• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have long said that you could fund the CAF to 4 percent of GDP, but we would still lag behind in NATO and be much the same where we are.

It's never the money, it's politics. It's procedures. It's the pork-barreling in our defence spending that makes us a paper tiger in NATO.

My only hope in all of this for the CAF and the GoC, whatever the political stripe that may be, is that it will rouse them out of the "Peace Dividend" slumber. The world has been unstable since 1945. We have used geography, proximity, and association as a Defence Policy ever since. ICBMs don't care how close to the U.S. or how far from Russia/China we are.

Don't give us a dime more, but let us spend money on defence like it matters. The fact we follow the same rules for purchasing a fighter aircraft as we do for buying office furniture for a Service Canada office is disgraceful. Don't treat defense procurement as a stimulus package for Canadian Industry. There I said it.

We spend so much money, time, and effort trying to get that money to stay in Canada; be it by awarding contracts to companies with no capability to produce items without first "retooling" and"developing the production lines", or by hamstringing perfectly competent and competitive bidders by forcing the project to be made in St. Margaret de Poutain de Champignon, QC because the ruling government either lost the seat in the election, or won it with promises.

We spend so much money and staff hours jumping through TBS regulations that are great for other departments, but are terrible for defence procurement. Some items you have to sole source, because there are technologies and capabilities no one else makes. By doing the bid process, you get companies clamoring for a project they can't deliver on, but because they tick the bright boxes on the score sheet....

I truly and honestly belief we need to split from PSPC and legislate that its not beholden to TBS, only to the PBO/PCO. The guiding principles of this new Defence Procurement department should be "Off the shelf, from somewhere else" if there isn't an industry in Canada.

BOOTFORGEN has demonstrated how well we do when we are able to actually get what we need, instead of lining the pockets of a Canadian company that got lucky.

That, but with tanks, fighters, ships, weapons systems....
 
I agree with Dapaterson. Your problem is not coffee: It's math.

I have no idea in which version of modern arithmetic's five times 1820 gets you 3640. ;)

Fooock! :oops: :D

OK then

5x7=35
35x52=1820
5x1820=9100
2x9100=18,200
18,200x20,000,000=364,000,000,000

Better?

Should have used my calculator the first time. Apparently the grey cells are dying. Insh'Allah.

Quite the defence budget sacrifice.

A Starbucks a day less = 364 BCAD for national security.
 
Better. Now your only problem is that by using 20,000,000 couples you are assuming that all toddlers and children drink $5 worth of coffee everyday.

I don't want to have to send Family Services after you. :giggle:

I was assuming our fertility rates were so low that we might as well assume that the number of toddlers is effectively zero.

Actual number of households - 15,000,000 (14,978,971 for Spock's Pedants)

Average number of people per household - 2.4

Given the number of seniors in the mix and the number of adults still living at home with their parents I figure Zero isn't bad for a back of the envelope Order of Magnitude estimate. ;)
 
Better. Now your only problem is that by using 20,000,000 couples you are assuming that all toddlers and children drink $5 worth of coffee everyday.

I don't want to have to send Family Services after you. :giggle:
Considering how much caffeine many expectant mothers drink, I suspect the kiddies are already hooked. Plus hot chocolate in Starbucks ain't cheap either....
 
I was assuming our fertility rates were so low that we might as well assume that the number of toddlers is effectively zero.

Actual number of households - 15,000,000 (14,978,971 for Spock's Pedants)

Average number of people per household - 2.4

Given the number of seniors in the mix and the number of adults still living at home with their parents I figure Zero isn't bad for a back of the envelope Order of Magnitude estimate. ;)

OK. So now, you have looked at defense spending increase in terms of average coffee consumption.

Lets look at it differently, also using averages:

Average individual income in Canada (Statscan, 2024 numbers, rounded up) : $66,000.
Average federal income tax rate: 25%
Average federal income tax paid as a result of these two numbers: $16,500
Your coffee annual "give up" number for an individual: $1820

Thus, increase in federal income tax required to generate that much extra revenue for defense: 11%

When you find enough Canadians willing to say they agree to increase the income taxes they pay by 11% in order to invest in National defense, let me know.

In the meantime, we can all continue to enjoy our coffee. :coffee:
 
Most Canadians are below average. Using averages exaggerates the financial realities of most Canadians.
 
Most Canadians are below average. Using averages exaggerates the financial realities of most Canadians.
Thank god for stats can giving us breakdowns

 
Thank god for stats can giving us breakdowns

That link is CRA, not Stats Can, and the division of the population into arbitrary tax brackets (vice percentiles or uniform dollar increments) makes it less suitable to actually describe the Canadian population. This CRA link is better but has substantially more extraneous information: Individual Income Tax Return Statistics (2022 tax year) - Canada.ca

Unfortunately, the income increments are not properly uniform and buckets get broader at higher incomes. This leads to distortions in the data above $100k income.
1747575994625.png

Stats Can used to hold all the data needed to make a useful histogram, but I can't seem to find those numbers today.
1747575461077.png
Stats Can does have more detailed break-downs, but everything I have found further breaks-down the data in a way that is difficult to re-aggregate.
 
The functional definition of 'average' implies that a lot of the data points (income, widget cost, etc.) will be below the 'average'. If everything is evenly distributed, half will be under, half will be over.
 
The functional definition of 'average' implies that a lot of the data points (income, widget cost, etc.) will be below the 'average'. If everything is evenly distributed, half will be under, half will be over.
Income is not evenly distributed. Most incomes are below average.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top