out time-out penalties.  The first thing to look at when comparing men to women, which is usually bypassed because it doesn't fit political narratives, is what kinds of jobs people choose.  Mere choice overwhelms other factors.  Same applies to fields of education and other learning.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (22 Apr 2021)

When your lowest paid educational courses are female dominated and your highest paying educational courses are male dominated (not to mention the highest paid trades) your going to end up with women making less in general. Median is also a much better assessment of salary than Average as average has the millionaires and billionaires boosting up significantly more than Median. 42,900 is your number even though you are insistent on using the higher number to try and prove your point. 

Ignoring that again you are assuming these people staying at home would be making more as time progressed and their careers have been impacted. Many people do not break out of the minimum wage to low 20s area. That is just part of life. There is a rut which is very hard to get out of for many due to personal decisions, lack of opportunities, and the changing economy from less skilled labour to more skilled/qualification based.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Oh, if we're going to do that, I can think of a whole list of additional things: free car


Wouldn't go this far.


Brad Sallows said:


> and free transit passes;


Could be done


Brad Sallows said:


> free lunch money;


Means tested, but its already happening.


Brad Sallows said:


> free post-secondary education;


Could work.


Brad Sallows said:


> free internship salaries;


Maybe not


Brad Sallows said:


> free housing (rent/purchase);


Okay, no.


Brad Sallows said:


> free clothing/uniform/dress standard allowances;


No.


Brad Sallows said:


> free child activity allowances...


Already happening.


Brad Sallows said:


> I'm not sure where it ends, only that there must be some kind of end.


Yes.


Brad Sallows said:


> Some Canadians would rather not be in the workforce, but the cost of taxes and living forces them to be there.


So...most people?


Brad Sallows said:


> If working in childcare becomes more lucrative - as I expect it would - some people would choose to leave more economically productive but less socially enjoyable jobs,


There is always going to be a ceiling on this effect.


Brad Sallows said:


> militating against improving productivity.


Depends who is freed up to work.


Brad Sallows said:


> If many of the people who can't afford child care are in that situation because none of the jobs to which they could reasonably expect to be hired pay very much and thus don't meet thresholds to pay much income tax, that militates against increasing the tax base.  There are "unseens" to go along with the "seens".


Naturally, but for every example you choose, there is likely another where someone who is a productive member of society is on the sidelines for 2-3 years, and that's even if they can get back to the job they had before they had a child.


Brad Sallows said:


> And, in advance to forestall the whinging by people who can never seem to see cause and effect, acknowledge that one effect of "life more affordable" is - always - upward pressure on residential real estate prices and rents (increased demand)...which makes life less affordable.


This is a housing issue. Make more. Make more affordable ones too while they are at it.


Brad Sallows said:


> I see moral advantages in publicly-funded child care for low-income families, but it would be best to start there and assume it would be a net fiscal cost with net social benefits (which might ultimately translate to a net fiscal benefit which would be almost impossibly hard to tease out of the data, and absolutely impossible to prove in advance)


I agree with it being means tested,


Brad Sallows said:


> Depends on how the question is posed.  "Are you in favour of publicly-funded daycare?", or "Are you in favour of publicly-funded daycare, payed for by rate increases in the following tax brackets and/or a rate increase of the GST/HST to X%? More debt.


Fixed that for ya.

And considering the debt binge of the last few years, and the LPC still in the mid to high 30s in popular opinion, I think we can safely say not enough people give a damn.

But of all the pork barrel, nonsense, stupid subsidizes that Canada hands out to bombardier, or the energy sector, or defend contractors, of all the money shoveled out the door, investing directly in Canadians should be the last thing people should gripe about. Allowing people who want to work but cannot afford childcare seems like a easy win, and much easier to quantify than some corporate subsidizes we have on the books.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> When your lowest paid educational courses are female dominated and your highest paying educational courses are male dominated (not to mention the highest paid trades) your going to end up with women making less in general. Median is also a much better assessment of salary than Average as average has the millionaires and billionaires boosting up significantly more than Median. 42,900 is your number even though you are insistent on using the higher number to try and prove your point.
> 
> Ignoring that again you are assuming these people staying at home would be making more as time progressed and their careers have been impacted. Many people do not break out of the minimum wage to low 20s area. That is just part of life. There is a rut which is very hard to get out of for many due to personal decisions, lack of opportunities, and the changing economy from less skilled labour to more skilled/qualification based.


Yes, however this happens in both provinces, so all things being equal?

I checked the median income, female ON 41,900, QC, 44,500....

Thank you, that works even better.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2021)

And the discussion is back where it starts: "I like this one thing that will deliver benefits I carefully enumerate, so we should do it."

A difficult truth is that most choices in life are lifestyle choices; some make life harder and people look to others to bear some of the burdens.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> And the discussion is back where it starts: "I like this one thing that will deliver benefits I carefully enumerate, so we should do it."
> 
> A difficult truth is that most choices in life are lifestyle choices; some make life harder and people look to others to bear some of the burdens.


I don't have a kid that young.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2021)

I do not assume that people who advocate public spending necessarily benefit personally from it.


----------



## Weinie (22 Apr 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> I do not *assume that people who advocate public spending necessarily benefit personally from it.*


Yup....hence the NDP.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Weinie said:


> Yup....hence the NDP.


The NDP have mastered the political sphere. 

They go left, Liberals chase them, they go lefter.

Meanwhile the Conservatives slowly drift left following the liberals.

If only the Conservatives had their own version of the NDP and didn't eat them instead.


----------



## Weinie (22 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> The NDP have mastered the political sphere.


And yet, for all their mastery, have never attained power...................hmmmm.


----------



## Lumber (22 Apr 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> You are choosing to live in expensive to live areas. Where I live, you can afford a house on minimum wage.


Please tell me where the hell in Ottawa you i can live that won't be "expensive" when the CAF forces me to move there?


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> Please tell me where the hell in Ottawa you i can live that won't be "expensive" when the CAF forces me to move there?


----------



## dapaterson (22 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> Please tell me where the hell in Ottawa you i can live that won't be "expensive" when the CAF forces me to move there?



If you're a Capt or  Lt(N) your pay (before any allowances) at base IPC puts you in the top 25% of Canadian households for income.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Heck, if there was anything I was pissed about in the budget it was the zero help for first time homebuyers. 

Waiting for campaign season.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> Heck, if there was anything I was pissed about in the budget it was the zero help for first time homebuyers.
> 
> Waiting for campaign season.


The opposite is happening, including consideration of the banks to increase the mortgage qualifying ‘stress test’ by increasing the % used in the qualifying formula. The Feds are already concerned about trying to cool down the housing market...not heat it up even more.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (22 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> Please tell me where the hell in Ottawa you i can live that won't be "expensive" when the CAF forces me to move there?


Who says you have to be in the CAF or Ottawa? You choose to make that decision, and like every decision there is pros and cons.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Apr 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> You do realize Alberta is a net contributor, not recipient of equalization, right?



No, it isn't.

How many times do I have to re-explain this? Equalization is paid from the general funds of the federal government. This is money coming from all revenue sources, but mostly income tax and GST, paid by all Canadians. It means that a Quebecer making $100,000 a year makes the exact same contribution towards Equalization payment transferred by the Federal government to Nova Scotia as an Albertan making $100,000 per year, and that a Manitoban making $25,000 makes the same contribution to Equalization payment transferred to Quebec as a Newfoundlander making $25,000.

Basically, it means that every single Canadian, regardless of where they live, makes the exact same contribution as a percentage of what they pay in taxes to the Federal government as the percentage that Equalization aggregate payment in the Federal expense budget is to the general revenues of the Federal government.

Oh! And before you ask: No! If there were no Equalization payments, no Canadian would see a single penny more in his/her/its pocket. The Government would just find something else to open d your money on.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> No, it isn't.
> 
> How many times do I have to re-explain this? Equalization is paid from the general funds of the federal government. This is money coming from all revenue sources, but mostly income tax and GST, paid by all Canadians. It means that a Quebecer making $100,000 a year makes the exact same contribution towards Equalization payment transferred by the Federal government to Nova Scotia as an Albertan making $100,000 per year, and that a Manitoban making $25,000 makes the same contribution to Equalization payment transferred to Quebec as a Newfoundlander making $25,000.
> 
> ...


No.

I said ‘net’, so when you look at the Federal equalization funds returned to the provinces from General Revenues, Alberta receives NO EQUALIZATION  payments in return from the Federal Government given contributions by tax-paying Albertans.

Feel free to directly refer to the Federal Government’s own information on the Equalization Program:

Canada’s Equalization Formula In Brief

...and specifically I will refer to Part 2 of the reference, noting that there are ONLY SIX provinces that receive equalization (see below in *yellow*) and Alberta is NOT one of them, so....as I said earlier, ALBERTA IS A NET CONTRIBUTOR.


> 2 Distribution of Payments, 2013-2014​The total amount of Equalization payments in 2013–2014 is $16.1 billion, an increase of 24.6% from 2007–2008.1 At present, six provinces are eligible for the transfer: *Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba*. Quebec is the largest recipient of an Equalization payment, accounting for 48.6% of the total amount of Equalization payments in 2013–2014. While Quebec’s large share of Equalization payments is mostly due to its greater population relative to other Equalization-receiving provinces, the province’s proportion of the total amount has risen considerably since amendments were made to the Equalization formula in 2007, in large part because of changes to the formula’s measurement of property tax revenues.
> 
> At $2,326 per capita in 2013–2014, Prince Edward Island has the highest per capita Equalization payment; per capita payments are lowest in Ontario, at $230.2


 
Don’t take my point above as a personal jab at Quebec.  It is not.  I have been a Quebec resident and I am fully conversant with the relationship between my wallet and my « Relève 1 »  

However, that doesn’t make my take on equalization incorrect.

