Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Czech_pivo]

CPP is probably part of "Elderly benefits" while things like military and PS pensions probably fall under "other transfer payments", along with things like grants for various things. I have included a source link from the Hill Times in the original post if you want to go down the rabbit hole.

The CPP outlays would come from the CPPIB disbursements though. That's the great thing about the CPPIB its a stand alone entity from the Federal Government. I think that's why you don't see it as a separate revenue source into the government coffers like with EI payments.

 

[ytz]

The 'easy' solution is to bump up GST to 6% and legislatively ensure that the extra 10$ billon/yr goes directly to the CAF - above and beyond its existing budget. Could use the 10$ billion/yr in instant revenue in a number of ways;
1) proactive 'pay future costs' for large ticket expenses immediately, for example the upcoming 12 sub purchase, the replacement of the Kingstons, Griffons, etc.
2) or, gradually increase the 1% GST over so 5yrs - 2026, GST is 5.20%, 2027 its 5.40%, etc until it hits 6%. That's a 2$ billion instant bump to the CAF budget per year, beyond what the normal increase would be. Use that extra 2$ billion to again frontend pay for large ticket expenses.

This is similar to the suggestion of Kevin Page, the former Parliamentary Budget Officer, to meet 2%. He suggested a 1% GST increase ($10B) and a repurposing of operating expenses ($10B) to provide $20B more to defence.

What would it take for Canada to hit NATO’s 2% defence spending target? - National | Globalnews.ca

Experts say getting Canada's defence spending to two per cent of GDP is not as simple as moving money around and will require multiple measures and years of planning.

globalnews.ca

I have no faith that politicians can resist the temptation of freed fiscal room to ramp transfers (Liberals) or give tax cuts (Conservatives). As such, I would argue that there needs to be an explicit 2% increase in GDP tied to meeting NATO target. Possibly even legislation that says the defence budget will always be equal to or exceed the revenue of 4% GST equivalent (roughly works out to 2% GDP with that tax).

 

[Czech_pivo]

This is similar to the suggestion of Kevin Page, the former Parliamentary Budget Officer, to meet 2%. He suggested a 1% GST increase ($10B) and a repurposing of operating expenses ($10B) to provide $20B more to defence.

What would it take for Canada to hit NATO’s 2% defence spending target? - National | Globalnews.ca

Experts say getting Canada's defence spending to two per cent of GDP is not as simple as moving money around and will require multiple measures and years of planning.

globalnews.ca

I have no faith that politicians can resist the temptation of freed fiscal room to ramp transfers (Liberals) or give tax cuts (Conservatives). As such, I would argue that there needs to be an explicit 2% increase in GDP tied to meeting NATO target. Possibly even legislation that says the defence budget will always be equal to or exceed the revenue of 4% GST equivalent (roughly works out to 2% GDP with that tax).

I'd go the route of 2% GST increase that is legislated to go directly to the CAF, above and beyond its current budget. The 'normal' CAF budget would be untouched and would continue to grow as needed.
Any potential tax cuts would have to come outside of this, through streamlining existing costs or bringing the PS back to its most recent ratio of worker/population trend.

 

[ytz]

Russia is spending 9% of GDP on its offensive military. If they somehow come out intact from Ukraine, they'll be going after somebody else next. Putin can't stop. He needs war to keep his regime in power.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1895160776098267262

I wish a real Canadian statesman would step up to the podium and make the argument for a stronger military just like Kaja Kallas has done since the first day of the full scale invasion.

I also wish we had leaders who had the balls to make the destruction of the Russian force in Ukraine an outright war aim.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Russia is spending 9% of GDP on its offensive military. If they somehow come out intact from Ukraine, they'll be going after somebody else next. Putin can't stop. He needs war to keep his regime in power.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1895160776098267262

I wish a real Canadian statesman would step up to the podium and make the argument for a stronger military just like Kaja Kallas has done since the first day of the full scale invasion.

They will if Canadians tell them a stronger military is a priority.

What Canadians have to remember is when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.

 

[Rifleman62]

OAS is on track to hit $100B by 2030. It's at $70B right now. Current projections are for $181B in 2045

Does that include the millions of immigrants added to the population in the last few years?

 

[ytz]

They will if Canadians tell them a stronger military is a priority.