If anything, the information clearly points out that proportionately, PEI leads the field in per capita equalization and the Maritime provinces following closely behind.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> The opposite is happening, including consideration of the banks to increase the mortgage qualifying ‘stress test’ by increasing the % used in the qualifying formula. The Feds are already concerned about trying to cool down the housing market...not heat it up even more.


Oh, I know. 

There is a reason I'm waiting till I have 200k saved up.


----------



## Lumber (22 Apr 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Who says you have to be in the CAF or Ottawa? You choose to make that decision, and like every decision there is pros and cons.


So, because it's my decision to stay in the CAF, with all the pros this job entails, I am not allowed to complain about any of the cons, such as the housing prices of where I get moved to? Or the money I could lose on a house sale when forced to move at a bad time? 

Each and every one of us is where wear because of the sum of every decision we've ever made, each with it's own pros and cons. So by your logic, I can't can't complain about anything at all, because they are the results of my choices? Don't like the liberals? Well, you're choosing to stay in Canada, so suck it up. Don't like the new boots being issued to the forces? Well, you're choosing to stay in the forces. Don't like the traffic on the way to work due to new construction on a major throughfare? Well, you chose to live in this city, and to have that job, and to live where you need to commute, so, suck it up.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> So, because it's my decision to stay in the CAF, with all the pros this job entails, I am not allowed to complain about any of the cons, such as the housing prices of where I get moved to? Or the money I could lose on a house sale when forced to move at a bad time?
> 
> Each and every one of us is where wear because of the sum of every decision we've ever made, each with it's own pros and cons. So by your logic, I can't can't complain about anything at all, because they are the results of my choices? Don't like the liberals? Well, you're choosing to stay in Canada, so suck it up. Don't like the new boots being issued to the forces? Well, you're choosing to stay in the forces. Don't like the traffic on the way to work due to new construction on a major throughfare? Well, you chose to live in this city, and to have that job, and to live where you need to commute, so, suck it up.


You do get dental.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2021)

You have every right to whine as he has every right to tell you to suck it up.........


----------



## Eaglelord17 (22 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> So, because it's my decision to stay in the CAF, with all the pros this job entails, I am not allowed to complain about any of the cons, such as the housing prices of where I get moved to? Or the money I could lose on a house sale when forced to move at a bad time?
> 
> Each and every one of us is where wear because of the sum of every decision we've ever made, each with it's own pros and cons. So by your logic, I can't can't complain about anything at all, because they are the results of my choices? Don't like the liberals? Well, you're choosing to stay in Canada, so suck it up. Don't like the new boots being issued to the forces? Well, you're choosing to stay in the forces. Don't like the traffic on the way to work due to new construction on a major throughfare? Well, you chose to live in this city, and to have that job, and to live where you need to commute, so, suck it up.


If you want a cheaper house just go and move to a cheaper area. You chose a job which prevents you from doing so. The CAF does a lot to protect you when you lose money selling a house, but I would also argue its not the best idea to purchase a house knowing your leaving the area in a few years.

I get sick of everyone complaining constantly about housing prices yet refusing to do anything about it. I have friends who live in places like Toronto, barely scraping by, yet refusing to do anything to change that. I am a first generation Canadian. My family left the UK because of the prices and how low your standard of living was. Now we are comfortably in the upper middle class from being some of the historically poorest of the poor. If my family hadn't taken steps to improve our lot and kept complaining about how unfair it is, we would still be very poor and with a lot less wealth.


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Apr 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> If you want a cheaper house just go and move to a cheaper area. You chose a job which prevents you from doing so. The CAF does a lot to protect you when you lose money selling a house, but I would also argue its not the best idea to purchase a house knowing your leaving the area in a few years.
> 
> I get sick of everyone complaining constantly about housing prices yet refusing to do anything about it. I have friends who live in places like Toronto, barely scraping by, yet refusing to do anything to change that. I am a first generation Canadian. My family left the UK because of the prices and how low your standard of living was. Now we are comfortably in the upper middle class from being some of the historically poorest of the poor. If my family hadn't taken steps to improve our lot and kept complaining about how unfair it is, we would still be very poor and with a lot less wealth.


So, at me current posting, there was no PMQs available when I showed up and no rental below 2500 a month.  I ended up buying and I am losing 48K.  I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place TBH.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Apr 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> So, at me current posting, there was no PMQs available when I showed up and no rental below 2500 a month.  I ended up buying and I am losing 48K.  I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place TBH.


Hurry up and buy in your mew location...it’s still going up, and quickly!


----------



## Navy_Pete (22 Apr 2021)

dapaterson said:


> If you're a Capt or  Lt(N) your pay (before any allowances) at base IPC puts you in the top 25% of Canadian households for income.


Average house sale price in Ottawa this month is *$799,940. *

Even if you put down 20% (~$125k) you still can't afford that on a two ringer salary. Even as a two and half that's out of reach. Forget it if you are a lower rank, .

And sure, no one says you have to be able to buy a house, but rents are also being driven up. I wouldn't want to be posted here right now; the market is insane across the board, plus the vaccine roll out is a bit of a mess, and a lot of places are planning on continuing to work from home at least part time. Might be a good year to try and attach people to organizations while keeping them geographically separate.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Apr 2021)

I'm lucky enough to be able to put 40% down on a house that expensive, and if I straight port my mortgage it goes from $1500 a month to over $2300. Which is fine, if I'm keeping LDA, but it's gone when I get there. I will never move my family to Ottawa to lose ~$800 a month and add 33% to my mortgage payment plus pay $150 a month for scramble parking or be forced to extend my mortgage out 10 years beyond my retirement date. I have absolutely no idea how a young Corporal Signaler or HRA/FSA that's posted to Ottawa with a family can afford to start homeownership without being forced to live in a postage stamp in a seedy neighbourhood.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Average house sale price in Ottawa this month is *$799,940. *
> 
> Even if you put down 20% (~$125k) you still can't afford that on a two ringer salary. Even as a two and half that's out of reach. Forget it if you are a lower rank, .
> 
> And sure, no one says you have to be able to buy a house, but rents are also being driven up. I wouldn't want to be posted here right now; the market is insane across the board, plus the vaccine roll out is a bit of a mess, and a lot of places are planning on continuing to work from home at least part time. Might be a good year to try and attach people to organizations while keeping them geographically separate.


Yeah, as an NCM,my salary alone would not have gotten me close.

So I've been investing and making sure I had other revenue streams and I was close, so close to having 30 percent down.

Now everyone is bidding 200k over asking and my 30 percent is looking more like 20.

Just brutal, and I know the government won't let the housing market crash, too many people have their savings and retirements tied into them, it's too big to fail now. So they will allow it to overheat and bail out homeowners if a crash occurs, meanwhile those on the outside looking in are screwed one way or another.


----------



## Altair (22 Apr 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> I'm lucky enough to be able to put 40% down on a house that expensive, and if I straight port my mortgage it goes from $1500 a month to over $2300. Which is fine, if I'm keeping LDA, but it's gone when I get there. I will never move my family to Ottawa to lose ~$800 a month and add 33% to my mortgage payment plus pay $150 a month for scramble parking or be forced to extend my mortgage out 10 years beyond my retirement date. I have absolutely no idea how a young Corporal Signaler or HRA/FSA that's posted to Ottawa with a family can afford to start homeownership without being forced to live in a postage stamp in a seedy neighbourhood.


It isn't going to happen, not on corporal salary alone.

And for all of those who say I don't give the LPC flak, you should see their current first time home buyers plan.

You can't put more than  20 percent down but your mortgage can't be more than 4 times your annual salary.

For those under sgt, that means a house cannot cost more than 300k.

Hahaha, good luck with that.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (22 Apr 2021)

My son is a first time buyer here in Ottawa.  He lost multiple bids on townhouses in Orleans listed at 400K and going for over 500k.  He finally succeeded with a condo townhouse that was listed at 400K and he got it at 530K.  

That is insane.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Apr 2021)

PPCLI Guy said:


> My son is a first time buyer here in Ottawa.  He lost multiple bids on townhouses in Orleans listed at 400K and going for over 500k.  He finally succeeded with a condo townhouse that was listed at 400K and he got it at 530K.
> 
> That is insane.


Which, for the last 2 weeks I've been discussing  at work.   Realtors should not be allowed to say "for sale", because it's not,  it's for auction.  Big difference.
When Walmart has a sale at 29.99 the first person to fork over 29.99 gets the item.   Should be same with houses, first person with asking, and just a home inspection as a condition, gets the house.
No more lowballing the list price knowing 3/4's of the visitors haven't got a shot but think they do.

I'm going to split this tangent off in the morning when I'm not half asleep so post away....


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Apr 2021)

So the forces got out of the cheap employee housing business but kept its presence in some places where real estate was bound to experience greater demand, and doesn't have the flexibility to relocate as easily as a business might.  I suppose no one saw this coming.

More people means more demand, particularly in highly desirable areas.  Most of those areas are fixed in size.  The shift from single- to two-income families put more money into the bidding pot.  The fall in the relative cost of other things put more money into the bidding pot.  The spread of income levels from top to bottom has increased, yielding advantages to some.  Policies designed to preserve neighbourhoods militate against new construction.  Complex architecture is more expensive to build than simple architecture.

Policies likely to succeed are those which push up supply, not demand.


----------



## FJAG (23 Apr 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Which, for the last 2 weeks I've been discussing  at work.   Realtors should not be allowed to say "for sale", because it's not,  it's for auction.  Big difference.
> When Walmart has a sale at 29.99 the first person to fork over 29.99 gets the item.   Should be same with houses, first person with asking, and just a home inspection as a condition, gets the house.
> No more lowballing the list price knowing 3/4's of the visitors haven't got a shot but think they do.
> 
> I'm going to split this tangent off in the morning when I'm not half asleep so post away....


There's a contractual difference between Walmart making an offer to sell a widget at 29.99 which the customer accepts to close the deal and a home owner making a listing which entertains the submission of offers to purchase which the seller can accept or reject as he wishes. That's why the real estate industry's paperwork that the buyer puts forward is called an "Offer to Purchase"

🍻


----------



## Lumber (23 Apr 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> I have absolutely no idea how a young Corporal Signaler or HRA/FSA that's posted to Ottawa with a family can afford to start homeownership without being forced to live in a postage stamp in a seedy neighbourhood.


They aren't being forced to live in a postage stamp in a seedy area. It's their choice to be in and stay in the forces. If they don't want what's available, they can release and go live some place that isn't expensive.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Apr 2021)

FJAG said:


> There's a contractual difference between Walmart making an offer to sell a widget at 29.99 which the customer accepts to close the deal and a home owner making a listing which entertains the submission of offers to purchase which the seller can accept or reject as he wishes. That's why the real estate industry's paperwork that the buyer puts forward is called an "Offer to Purchase"
> 
> 🍻


I'm sure they have it all covered, I just think it's time to rope it in a little.  Like they did with the car industry a while back with "all in pricing".


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> They aren't being forced to live in a postage stamp in a seedy area. It's their choice to be in and stay in the forces. If they don't want what's available, they can release and go live some place that isn't expensive.


Treat you workforce like shit and they’ll leave.


----------



## dimsum (23 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> They aren't being forced to live in a postage stamp in a seedy area. It's their choice to be in and stay in the forces. If they don't want what's available, they can release and go live some place that isn't expensive.


While that is true, it's not like said Cpl can just give 2 weeks notice and go.  Assuming they don't have 25+ years in, it's 6 months of living in a place that they can't afford, etc.  "If you don't like it, leave" doesn't really work when the mbr can't just leave.

Also, if this is the mindset the CAF will be going with, then we shouldn't be surprised when our retention levels plummet (even more).


----------



## MilEME09 (23 Apr 2021)

If the CAF wants us to work in a certain location it better be prepared to make sure the member can actually live in said location. Cost of loving is much different in Ottawa vs Edmonton. The CAF must recognize this and make adjustments so the quality of life is equal for all members.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Apr 2021)

A bit of context for CAF Reg F pay rates, excluding allowances like SDA, LDA and PLD.

VAdm / LGen - Top 1% of household income.

Cmdre / BGen - Top 5% of household income.

CDR / LCol - Top 10% of household income.

Lt(N) / Capt & PO1 / WO (non spec) - Top 25% of household income.

LS / Cpl (non spec) - Top 50% of household income.

Somehow, Canadians outside the CAF are able to live on those incomes...


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Apr 2021)

dapaterson said:


> A bit of context for CAF Reg F pay rates, excluding allowances like SDA, LDA and PLD.
> 
> VAdm / LGen - Top 1% of household income.
> 
> ...



Not debating your stats, but how do you get those ?


----------



## dapaterson (23 Apr 2021)

Amounts taken from Household Income Percentile Calculator for Canada Including 17 Household Income Statistics for 2021 | The Kickass Entrepreneur

Then mapped basic pay rates (x12) against those thresholds.


----------



## lenaitch (23 Apr 2021)

Honest questions.  Does the CAF has some kind of allowance for postings to locations classified as 'high cost'?  Are RHU rates set as a reflection of the local rental housing market?  If 'yes' to the allowance and if RHU rates are below local rates, does the CRA consider them as taxable benefits?


----------



## dapaterson (23 Apr 2021)

RHUs are supposed to be market rate.

Post Living Differential (PLD) is supposed to compensate for high cost of living, but has had rates frozen for a long time and needs an overhaul.  It is a taxable benefit, but not pensionable.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Apr 2021)

Rates frozen, and rates baselined at Ottawa which is turning into major metropolitan center. The median household income in Ottawa is also around $83k, 25% above that Cpls salary.


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Apr 2021)

dapaterson said:


> A bit of context for CAF Reg F pay rates, excluding allowances like SDA, LDA and PLD.
> 
> VAdm / LGen - Top 1% of household income.
> 
> ...


Sure but a civilian doesn’t have to move and often doesn’t move as often as CAF members. If I was a civilian, I wouldn’t move to Ottawa this year simply because I can’t afford it.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Apr 2021)

dimsum said:


> While that is true, it's not like said Cpl can just give 2 weeks notice and go.  Assuming they don't have 25+ years in, it's 6 months of living in a place that they can't afford, etc.  "If you don't like it, leave" doesn't really work when the mbr can't just leave.
> 
> Also, if this is the mindset the CAF will be going with, then we shouldn't be surprised when our retention levels *of the best people* plummet (even more).



There, FTFY


----------



## Remius (23 Apr 2021)

Ottawa is a crazy market.  I would not be able to afford my home right now if I had to get into this market.  I could probably list it for a million.  And my house is just over 2 years old.  Bought at about 600k for 2700 sq ft 4 bedroom three bath.   New townhomes in the next phase over are going for over 700K.

While I agree with the “you choose where you live” and what you do, there are still limits to outside factors that are out of people’s control.    This market situation is one of them.  2 years ago I could afford my house now if I had to buy it I couldn’t.  That has nothing to do with where I chose to live or what I do.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Apr 2021)

Market heat moves around. Years ago, Cold Lake was effectively unaffordable because of the spillover of Fort MacMurry’s hot real estate market.


----------



## Loachman (23 Apr 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Cost of *loving* is much different in Ottawa vs Edmonton.


Is there an allowance to help with that?


----------



## Lumber (23 Apr 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> If the CAF wants us to work in a certain location it better be prepared to make sure the member can actually live in said location. Cost of loving is much different in Ottawa vs Edmonton. The CAF must recognize this and make adjustments so the quality of life is equal for all members.


No, it's your choice to stay in the forces or not. If you can't afford a house where the CAF plans on moving you, you have the option to release and move some place less expensive.


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> No, it's your choice to stay in the forces or not. If you can't afford a house where the CAF plans on moving you, you have the option to release and move some place less expensive.


Sounds like you're ready to be posted to CMP.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Apr 2021)

> If you can't afford a house where the CAF plans on moving you, you have the option to release and move some place less expensive.



If the CAF plans to move people without regard for costs of living, it has the option to abide by the retention problem.


----------



## Remius (23 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> No, it's your choice to stay in the forces or not. If you can't afford a house where the CAF plans on moving you, you have the option to release and move some place less expensive.


We should put that in our recruiting material.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> No, it's your choice to stay in the forces or not. If you can't afford a house where the CAF plans on moving you, you have the option to release and move some place less expensive.


Says someone who can quite reasonably stay in PLD-supported Esquimalt or cost-reasonable Halifax for their career should they so choose.


----------



## dimsum (23 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> No, it's your choice to stay in the forces or not. If you can't afford a house where the CAF plans on moving you, you have the option to release and move some place less expensive.


And as I mentioned upthread, that doesn't necessarily work unless you already have 25+ years in and can leave with 30 days.  Otherwise it's 6 months. 

So presumably, there could be a situation where you release, but they still post you there for 6 months (or the remaining time).


----------



## MilEME09 (23 Apr 2021)

dimsum said:


> And as I mentioned upthread, that doesn't necessarily work unless you already have 25+ years in and can leave with 30 days.  Otherwise it's 6 months.
> 
> So presumably, there could be a situation where you release, but they still post you there for 6 months (or the remaining time).


Should also be noted we are discussing cost of living, not just housing. If you have young kids for example child care is cheaper on Quebec then it is in Edmonton. Fuel costs, groceries, all these and more are different all around the country.

Yes if you don't like it get out, saying that is all fine and dandy, but how many are we loosing because they can't support them selves in a given area? And are we looking into the why factor? Is it just the persons financial literacy? Or is it a local economic issue? We really need to be doing anonymous exit surveys of those leaving and get to the bottom of our retention issues.

If it is factors the CAF can control, or assis we need to fix it.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Apr 2021)

For starters, PLD should be dealt with responsively, not in a Decade-by-Decade basis...


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Apr 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> For starters, PLD should be dealt with responsively, not in a Decade-by-Decade basis...


And the baseline should not be Ottawa.  It should be the cheapest area we can be posted to.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Apr 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> So?  How does that discredit a childcare program?





Good2Golf said:


> For starters, PLD should be dealt with responsively, not in a Decade-by-Decade basis...


Or, maybe we need a different model than PLD.

As I understand it, the Australians have the Defence Housing Authority. Homeowners in Australia lease their houses to DHA, who then sub-lease them to service families. Why could that not work in Canada? People in the military could buy a house in place they like, but when they get posted, instead of selling it, they get an incentive to lease it to CFHA who then leases it to other CAF families.

They are still building equity, have low risk of managing a rental property and have a house at the end of their career. CFHA is not stuck managing a larger capital portfolio of PMQs (definitely keep PMQs- just add this ontop).


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Or, maybe we need a different model than PLD.
> 
> As I understand it, the Australians have the Defence Housing Authority. Homeowners in Australia lease their houses to DHA, who then sub-lease them to service families. Why could that not work in Canada? People in the military could buy a house in place they like, but when they get posted, instead of selling it, they get an incentive to lease it to CFHA who then leases it to other CAF families.
> 
> They are still building equity, have low risk of managing a rental property and have a house at the end of their career. CFHA is not stuck managing a larger capital portfolio of PMQs (definitely keep PMQs- just add this ontop).



Or we change the force structure so that 90% of CAF members are between 18-23 years of age, who live in barracks for the duration of their service, and then boot them out, while retaining a core of more experienced personnel to run things who become eligible for higher quality accommodation etc.

Kind of like a conscript military, but without the conscription.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Apr 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Or we change the force structure so that 90% of CAF members are between 18-23 years of age, who live in barracks for the duration of their service, and then boot them out, while retaining a core of more experienced personnel to run things who become eligible for higher quality accommodation etc.
> 
> Kind of like a conscript military, but without the conscription.