You've served. You know that persuasion is part of the job of being a leader. Right now every leader, even Poilievre, is telling Canadians that everything is fine and that they can have their cake and eat it too. One offers tax cuts. The other promises more social spending. Nobody is stepping up to say that the unprecedented threat requires normal pandering to be set aside for a few years.

 

[ytz]

Does that include the millions of immigrants added to the population in the last few years?

I don't see why it wouldn't. It's just projecting policy cost out, based on current and forecast population numbers.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You've served. You know that persuasion is part of the job of being a leader. Right now every leader, even Poilievre, is telling Canadians that everything is fine and that they can have their cake and eat it too. One offers tax cuts. The other promises more social spending. Nobody is stepping up to say that the unprecedented threat requires normal pandering to be set aside for a few years.

Poilievre said Canada was broken, which I agree with, and he was chastised for saying it.

But I digress, I guess this is Canada. We wait for our 'betters' to tell us what we need.

I keep going back to this:

 

[ytz]

I’m aware that there is a means test, but the threshold is much to high - 140k income before it’s reduced to 0$?!?.
The OAS should be joined up with the GIS, where the years in Canada criteria should be mated with the low end over 65 income levels. A retiree earning over 75k shouldn’t be getting OAS.
A person over 65 earning 20k should be receiving the GIS, in addition to OAS with its number of years in Canada criteria.
As others have pointed out earlier,
OAS represents a future financial millstone around our neck.

My humble suggestion?

Replace OAS and GIS with a Minimum Income Guarantee that is tied to the national poverty standard. Let's say low income cut-off here. We don't want seniors living in poverty. That's the first principles goal. So let's make sure their income is always above poverty line. But no need to provide anything beyond that. If anybody wants a better retirement than that, it should be part of their responsibility.

And if we really want to be prudent? Design CPP to make sure that 90% of adults will have a CPP payment that is at or above the poverty line, so that OAS is eliminated over time.

 

[Czech_pivo]

They will if Canadians tell them a stronger military is a priority.

What Canadians have to remember is when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.

A play on "He who defends everything, defends nothing"

 

[ytz]

Poilievre said Canada was broken, which I agree with, and he was chastised for saying it.

But I digress, I guess this is Canada. We wait for our 'betters' to tell us what we need.

I keep going back to this:

I love the Line. I am probably closest to them ideologically. Incidentally, the "Canada is broken" rhetoric fails when it's self-serving. As in, "Canada is broken.... Only I can fix it with my agenda...." It's just another version of the Liberals saying the country was broken under Harper. Basically standard form politicking. Argue that the country is broken. Then argue that only your highly partisan agenda is the only acceptable solution. When every politician in the country does this, it breeds cynicism.

By the way, the folks at the Line, including Matt Gurney have argued that state capacity needs to be built. Not slashed. He even argued for the choo choo that many are poo pooing here. Part of being a grown up country is realising that we need to do multiple things at the same time.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I love the Line. I am probably closest to them ideologically. Incidentally, the "Canada is broken" rhetoric fails when it's self-serving. As in, "Canada is broken.... Only I can fix it with my agenda...." It's just another version of the Liberals saying the country was broken under Harper. Basically standard form politicking. Argue that the country is broken. Then argue that only your highly partisan agenda is the only acceptable solution. When every politician in the country does this, it breeds cynicism.

By the way, the folks at the Line, including Matt Gurney have argued that state capacity needs to be built. Not slashed. He even argued for the choo choo that many are poo pooing here. Part of being a grown up country is realising that we need to do multiple things at the same time.

I think that particular episode should be the blue prints for a new Canada.

I have no dog in the fight around the rail line. Not really paying attention to it.

 

[daftandbarmy]

My humble suggestion?

Replace OAS and GIS with a Minimum Income Guarantee that is tied to the national poverty standard. Let's say low income cut-off here. We don't want seniors living in poverty. That's the first principles goal. So let's make sure their income is always above poverty line. But no need to provide anything beyond that. If anybody wants a better retirement than that, it should be part of their responsibility.

And if we really want to be prudent? Design CPP to make sure that 90% of adults will have a CPP payment that is at or above the poverty line, so that OAS is eliminated over time.

Or reward hard work, risk taking, entrepreneurial spirit and overall success with tax breaks and other economic recognition to encourage people to be less of a burden on the state purse...

... oh wait, sorry, I was dreaming

 

[dapaterson]

Those people got totally and royally screwed by Eaton's. There are no words strong enough to convey my utter contempt for both the corporation and the family.