There is that, too. We keep too many people, too long.

A young force, where 6 years service is the norm, with very attractive educational/reserve force transfer benefits at the end might also be the ticket.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Apr 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> And the baseline should not be Ottawa.  It should be the cheapest area we can be posted to.



In that case, pay should be rebaselined to that location, which would be a net reduction.


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Apr 2021)

dapaterson said:


> In that case, pay should be rebaselined to that location, which would be a net reduction.


So, you are saying that pay is baselined to Ottawa?  Do you have a reference?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (23 Apr 2021)

I saw a great chart the other day which showed the housing market in Canada vs 6 other western nations and how much it went up from 2000 to 2020. Unfortunately I couldn't find it but Canada was up 175% from 2000 in housing costs (the highest) well Germany was down 15% since 2000. Its a hot market, and the government needs to just let it fail otherwise people won't learn. 

I had a buddy which had a house out in Fort Mac which was 750k out there in the oil boom. Boom went bust and all of a sudden that house was now worth 200k. Had to go into bankruptcy and now is doing fine but lost everything for a time. This is where we are at the moment with housing in the country. Once interest rates go up (they will) people won't be able to pay and will have to default as they overreached. Then the prices will go down significantly. That's when you buy in. This everything must come now mentality is fairly childish. Canadians choose to pay more for housing because we are willing to. Americans when you factor in all the differences in standard of living and pay, spend 44% less on housing than we do. 

We have been lucky for the last 20 years to have low interest rates, but those days are coming to a end sooner than later because we have abused them.


----------



## Lumber (23 Apr 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Sounds like you're ready to be posted to CMP.





Brad Sallows said:


> If the CAF plans to move people without regard for costs of living, it has the option to abide by the retention problem.





Remius said:


> We should put that in our recruiting material.





Good2Golf said:


> Says someone who can quite reasonably stay in PLD-supported Esquimalt or cost-reasonable Halifax for their career should they so choose.


 I'm sad none of you saw through my sarcasm. I don't believe a single word I said in my last two posts. 

Eaglelord17 expressed these opinion (that it's our choice to remain in a tough situation) and I argued against it, but no one agreed with me or came to my defence.


----------



## Altair (23 Apr 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> I saw a great chart the other day which showed the housing market in Canada vs 6 other western nations and how much it went up from 2000 to 2020. Unfortunately I couldn't find it but Canada was up 175% from 2000 in housing costs (the highest) well Germany was down 15% since 2000. Its a hot market, and the government needs to just let it fail otherwise people won't learn.
> 
> I had a buddy which had a house out in Fort Mac which was 750k out there in the oil boom. Boom went bust and all of a sudden that house was now worth 200k. Had to go into bankruptcy and now is doing fine but lost everything for a time. This is where we are at the moment with housing in the country. Once interest rates go up (they will) people won't be able to pay and will have to default as they overreached. Then the prices will go down significantly. That's when you buy in. This everything must come now mentality is fairly childish. Canadians choose to pay more for housing because we are willing to. Americans when you factor in all the differences in standard of living and pay, spend 44% less on housing than we do.
> 
> We have been lucky for the last 20 years to have low interest rates, but those days are coming to a end sooner than later because we have abused them.


Like the Feds wouldn't bail out homeowners. 

The amount of retirements and investments tied into housing equity would make the 2008 crisis look like a cake walk.


----------



## lenaitch (23 Apr 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> I saw a great chart the other day which showed the housing market in Canada vs 6 other western nations and how much it went up from 2000 to 2020. Unfortunately I couldn't find it but Canada was up 175% from 2000 in housing costs (the highest) well Germany was down 15% since 2000. Its a hot market, and the government needs to just let it fail otherwise people won't learn.
> 
> I had a buddy which had a house out in Fort Mac which was 750k out there in the oil boom. Boom went bust and all of a sudden that house was now worth 200k. Had to go into bankruptcy and now is doing fine but lost everything for a time. This is where we are at the moment with housing in the country. Once interest rates go up (they will) people won't be able to pay and will have to default as they overreached. Then the prices will go down significantly. That's when you buy in. This everything must come now mentality is fairly childish. Canadians choose to pay more for housing because we are willing to. Americans when you factor in all the differences in standard of living and pay, spend 44% less on housing than we do.
> 
> We have been lucky for the last 20 years to have low interest rates, but those days are coming to a end sooner than later because we have abused them.



That's not uncommon in isolate resource economy-based communities. I suppose in Fort Mac they thought the boom (one of a few) would last longer.  Northern Ontario towns built around a mine or a mill are the same.  With wood mills it can be driven more by economic forces, but for a mine,  the day it opens, the shut-down clock starts so long as the commodity prices hold.  I bought my first house in 1980 in a town whose mine had been running since the '30s.   I considered myself lucky when I got a 10% mortgage.  I sold it three years later for about $500 more because the town's economic was pretty stable.  About 10 years later the mine closed and you couldn't give houses away.  The town is about half the size it used to be.  Friends still living in town have thought about moving now that they are retired but with the low value of their house, even debt-free, they'd be essentially starting all over.


----------



## dimsum (23 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> I'm sad none of you saw through my sarcasm. I don't believe a single word I said in my last two posts.
> 
> Eaglelord17 expressed these opinion (that it's our choice to remain in a tough situation) and I argued against it, but no one agreed with me or came to my defence.


Ok, mea culpa.  It's sad that we're at this point in social media (in general) where sarcasm isn't immediately obvious.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Apr 2021)

> Like the Feds wouldn't bail out homeowners.



I doubt they would.  A large-scale crisis is simply beyond affordability, and a small one would set expectations.


----------



## Loachman (23 Apr 2021)

dimsum said:


> Ok, mea culpa.  It's sad that we're at this point in social media (in general) where sarcasm isn't immediately obvious.


The best sarcasm is the least obvious sarcasm.


----------



## Altair (23 Apr 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> I doubt they would.  A large-scale crisis is simply beyond affordability, and a small one would set expectations.


The gov did just spend 300+ Billion on this one crisis.

I think we may need to adjust expectations on what is beyond affordability.


----------



## MilEME09 (23 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> The gov did just spend 300+ Billion on this one crisis.
> 
> I think we may need to adjust expectations on what is beyond affordability.


Everything? Cause we are beyond broke right now. I can't get a debt consolidation loan from the bank that I owe the debt to because it would increase my debt ratio to 48%, but the government can rack up 1.5 trillion of our GDP no problem. Doesn't seem right to me,  I have to live within my means so why shouldn't our government?


----------



## Altair (23 Apr 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Everything? Cause we are beyond broke right now. I can't get a debt consolidation loan from the bank that I owe the debt to because it would increase my debt ratio to 48%, but the government can rack up 1.5 trillion of our GDP no problem. Doesn't seem right to me,  I have to live within my means so why shouldn't our government?


Because nobody else in the G7 is?

Germany (85), USA (108), the UK (111.5),France (118), Italy (160), Japan, (240).


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> Because nobody else in the G7 is?
> 
> Germany (85), USA (108), the UK (111.5),France (118), Italy (160), Japan, (240).


The “all your friends jumped off a bridge, so you should, too” analogy?

Mark my words: very, very bad things are going to happen with all of this money supply creation out of thin air.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> Because nobody else in the G7 is?
> 
> Germany (85), USA (108), the UK (111.5),France (118), Italy (160), Japan, (240).


And, just another thread ago, you went out of your way to say that, in no way we should we compare ourselves to the UK and USA in vaccine delivery, because we are a mere middle power. Presumably Canada not being the world’s defacto reserve currency (the USD) or the banking power of London means we cannot write ourselves the same cheques.

So which is it: do we run with the G7 big kids, or not?


----------



## Altair (23 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> The “all your friends jumped off a bridge, so you should, too” analogy?
> 
> Mark my words: very, very bad things are going to happen with all of this money supply creation out of thin air.


In Canada or globally?


----------



## Altair (23 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> And, just another thread ago, you went out of your way to say that, in no way we should we compare ourselves to the UK and USA in vaccine delivery, because we are a mere middle power. Presumably Canada not being the world’s defacto reserve currency (the USD) or the banking power of London means we cannot write ourselves the same cheques.


Good point on the USD. Even the pound. But then you have currency like the Yen, and that starts to fall apart.


SeaKingTacco said:


> So which is it: do we run with the G7 big kids, or not?


In fiscal policy? Yeah, I would imagine we would. Unlike vaccines, we have the ability to print money out of thin air just like the big kids.

As for whether this will disproportionately effect Canada, I remain unconvinced. Most countries are running punishing deficits, Canada being no different.


----------



## Weinie (23 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> As for whether this will disproportionately effect Canada, I remain unconvinced. *Most countries are running punishing deficits,* Canada being no different.


But the question remains, should we?

Canadians boosted savings during COVID, and now they’re ready to spend

There seems to be some significant liquidity out there, that the current government appears to have disregarded.

Why would we print money out of thin air, when Canadians seem to be rolling in it, and will spend?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> Good point on the USD. Even the pound. But then you have currency like the Yen, and that starts to fall apart.
> 
> In fiscal policy? Yeah, I would imagine we would. Unlike vaccines, we have the ability to print money out of thin air just like the big kids.
> 
> As for whether this will disproportionately effect Canada, I remain unconvinced. Most countries are running punishing deficits, Canada being no different.


This Liberal Government seems to want to have European style social safety netting, but with US levels of taxation. That is not going to work for very long. Eventually, either inflation will become a problem or servicing the debt will be a problem. Especially since Canada is a particular laggard at productivity improvements.

there is a third way out of it and that is to massively increase immigration to pay for this. Young immigrants tend to be very hardworking and productive.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> Good point on the USD. Even the pound. But then you have currency like the Yen, and that starts to fall apart.
> 
> In fiscal policy? Yeah, I would imagine we would. Unlike vaccines, we have the ability to print money out of thin air just like the big kids.
> 
> As for whether this will disproportionately effect Canada, I remain unconvinced. Most countries are running punishing deficits, Canada being no different.


The Yen seems to be a special case, made possible by Japan’s remarkable productivity.


----------



## Altair (23 Apr 2021)

Weinie said:


> But the question remains, should we?


Its a decent question. But ask those out of work if they need supports and I'm sure they say yes.


Weinie said:


> Canadians boosted savings during COVID, and now they’re ready to spend
> 
> There seems to be some significant liquidity out there, that the current government appears to have disregarded.
> 
> Why would we print money out of thin air, when Canadians seem to be rolling in it, and will spend?


Its a weird economy. 

I hear daily that small businesses and large business cannot afford to keep running, that small business owners have used up all their savings, meanwhile the laid off workers are banking those unemployment checks. 

I suppose the notion that you can never use too much water putting out a fire is the working theory right now. The best news we can have is that once the economy is open again, all those savings get poured into the economy, leading to a period of higher than normal growth that is sustainable for a few years and leads to the debt to GDP shrinking simply due to the GDP growing at a faster pace than the debt.


----------



## Altair (23 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> The Yen seems to be a special case, made possible by Japan’s remarkable productivity.


Still, one would think that the Yen, not being a special currency by any stretch, and crippling 240% debt to GDP would have lead to some sort of economic crisis in Japan. But Japan just muddles along. Not great, but no great collapse. 

Meanwhile, Canadian debt levels are sitting a around 100% of GDP.  Federally, around 50 percent. And yes, I know there is but one taxpayer, but at the federal level, 50% debt to GDP is manageable. If there is any level of government we as Canadians should be worrying about its the provincial. The feds will always get better rates than the provinces, so the provinces are the ones most vulnerable to any rise in interest rates.


----------



## YZT580 (23 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> This Liberal Government seems to want to have European style social safety netting, but with US levels of taxation. That is not going to work for very long. Eventually, either inflation will become a problem or servicing the debt will be a problem. Especially since Canada is a particular laggard at productivity improvements.
> 
> there is a third way out of it and that is to massively increase immigration to pay for this. Young immigrants tend to be very hardworking and productive.


but they don't spend.  They save and sponsor family members (particularly parents) into the country.  Admirably so but they are not a net contributor as a group since they are only occupying a position number.  As long as there is a significant unemployment rate, we don't need immigrants as much as we need good paying positions.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Apr 2021)

YZT580 said:


> but they don't spend.  They save and sponsor family members (particularly parents) into the country.  Admirably so but they are not a net contributor as a group since they are only occupying a position number.  As long as there is a significant unemployment rate, we don't need immigrants as much as we need good paying positions.


See, I don’t think parts of what you say are true. Immigrants may well save to sponsor family members, but the ones I see in my daily travels are working bloody hard doing the kinds of jobs most people born in Canada will no longer do.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> Still, one would think that the Yen, not being a special currency by any stretch, and crippling 240% debt to GDP would have lead to some sort of economic crisis in Japan. But Japan just muddles along. Not great, but no great collapse.
> 
> Meanwhile, Canadian debt levels are sitting a around 100% of GDP.  Federally, around 50 percent. And yes, I know there is but one taxpayer, but at the federal level, 50% debt to GDP is manageable. If there is any level of government we as Canadians should be worrying about its the provincial. The feds will always get better rates than the provinces, so the provinces are the ones most vulnerable to any rise in interest rates.


And you raise a fair point: the Federal government can get away with high debt for a fair bit longer than the Provinces. But, several provinces (Nfld , Man and probably NB spring immediately to mind) are close to the wall on defaulting and requiring federal bailouts on their debt.

At the end of the day, there is only one taxpayer for all three levels of government in Canada.


----------



## Altair (24 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> And you raise a fair point: the Federal government can get away with high debt for a fair bit longer than the Provinces. But, several provinces (Nfld , Man and probably NB spring immediately to mind) are close to the wall on defaulting and requiring federal bailouts on their debt.
> 
> At the end of the day, there is only one taxpayer for all three levels of government in Canada.


Thankfully municipalities cannot go into debt. So the taxpayers are spared bailouts on at least one level.

As for the provinces, pray it just be the small ones. Canada can "afford" to bail out NL MB and NB, but if its Ontario or Quebec or BC who need saving we are in for a world of hurt.

BC is fine, Quebec doesn't look too bad, and with equalization can probably make it back to balance, but Ontario was trending in the wrong direction before the pandemic and could be sitting at well over 50 percent in the next few years.


----------



## YZT580 (24 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> See, I don’t think parts of what you say are true. Immigrants may well save to sponsor family members, but the ones I see in my daily travels are working bloody hard doing the kinds of jobs most people born in Canada will no longer do.


So  maybe we need a Walter Raleigh type approach to jobs: no work, no food.  We need to teach our children that there is nothing wrong with a physical labour: it is not to be shamed nor its participants ridiculed.  That is one of the reasons that your recruitment and retention is down.  RESPECT.  There are jobs available so the hand-outs stop now or are at least diminished.  I certainly was not discrediting their work ethics at all.  It was what they do with their disposable income. There are myriad stories in the news of multi-family apartments to prove that point and I see the farm workers coming in to my neighbourhood every spring.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Apr 2021)

YZT580 said:


> So  maybe we need a Walter Raleigh type approach to jobs: no work, no food.  We need to teach our children that there is nothing wrong with a physical labour: it is not to be shamed nor its participants ridiculed.  That is one of the reasons that your recruitment and retention is down.  RESPECT.  There are jobs available so the hand-outs stop now or are at least diminished.  I certainly was not discrediting their work ethics at all.  It was what they do with their disposable income. There are myriad stories in the news of multi-family apartments to prove that point and I see the farm workers coming in to my neighbourhood every spring.


I am actually of the opinion that if the farm labour is important enough to import farm workers from Mexico and Central America, it is important enough to offer them citizenship after a season or two of doing the work.


----------



## MilEME09 (24 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I am actually of the opinion that if the farm labour is important enough to import farm workers from Mexico and Central America, it is important enough to offer them citizenship after a season or two of doing the work.


Could go the way of offering summer employment to students in the field, and academic credits.


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 Apr 2021)

Academic credits for manual labour???


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> *Thankfully municipalities cannot go into debt*. So the taxpayers are spared bailouts on at least one level.
> 
> As for the provinces, pray it just be the small ones. Canada can "afford" to bail out NL MB and NB, but if its Ontario or Quebec or BC who need saving we are in for a world of hurt.
> 
> BC is fine, Quebec doesn't look too bad, and with equalization can probably make it back to balance, but Ontario was trending in the wrong direction before the pandemic and could be sitting at well over 50 percent in the next few years.



Except Vancouver, of course, because: special snowflake....


City of Vancouver addicted to debt​
“When a person is addicted to a substance…they are not able to control the use of that substance. They continue taking it, even though it may cause harm.” That’s a key sign of addiction, according to a popular medical website.

In the City of Vancouver’s case, the substance is government debt and the city has been addicted for more than a decade. Despite clear signs of an addiction problem, city hall recently proposed an ambitious infrastructure plan that would further increase debt over the next four years.
It’s ultimately up to voters to approve the new infrastructure plan in November’s election but they should consider the city’s finances before making up their minds.

Some background: The City of Vancouver is the only municipality in B.C. that can directly take on debt without permission from the provincial and regional governments. Perhaps not surprisingly, it is also the only municipality in the Metro region with liabilities (debt, employee pension obligations, etc) consistently greater than financial assets (cash, investments, etc).

But accumulating debt has consequences. The money eventually has to be paid back and regular Vancouverites will foot the bill through increased taxes and municipal fees. According to estimates by the city’s finance staff, the cost of servicing new debt for the proposed infrastructure plan is the equivalent of a 2.2 per cent property tax hike over four years.

It’s important to remember that the city, like the rest of us, has to pay interest on debt in addition to repaying the principal. With more money going to service past debt (interest plus principal), less is available for important municipal services such as garbage collection and policing. That means Vancouverites also “pay” for debt indirectly through reduced services.

Importantly, debt servicing costs are set to grow even if the new infrastructure plan fails to move forward. In 2010, debt servicing costs equaled 7.2 per cent of the city’s budget. By 2013, they grew to 7.8 per cent and are expected to reach approximately 9 per cent by 2019. In five years, nearly one of every 10 dollars spent by the city on operations will go to servicing debt and not municipal services.

They say the first step on the road to recovery is admitting you have a problem. Unfortunately, with the newly proposed infrastructure plan, the City of Vancouver is signaling it’s not ready to kick its debt addiction.





__





						City of Vancouver addicted to debt: op-ed
					

The City of Vancouver is the only municipality in B.C. that can directly take on debt without permission from the provincial and regional governments. Perhaps not surprisingly, it is also the only municipality in the Metro region with liabilities (debt, employee pension obligations, etc)...




					www.fraserinstitute.org


----------



## MilEME09 (24 Apr 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Academic credits for manual labour???


Why not? We do it for the apprenticeship program here in Alberta, and the Coop program can give you credits for doing BMQ. So why not credit for working the fields?


----------



## YZT580 (24 Apr 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Why not? We do it for the apprenticeship program here in Alberta, and the Coop program can give you credits for doing BMQ. So why not credit for working the fields?


Part of the problem here in Ontario is the low age of students graduating from high school coupled with the lack of a healthy work ethic.  Paper routes have gone the way of the dinosaur, pumping gas is no longer an option, and fast food establishments only provide short shifts so as to avoid any benefit costs.  Every kid with a laptop is graduating with high expectations of inventing a new game and retiring at 21.  A number of European countries still maintain compulsory national service such as military or social work for a year after graduation.  Perhaps introducing a similar programme, paid, with basic labour tasks or basic training as options as a mandatory grade 13 or sooner if they chose to leave school might solve a number of problems.  Just a thought


----------



## Altair (24 Apr 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Except Vancouver, of course, because: special snowflake....
> 
> 
> City of Vancouver addicted to debt​
> ...