While in receivership the first time they somehow had the money to pay to have office windows papered over, because the staff working to reconcile the amounts owed were not senior enough to be entitled to have a window at work.

 

[ytz]

I think that particular episode should be the blue prints for a new Canada.

I have no dog in the fight around the rail line. Not really paying attention to it.

The broader point here is that both federal parties have, in their own way, become "head waiter to the provinces", as Pierre Trudeau famously criticized Joe Clark of doing. He'd be horrified at what his son is doing. Both parties are now so used to pandering to the provinces first and public second that they have no idea and maybe even no capacity to actually build the country up. And we, as a country have become so habituated to this, that most people find it strange when the federal government actually does federal government things like defence, or diplomacy, or large infrastructure.

There's an inkling of vision in Poilievre's argument for more internal trade. Whether he will actually put muscle and political capital behind it remains to be seen. I hope it's more than just election rhetoric. I'd like to be see some real effort to see this country become a tad more East-West than the North-South we are right now. I want to be able to easily travel to Quebec City and sip some wine from BC on a patio while having some seafood from the Maritimes. I want to be able to call up a mortgage broker in Calgary to find me a great deal on an investment property in Winnipeg. Etc. None of this should be as difficult as it is now.

 

[ytz]

Or reward hard work, risk taking, entrepreneurial spirit and overall success with tax breaks and other economic recognition to encourage people to be less of a burden on the state purse...

That's what governments thought they were doing as they let this country pour generations of wealth in to inflating real estate. Now we have grandparents living in million dollar homes who need OAS for actual quality of life, while their kids try to raise a grandkid (cause nobody is having two) in a half million dollar condo. All brought to you by the unlimited Primary Residence Exemption. Even those capitalist Americans get how bad this is and cap it at quarter million.

Encouraging investment is fine and all. It actually has to go to productive things though. Not just inflating asset bubbles, as we've allowed for basically the last quarter century. In Canada, any money that is freed up at all, ends up in real estate. Hell, at my last mortgage renewal, the agent was asking how much we get in Child Benefits.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The broader point here is that both federal parties have, in their own way, become "head waiter to the provinces", as Pierre Trudeau famously criticized Joe Clark of doing. He'd be horrified at what his son is doing. Both parties are now so used to pandering to the provinces first and public second that they have no idea and maybe even no capacity to actually build the country up. And we, as a country have become so habituated to this, that most people find it strange when the federal government actually does federal government things like defence, or diplomacy, or large infrastructure.

There's an inkling of vision in Poilievre's argument for more internal trade. Whether he will actually put muscle and political capital behind it remains to be seen. I hope it's more than just election rhetoric. I'd like to be see some real effort to see this country become a tad more East-West than the North-South we are right now. I want to be able to easily travel to Quebec City and sip some wine from BC on a patio while having some seafood from the Maritimes. I want to be able to call up a mortgage broker in Calgary to find me a great deal on an investment property in Winnipeg. Etc. None of this should be as difficult as it is now.

This is the reality of having only 10 provinces (sorry Territories, I'm leaving you out of this) vs 50 states. California is the 800 pound gorilla in the US, just like Ontario is our 800 pound gorilla. Difference is, California is only 1 of 50, so there are 49 other lessor primates to counter balance the 800 pound gorilla. The ratio here in Canada is less, therefore the Feds have to listen to our gorilla more than the US Fed's have to listen to their 800 pound gorilla.

 

[ytz]

This is the reality of having only 10 provinces (sorry Territories, I'm leaving you out of this) vs 50 states. California is the 800 pound gorilla in the US, just like Ontario is our 800 pound gorilla. Difference is, California is only 1 of 50, so there are 49 other lessor primates to counter balance the 800 pound gorilla. The ratio here in Canada is less, therefore the Feds have to listen to our gorilla more than the US Fed's have to listen to their 800 pound gorilla.

I don't buy this argument. It might be marginally more difficult. But that just means it requires a bit more leadership. At the end of the day, when voters go to the polls, most are thinking personal, not provincial, self-interest. And that makes them persuadable to honest and passionate arguments. But at least, I've yet to see somebody even try during my lifetime. Except for maybe during the unity crisis of the 90s.

 

[Halifax Tar]

@ytz Shouldn't the looming die off of the "wealthiest generation" correct some of this ?