Thats just depressing.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> Thats just depressing.



Not as depressing as this, of course. From last year, but the situation hasn't improved all that much.

You're welcome 

COVID-19: City of Vancouver at risk of bankruptcy, says mayor​
The City of Vancouver is at risk of going bankrupt, says the mayor, citing a recent poll showing more than half of property owners are not expecting to pay full property taxes this year as COVID-19 financial woes take hold.

In a press release issued on Sunday afternoon, Mayor Kennedy Stewart said his earlier claim that the city would lose up to $189 million in revenue and fee shortfalls in 2020 could be $325 million short of the mark. The city has already laid off 1,500 workers.

“If 25 per cent of homeowners do end up defaulting on their property taxes, we could shed up to an additional $325 million in revenues,” Stewart said. “Losing more than half-a-billion dollars in operating funds in 2020 would devastate the city’s financial position, forcing us to liquify assets and exhaust every reserve fund we have — just to avoid insolvency.”

Property taxes make up the bulk of the city’s revenues at $874 million in 2019.

Stewart said that Research Co. polling commissioned by his office found that a quarter of all property owners would not be able to pay more than half their property tax owed in 2020 and that six per cent were not expecting to pay anything at all.

The poll also found that 68 per cent of Vancouver home owners did not pay their full mortgage on April 1, and that 55 per cent were not expecting to make their full mortgage payment on May 1.

According to the Canadian Bankers Association, over 500,000 Canadians have asked for mortgage deferrals in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis. This comes are banks are increasing interest rates.

The Research Co. survey also found Vancouver renters were being hit hard, with 30 per cent not able to make their full April rents and 63 per cent not expecting to make full rent in May.

Over one million Canadians have so far applied for the federal government’s $2,000 a month COVID-19 emergency benefit.

The survey found that 46 percent of those living in the city had either lost their jobs or experienced a reduction in hours. This has led to half of all households reporting an overall decrease in income, with 24 percent experiencing a significant decrease.

“The research is clear — the city’s finances are going to be negatively affected by COVID-19 due to lost revenues and hard-hit homeowners defaulting on their property taxes,” Kennedy said.

“It’s illegal for Vancouver and other local governments to run deficits, so the only way we can stay afloat is with the help of the federal and provincial governments. Otherwise, local governments will be forced to take drastic measures that will hurt residents and businesses, and significantly slow any post-pandemic economic recovery.”

According to the city’s financial records , the city’s overall financial position improved by $300.8 million in 2019 with accumulated surplus totalling $7.9 billion. The city is carrying $1 billion in  debt and last year received an extra $40 million in property tax, as payments from developers plunged. City expenses climbed over $300 million a year between 2015 and 2019.

The city has $1.28 billion in reserves, including $146 million set aside for catastrophic events.

Last week, Mayor Stewart called on the provincial government to give the city $200 million.

The online survey was conducted by Research Co. between April 9 and April 10, 2020. The results for employed residents are based on a sample of 421 Vancouver residents, the results for homeowners were based on a sample of 278 Vancouver residents and the results for renters were based on a sample of 301 Vancouver residents.









						COVID-19: City of Vancouver at risk of bankruptcy, says mayor | SaltWire
					

The City of Vancouver is at risk of going bankrupt, says the mayor, citing a recent poll showing more than half of property owners are not expecting to pay ...




					www.saltwire.com


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Apr 2021)

> Most countries are running punishing deficits, Canada being no different.



As the falling man passed the window, he was heard to say "So far, so good."


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Apr 2021)

"Print money" has an end.  If it did not, a sovereign government could simply issue cheques for massive universal basic income amounts - say, $100,000 annually.  (Or why not more?)  People would not need to work, although some might choose to do so.  Everyone is at liberty to make up his own ending for that scheme.  For those who assume it can't be done, it means that between here and there exists an inflection point from good to bad - we could already be past it, since we are unlikely to recognize it immediately - on some imaginary curve representing social and political well-being and stability, and maybe one sharper than we can handle (events exceeding the capabilities of our decision cycles).  We should want to avoid getting too close, let alone passing it, since a little temporary instability could push us past it.

Municipalities seek bailouts and subsidies from provinces, and provinces seek the same from the federal government.  All of them ordinarily take their funding from people.  Evidence accumulates that people are having difficulty meeting current fiscal obligations.  Confiscating assets from those who hold them is not a solution, because not all wealth is held as cash.  After confiscating ready money and equities and whatnot from people who have them, who is left with ready money to buy the equities and whatnot?  Obviously, demand falls and the prices of equities and whatnot crater anyways.

Getting to a lower debt:GDP ratio is possible by increasing GDP more than debt; it is also possible by inflation.    For the first, assuming current policies will lead to atypically high future GDP growth is an "underpants gnome" strategy.  For the second, inflation fucks over everyone neither working nor on a strictly inflation-adjusting pension (market wages will mostly inflate to follow) which increases the number of people living in poverty.

So what we have right now is a not particularly controlled experiment in how high debt:GDP ratios can be pushed, a number which I suppose is situationally different for various nations and societies (assuming it is not so and that what works for, say, Japan will work for anyone is unreasonable).  We may not know where the edge is, but if we get close to it, the next big crisis is by definition unaffordable (because the "solution" leads to an even bigger crisis).


----------



## Navy_Pete (24 Apr 2021)

YZT580 said:


> Part of the problem here in Ontario is the low age of students graduating from high school coupled with the lack of a healthy work ethic.  Paper routes have gone the way of the dinosaur, pumping gas is no longer an option, and fast food establishments only provide short shifts so as to avoid any benefit costs.  Every kid with a laptop is graduating with high expectations of inventing a new game and retiring at 21.  A number of European countries still maintain compulsory national service such as military or social work for a year after graduation.  Perhaps introducing a similar programme, paid, with basic labour tasks or basic training as options as a mandatory grade 13 or sooner if they chose to leave school might solve a number of problems.  Just a thought


Do they still have co-op programs in high school? That was a great way to test the waters of specific trades and make some money.

Also the basic shop, home ec and similar classes were probably the most useful for day to day things. It's nice to know how to do basic plumbing/electrical/home repairs, as well as basic cooking/baking knowledge, or how to balance a checkbook etc, file taxes, etc.


----------



## blacktriangle (24 Apr 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Do they still have co-op programs in high school? That was a great way to test the waters of specific trades and make some money.


Strangely enough, they actually use to run PRes BMQ/SQ co-op programs in some areas. Not sure if it's still a thing. Basically a semester off school, paid, that could lead into DP1 and subsequent reserve employment for those who wanted it.

If you dug into the data, you'd find graduates of such co-ops have gone on to become Pilots, CANSOF members, and a whole host of other things. Not to mention a ton have completed tours in AFG & elsewhere. All thanks to a high school co-op program.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Apr 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> "Print money" has an end.  If it did not, a sovereign government could simply issue cheques for massive universal basic income amounts - say, $100,000 annually.  (Or why not more?)  People would not need to work, although some might choose to do so.  Everyone is at liberty to make up his own ending for that scheme.  For those who assume it can't be done, it means that between here and there exists an inflection point from good to bad - we could already be past it, since we are unlikely to recognize it immediately - on some imaginary curve representing social and political well-being and stability, and maybe one sharper than we can handle (events exceeding the capabilities of our decision cycles).  We should want to avoid getting too close, let alone passing it, since a little temporary instability could push us past it.
> 
> Municipalities seek bailouts and subsidies from provinces, and provinces seek the same from the federal government.  All of them ordinarily take their funding from people.  Evidence accumulates that people are having difficulty meeting current fiscal obligations.  Confiscating assets from those who hold them is not a solution, because not all wealth is held as cash.  After confiscating ready money and equities and whatnot from people who have them, who is left with ready money to buy the equities and whatnot?  Obviously, demand falls and the prices of equities and whatnot crater anyways.
> 
> ...


You have to figure that UBI is a bad idea if, after paying for a study on it, the BC NDP quietly shelve the whole idea...


----------



## dapaterson (24 Apr 2021)

Last time they ran the numbers, the coop cohorts had slightly lower CAF retention than other Army Reserve entry modes.


----------



## YZT580 (24 Apr 2021)

liability issues killed the tech programmes in our area with a significant push from the teacher's union who ganged up on the boards for hiring cabinet makers to teach woodworking and mechanics to teach auto instead of a "qualified professional" i.e. a dues paying university grad.  It was a great idea while it lasted.  They had girls in auto mechanics and guys taking cooking classes after a while.


----------



## Altair (24 Apr 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Not as depressing as this, of course. From last year, but the situation hasn't improved all that much.
> 
> You're welcome
> 
> ...


Thankfully BC doesn't have a lot of debt, they can afford to bail out Vancouver.


----------



## blacktriangle (24 Apr 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Last time they ran the numbers, the coop cohorts had slightly lower CAF retention than other Army Reserve entry modes.


My point was more that co-op programs can lead people down paths (in terms of both career & life experience) that they otherwise would have never considered or even known about.

So while I'm certain you're correct from an institutional (CAF) point of view, it doesn't negate the impact that such programs have had on individuals.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Apr 2021)

Wait till you see the conditions of the side streets in much of Vancouver, neglect much?


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Apr 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Wait till you see the conditions of the side streets in much of Vancouver, neglect much?


What?  You mean East Hastings St. is no longer the gleaming, beautiful promenade it once was? 😳


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Apr 2021)

The actual road work isn't bad there, go on the side streets of East Vancouver and you see humps and dips about a 1' deep


----------



## Eaglelord17 (25 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> I'm sad none of you saw through my sarcasm. I don't believe a single word I said in my last two posts.
> 
> Eaglelord17 expressed these opinion (that it's our choice to remain in a tough situation) and I argued against it, but no one agreed with me or came to my defence.


I wouldn't take what I am saying personally, I am simply saying that things are cyclical and that there are things that a person can do to mitigate it. In many ways the CAF does put more pressure on people than what your average job does as you can't quit it instantly. For many people though they choose to scrape by in these big cities for nothing, when they could be working significantly less and having a much higher standard of living in some of these more rural areas/smaller cities they are always looking down upon. I don't understand the logic of trying to buy in at the top of a market that is generally agreed to be a bubble. The government should be stepping in by making it so if it isn't your primary residence you should have to have a 40-50% downpayment like what New Zealand just did, and that would take all these speculative 'investor' buyers out of the market and really cool the prices. 


Altair said:


> Like the Feds wouldn't bail out homeowners.
> 
> The amount of retirements and investments tied into housing equity would make the 2008 crisis look like a cake walk.


They wouldn't or at least shouldn't. It isn't the governments responsibility in the first place, not to mention people are knowingly taking risky investments because they think they can quickly flip them for more profit. At some point someone will be left holding the bag and it isn't my responsibility as a tax payer to pay for others mistakes. Its called personal responsibility, and we need more of it not less.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Apr 2021)

Some investors flip houses.  Some fix and restore before selling and moving on.  The latter is a valuable contribution; I've seen houses almost unfit to live in become useful housing stock again.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Apr 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Some investors flip houses.  Some fix and restore before selling and moving on.  The latter is a valuable contribution; I've seen houses almost unfit to live in become useful housing stock again.


I have too. The renovating investors, in my books, are doing a service.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Apr 2021)

Except many do cosmetic touch ups to make the flip, and conceal underlying issues that the subsequent purchaser gets saddled with.  IE the house across the street with the addition torn down that they are still trying to remediate.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Apr 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Except many do cosmetic touch ups to make the flip, and conceal underlying issues that the subsequent purchaser gets saddled with.  IE the house across the street with the addition torn down that they are still trying to remediate.


I am not talking about those guys- they are house flippers.

The renovating investor, in many cases, takes the house back to the studs and rebuilds from there.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I am not talking about those guys- they are house flippers.
> 
> The renovating investor, in many cases, takes the house back to the studs and rebuilds from there.


Doing that also invokes a different set of rules and is generally easier and faster than trying to get permits for a new house, which might entail several new requirements or restrictions.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Apr 2021)

The local approach is to leave a single wall standing, and thus claim that it's a reno, not a rebuild, and therefore grandfathered, including code.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Apr 2021)

Are we still talking about the budget and the CAF ???

🤫


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Are we still talking about the budget and the CAF ???
> 
> 🤫


This is more fun.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Apr 2021)

You must be the first person who calls Vancouver politics "fun" - except maybe for the current mayor.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Are we still talking about the budget and the CAF ???
> 
> 🤫


A building that needs to be gutted and rebuilt from the ground up... a good metaphor.


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Apr 2021)

dapaterson said:


> A building that needs to be gutted and rebuilt from the ground up... a good metaphor.


Looking at other departments I'd suggest it's more of a neighbourhood. Sometimes you need a cleansing fire so you can fix the road layouts and other infrastructure.

After being attached to other departments it's shocking that we're actually more functional than many others. Budget and planning wise we are lightyears ahead of any of the other big ones; we're just hamstrung by a combination of the insane TBS/PSPC processes, lack of people to manage the workload, and also a loss of experience with DRAP and other 'planned reductions' to meet reduced SWE caps.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Apr 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> You must be the first person who calls Vancouver politics "fun" - except maybe for the current mayor.



Like mainland Europe from Dover, it's fun to watch from the other side of a significant water gap, while watching the fires dance aorund your own ankles


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> Its a decent question. But ask those out of work if they need supports and I'm sure they say yes.
> 
> Its a weird economy.
> 
> ...



That depends.  When fighting a fire at sea, command needs to be concerned with the amount of water being put into a space or you will cause stability issues.


----------



## Lumber (26 Apr 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> Looking at other departments I'd suggest it's more of a neighbourhood. Sometimes you need a cleansing fire so you can fix the road layouts and other infrastructure.
> 
> After being attached to other departments it's shocking that we're actually more functional than many others. Budget and planning wise we are lightyears ahead of any of the other big ones; we're just hamstrung by a combination of the insane TBS/PSPC processes, lack of people to manage the workload, and also a loss of experience with DRAP and other 'planned reductions' to meet reduced SWE caps.


Which department did you have the _pleasure _of working with?

I do think that sometimes we forget how well trained, organized, and competent we are. When the CAF works with OGDs, for example, one of the OGDs may be the lead agency with overall command, but they differ to us to organize, plan, and execute the operation, because they simply don't have training in that.

We are so short LCdrs and above in the RCN right now. Are there any ways we can offload the less "military_esque" _jobs to a civilian, pan-government agency? Perhaps a way to save money, impart or expertise, and free up military personnel, would be to amalgamate some of our less military oriented organization/units into pan-government organiztions/positions.  Instead of having military members working in, say, the sexual misconduct response centre, you make that a civilian centre that responds to issues from across the GOC, thereby providing the service to more than just the CAF, and freeing up those military personnel to do more military-related tasks.


----------



## Navy_Pete (26 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> Which department did you have the _pleasure _of working with?
> 
> I do think that sometimes we forget how well trained, organized, and competent we are. When the CAF works with OGDs, for example, one of the OGDs may be the lead agency with overall command, but they differ to us to organize, plan, and execute the operation, because they simply don't have training in that.
> 
> We are so short LCdrs and above in the RCN right now. Are there any ways we can offload the less "military_esque" _jobs to a civilian, pan-government agency? Perhaps a way to save money, impart or expertise, and free up military personnel, would be to amalgamate some of our less military oriented organization/units into pan-government organiztions/positions.  Instead of having military members working in, say, the sexual misconduct response centre, you make that a civilian centre that responds to issues from across the GOC, thereby providing the service to more than just the CAF, and freeing up those military personnel to do more military-related tasks.


I got chucked into the NSS office, so worked with PSPC and CCG regularly, but also got to regularly work with TBS,  Industry Canada, Finance, the PMO and some others.  Was pretty funny to see TBS employees struggle through a contract they had to manage themselves. There has been a LCdr there since inception, but it's a weird spot in general with the committee lead decisions.

Prime example that comes to mind was CCG didn't have an overall budgeted fleet plan that inclued replacements for their rusting out ships (equivalent to SSE plan). So took them longer to get money for new capital funding because they had to explain the operational requirement everytime. They've got that sorted now but took a few years. Their actual project managements is a lot more streamlined internally though, but just meant they had no overall costed strategic plan at the big giant head level, whereas ours is down to the dime and has been for a long time. Like CCG a lot and how they do business, so was just a case of they hadn't dealt with a problem on that scale before.

For other departments, it was also an experience level and relative funds they run with. At one point was at some kind of generic NCR engineering mixer and there was some DG equivalent from EnviroCanada talking about the challenges for a $500k project. Didn't mention I was running a $30M dollar project as a jr two ringer. We get used to big sticker shock, but people get hung up on dollar value vs actual complexity.


----------



## lenaitch (26 Apr 2021)

Lumber said:


> Which department did you have the _pleasure _of working with?
> 
> I do think that sometimes we forget how well trained, organized, and competent we are. When the CAF works with OGDs, for example, one of the OGDs may be the lead agency with overall command, but they differ to us to organize, plan, and execute the operation, because they simply don't have training in that.
> 
> We are so short LCdrs and above in the RCN right now. Are there any ways we can offload the less "military_esque" _jobs to a civilian, pan-government agency? Perhaps a way to save money, impart or expertise, and free up military personnel, would be to amalgamate some of our less military oriented organization/units into pan-government organiztions/positions.  Instead of having military members working in, say, the sexual misconduct response centre, you make that a civilian centre that responds to issues from across the GOC, thereby providing the service to more than just the CAF, and freeing up those military personnel to do more military-related tasks.



You mean like Shared Services?  I hope the federal roll-out of that went better than Ontario's.  One problem with so-called 'pan-government' services is the public service doesn't have an inherent culture of client/customer service because, unlike the commercial world, there is little to no downside of doing it badly.   I'm not convinced many even try to consider and apply the needs and culture of their clients.  Their primary goal is to maintain or enhance their existence, often at the expense of the other departments they are supposed to serve.


----------



## Altair (26 Apr 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> That depends.  When fighting a fire at sea, command needs to be concerned with the amount of water being put into a space or you will cause stability issues.


I guess that one needs to weight what is worse, fire or stability issues.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> I guess that one needs to weight what is worse, fire or stability issues.


Having this lived this- both.


----------



## Altair (26 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Having this lived this- both.


A real mortons fork.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> A real mortons fork.


Yeah- it wasn’t fun.


----------



## Altair (27 Apr 2021)

You would think that with printing all this money, the loonie would drop.

Nope.









						Posthaste: Parity? Not yet, but here's why the Canadian dollar is set to climb higher
					

The currency has jumped 1.6 per cent in four days




					www.google.com
				



!


> The loonie pushed through the psychologically important 80 U.S. cent barrier in recent weeks for the first time since 2018, and analysts believe it’s next move is most likely northwards.
> Scotiabank analyst Hugo Ste-Marie says technical charts suggest the loonie “appears likely to reach at minimum” near US$0.82.  The currency was trading at 80.66 U.S. cents this morning.
> Indeed, the loonie has surged 1.6 per cent in the past four days alone, driven by the Bank of Canada’s moves last week that surprised markets.
> 
> ...



Compared to the USA, I guess Canada looks tame.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> You would think that with printing all this money, the loonie would drop.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> ...


I am guessing here that currency traders are betting on a commodities boom in the next year (including evil oil!), which positions the Canadian Dollar, nicely.

If we were smart, we take advantage of this to pay off as much debt as we can that we owe outside the country. Debt borrowed from inside Canada does not pose as much of an issue.


----------



## Altair (27 Apr 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Not as depressing as this, of course. From last year, but the situation hasn't improved all that much.
> 
> You're welcome
> 
> ...


I'm just going to walk back my statement that municipalities cannot go into debt. I was wrong. They cannot run deficits. But they can borrow money for capital expenses, which is debt, and it a roundabout way to run a deficit.

Montreal facing a financial time bomb along with Vancouver.









						A financial time bomb hangs over Montreal's municipal election
					

The next mayor will inherit one of the highest debts relative to revenue of any Canadian municipality. And that's just the beginning.




					montrealgazette.com
				






> Montreal forecasts its long-term debt will hit $18.4 billion in 2023, triple what it was in the first year of the municipal mergers in 2002. The increase is mostly due to extra borrowing for public transit infrastructure projects, including the métro Blue Line extension.
> Already, Montreal has one of the highest debts relative to revenue of any Canadian municipality, and one of the highest interest payment burdens relative to revenue. Montreal forecasts that in 2023 property taxpayers will be footing nearly $1 billion a year in interest and fees on the municipal debt. That’s $73 million more than this year, and that means $73 million less for services, such as buying library books, collecting garbage, pruning tree branches and filling potholes.
> Montreal’s net debt — the portion of debt assumed by municipal taxpayers with no assistance from the provincial government — was $8 billion in 2019, according to that year’s financial statements. (This year’s budget says the net debt in 2019 stood at $7.3 billion.) That rivals Toronto’s $8.2 billion net debt, even though Toronto has 1 million more residents and more than double Montreal’s annual operating budget to absorb the interest payments on that debt.


----------



## Altair (27 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I am guessing here that currency traders are betting on a commodities boom in the next year (including evil oil!), which positions the Canadian Dollar, nicely.
> 
> If we were smart, we take advantage of this to pay off as much debt as we can that we owe outside the country. Debt borrowed from inside Canada does not pose as much of an issue.


Yeah, if the US infrastructure bill comes to pass, Canada will definitely reap the rewards.

Let's just hope that a higher dollar doesn't act as drag on our exports.


----------



## Good2Golf (27 Apr 2021)

Altair said:


> I'm just going to walk back my statement that municipalities cannot go into debt. I was wrong. They cannot run deficits. But they can borrow money for capital expenses, which is debt, and it a roundabout way to run a deficit.
> 
> Montreal facing a financial time bomb along with Vancouver.
> 
> ...


Montréal...debt and infrastructure problems?  Who knew?

...oh wait, the list of us with damage/scars from the joy of Montréal’s 11-1/2 months of roadwork, etc...we knew...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Apr 2021)

I'm thinking if our dollar goes higher then about 90 cents our manufacturing [in Ontario at least] will become a ghost town...….


----------



## Altair (27 Apr 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Montréal...debt and infrastructure problems?  Who knew?
> 
> ...oh wait, the list of us with damage/scars from the joy of Montréal’s 11-1/2 months of roadwork, etc...we knew...


I knew about the infrastructure problems, but didn't know about the debt. 

Frankly, I don't hear about municipal debt a lot, and to be fair, since municipalities cannot run deficits, one would think that you wouldn't hear about them ever.

But if you offsource stuff like road construction/repair to be financed through debt, that's pretty much a deficit in my eyes.


----------



## FSTO (27 Apr 2021)

I took the Municipal CAO course when I thought I was going to release from the Navy. Municipalities will save money through a reserve fund for specific projects and then apply for grants from the Province and Feds to round out the funds. Now for small and rural municipalities this works quite well. But for the big cities they need to get more robust taxation powers to finance the massive amount of infrastructure they need to build and maintain.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Apr 2021)

Big cities need more taxation powers less than they need more thoughtful deliberation about the utility of what they spend.

The townships in the Fraser Valley are not big cities, but do have to provide infrastructure and services over large geographical areas with relatively low population densities (tax base).  Big cities have denser populations and most of the high-value commercial tenants.

The customary low bang-for-buck choice is rail transit.  Expensive, exclusive, and can't be relocated.  Buses are flexible, and roads are "democratic" - everyone can use them.


----------



## Loachman (27 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> If we were smart


 And the odds of that are...?


----------



## Altair (27 Apr 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Big cities need more taxation powers less than they need more thoughtful deliberation about the utility of what they spend.
> 
> The townships in the Fraser Valley are not big cities, but do have to provide infrastructure and services over large geographical areas with relatively low population densities (tax base).  Big cities have denser populations and most of the high-value commercial tenants.
> 
> The customary low bang-for-buck choice is rail transit.  Expensive, exclusive, and can't be relocated.  Buses are flexible, and roads are "democratic" - everyone can use them.


Cities need debt ceilings. Problem solved.

While some cities are bigger than entire provinces in terms of population(looking at you PEI), they wont be viewed as such by the debt agencies. Provinces have a large array of taxation tools at their disposal to deal with debt, municipalities are handcuffed. As such, they cannot be allowed to run up massive debts.

22 cents of every dollar Montreal brings in going to debt financing is ridiculous. Federally its 6 cents for every dollar, and people are howling about that.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Apr 2021)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> I'm thinking if our dollar goes higher then about 90 cents our manufacturing [in Ontario at least] will become a ghost town...….


It makes me wonder if there is a conscious effort in Washington to tank the value of the USD and make US exports more attractive?


----------



## MilEME09 (28 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> It makes me wonder if there is a conscious effort in Washington to tank the value of the USD and make US exports more attractive?


Worked for China so why not?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Apr 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Big cities need more taxation powers less than they need more thoughtful deliberation about the utility of what they spend.
> 
> The townships in the Fraser Valley are not big cities, but do have to provide infrastructure and services over large geographical areas with relatively low population densities (tax base).  Big cities have denser populations and most of the high-value commercial tenants.
> 
> The customary low bang-for-buck choice is rail transit.  Expensive, exclusive, and can't be relocated.  Buses are flexible, and roads are "democratic" - everyone can use them.


Problem is that civic elections happen regularly with politicians promising things to a very small voting group that will vote, out of the majority residents that don't. Telling people "No we can't afford your desire" is a good way of not getting elected. So the system punishes responsible honest politicians.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Apr 2021)

Or, voters punish themselves.  The only reason I'm not completely indifferent to what Vancouver voters inflict on themselves is that some of what they want spills over into the other municipalities of the regional district.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Apr 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Or, voters punish themselves.  The only reason I'm not completely indifferent to what Vancouver voters inflict on themselves is that some of what they want spills over into the other municipalities of the regional district.



Here's their motto!


----------



## MilEME09 (29 Apr 2021)

Oh look what a military using its budget well can do, have double our tanks.


----------



## dimsum (30 Apr 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Oh look what a military using its budget well can do, have double our tanks.
> View attachment 65034



An Aussie friend of mine used to call the M1A1 "Koalas".  As in "not to be taken outside Australia".

They didn't bring tanks to Afghanistan or Iraq.


----------



## MilEME09 (1 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> An Aussie friend of mine used to call the M1A1 "Koalas".  As in "not to be taken outside Australia".
> 
> They didn't bring tanks to Afghanistan or Iraq.


To be fair not many did, wasn't it only us and the Americans in Afghanistan? And the yanks and brits in Iraq who had tanks?


----------



## blacktriangle (1 May 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> To be fair not many did, wasn't it only us and the Americans in Afghanistan? And the yanks and brits in Iraq who had tanks?


The Danes deployed tanks in AFG.


----------



## CBH99 (1 May 2021)

I was going to say, I believe it was us in Kandahar province (obviously) -- and the Danes and USMC in Helmand.

The French did deploy that nasty little mini-tank of theirs to great effect (I'm about to crash, I'll edit my post tomorrow with the actual name of them) -- but it was only Canada, the USMC, and the Danes that deployed heavy MBT's to Afghanistan.  (Not only are they a huge hassle to transport in general, especially to a landlocked country...but the terrain of Afghanistan in many parts wasn't exactly permitting of such beasts.)


----------



## suffolkowner (2 May 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Oh look what a military using its budget well can do, have double our tanks.
> View attachment 65034



Are these replacing their previous M1A1's or in addition too? I think they already had 59 M1A1 MBT and 13 M88A2 ARVI . So...

134 M1A1/2 MBT
29   M1150  Assault Breacher 
18   M1074  Joint Assault Bridges
19   M88A2 Hercules Combat Recovery

versus our

82 Leo2A4/A4M/A6M MBT
12 Armoured Recovery Vehicle
18 Armoured Engineer Vehicle

Do we have any MBT bridging units? 
Is there any type of real plan to upgrade or replace our Leo2's?

The use and value of tanks might be under debate, but I believe they will remain an essential part of the force structure. How useful an M1 would be island hoping in the Malayan/Indonesia archipelago is probably the extreme version of that, so I can understand why the USMC has abandoned the heavy MBT. 

Does anyone know what role Australia envisions their tanks occupying?

the development of the Japan's type 10 to replace the type 90 was heavily influenced by mobility isssues on the Japanese islands
Strategic transportation[edit]​The predecessor of Type 10, the Type 90 main battle tank, was deployed only in Hokkaido due to the weight limit of roads and bridges in other parts of Japan. One of the primary purposes of Type 10 is to be able to deploy anywhere in Japan. Size and weight reductions have made Type 10 now six metric tonnes lighter than Type 90, weighing only 44 tonnes. 84% of Japan's 17,920 bridges are passable for the Type 10, compared to only 65% of passability of Type 90 and 40% of mainstream western main battle tanks.[12]


----------



## Kirstenwilliamson23 (6 May 2021)

is the budget around 75 million?


----------

