BC Budget 2013-14.

[logicalview]

]


sometimes it helps if you read things, like the text on the cartoon.

This post makes no sense.

[Al Czervic]

I have not read the other comments here on BC’s budget but my take is as follows.

1. This is NOT a typical “election” budget. Proposed spending increases are, overall minimal and focus on the usual areas – majority of increased money to health with smaller increases to K-12 education (post secondary actually get’s a cut)

2. What is most interesting about this budget is how much it proposes to increase on the revenue side – typically BC “election” budgets do the opposite. This budget proposes fairly significant revenue increases – and not by optimistic revenue growth projections either (as is usually the case) but rather by actual tax increases to both upper income and corporate taxes along with increases in fees like MSP. When was the last time in history that a political party went into an election on a budget that proposed increasing taxes more than spending? I will actually credit the BC Liberals for doing that.

3. IS this a truly “balanced” budget ? This budget proposes a sell-off of assets in order to achieve a balance. Selling assets, and more so public one’s is always a challenge – Most of the land is surplus and sitting idle – new purchasers will invariably want to do something with it – this opens the doors to NIMBY’ism and when Government is the seller that can lead to challenges. The budget has the potential to be balanced if ALL of the assets were sold but I don’t believe that is a realistic expectation to occur within the next 12 months given that real estate is still a relatively depressed market in BC.

4. Final consideration. The biggest point being overlooked that should be a concern to all is that this budget proposes reasonably significant increases in revenue with very small increases in spending. In other words more money is being taken from BC taxpayers solely to attempt to sustain EXISTING spending. There is clearly no more fiscal room for increased spending without very substantial tax/fee increases beyond what is proposed in this budget or running a very large deficit – running a large deficit would be suicide right now. All major credit rating agencies are sending clear signals that they will not tolerate reckless spending and WILL downgrade credit ratings – this of course increases interest and means money is taken out of services to pay interest. This is why it is so important right now that BC SHOULD be talking about these critical issues but instead the focus is all on memo’s and FOI’s. I really worry for BC turning into another Ontario or worse, Quebec.

That is my .02 on the BC Budget.

[George+]

They did a great job of "borrowing" NDP ideas.

[Gone_Fishin]

NDP and borrowing. The words are synonymous.

[Drip_Torch]

NDP and borrowing. The words are synonymous.

Really?

2001 debt per capita $8,377, or 33 billion.

2012 debt per capita $10,976, or 53 billion.

Want to talk about BC liberals being synonymous with contractual obligations? Then we're talking about another 80.2 billion, which, when added to the conventional debt is almost 100 billion dollars borrowed in 12 years.

But hey, look at the bright side... we've got so much hydro electric capacity now that we're almost giving it away.

[Drip_Torch]

Make no mistake: this provincial election is all about pulling B.C. back from the financial precipice.

Steve Burgess, BC Election Battle Royale
http://www.bcbusiness.ca/people/bc-elec ... tle-royale

[Gone_Fishin]

NDP and borrowing. The words are synonymous.

[

Really?

2001 debt per capita $8,377, or 33 billion.

2012 debt per capita $10,976, or 53 billion.

Want to talk about BC liberals being synonymous with contractual obligations? Then we're talking about another 80.2 billion, which, when added to the conventional debt is almost 100 billion dollars borrowed in 12 years.

But hey, look at the bright side... we've got so much hydro electric capacity now that we're almost giving it away.

And you're wrong. Current BC debt per capita is $8,408. It's the 3rd lowest in Canada. Inflation adjusted, it's far better than the 2001 number you posted. On the tail end of the worst recession in nearly 100 years, BC's debt per capita for a resource-dependent province is even more remarkable.

I'll trust RBC to provide the figures over any union website.

[Drip_Torch]

Hmm, perhaps you're right.

You do believe the Government numbers - right?

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/Statistics ... anada.aspx

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/PT/dmb/ref/debtsummary.pdf

4.4 million people owe 57.6 billion - forecast to swell to 62.6 billion in the budget estimates for 2013/14

My calculator says it's closer to $13,000 per capita.

[Gone_Fishin]

I believe RBC, you believe labour union bloggers. To each their own, I guess.

[Urbane]

If you had to make up your mind based on the political jockeying going on at the moment particularly among B.C. New Democrats, you’d conclude that British Columbia’s public finances had gone to hell in a handbasket. You’d think this was Argentina or someplace like that.

But if you turned instead to the economists at Canada’s largest bank, you could only conclude the opposite. B.C. is actually in incredibly strong shape compared to all of Canada.
http://bcpoliticalreports.com/2013/02/1 ... ns-lowest/

[Drip_Torch]

Those numbers are from the Ministry of Finance, Province of British Columbia... I've heard them call a number of things lately, but you're the first to call them union bloggers.

Whatever floats your boat, but...

Baird gave you fair warning... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueBZuZAoglE

[butcher99]

I believe RBC, you believe labour union bloggers. To each their own, I guess.

I didn't go to either. I went to BC stats. A government web site for population figures. BC population in 1999 was about 4 million. BC population 2012 is about 4.6 million.
I was going to look up the debt in 1999 and 2012 but figured why? We know it has almost doubled and it is obvious that the population while going up steadily has increased it has not doubled.

These are easily obtained figures. It is easy math. You don't have to take anyones word for it. Look it up and get out your calculator. Then when you are done add untold (as in the Liberals refuse to tell us) billions more for the PPP projects that are not on the books but that we have to pay for as future obligations. (usually called debts)

From the governments OWN figures. The amount of money owed by the people of BC has gone from 8300 per person in 2001 to 11,000 per person in 2012 the last year available. Not counting the PPP fiasco.
Now these are not union figures but they could be. They get the figures the same place you could if you took the time to look them up. Try a search for bc provincial debt and click on just about any link that comes up on the first page.

[Urbane]

^^

BC’s net debt equals 17% of GDP, the third lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the country

For any government, the most important indicator of long-term fiscal sustainability is not the operating deficit/surplus, but the net or “taxpayer-supported” debt measured relative to the size of the economy, or GDP. For British Columbia, the net debt equals 17% of GDP. A decade ago, the net debt/GDP ratio stood at 20%. Among the ten provinces, BC has the third-lowest debt/GDP ratio, after Alberta and Saskatchewan. Quebec and Ontario are grappling with much heavier debt burdens (50% and 40% of GDP, respectively). BC’s relatively low net debt is a key reason why the province enjoys a top-tier credit rating.
http://www.bcbc.com/bcbc-blog/2013/five ... udget-2013

[Donald G]

This thread has become little more than amateur political hacks grinding out the same old emotionalized political propaganda ... I will no longer be a part of it.

[butcher99]

This thread has become little more than amateur political hacks grinding out the same old emotionalized political propaganda ... I will no longer be a part of it.

If you look at the dates everyone else gave up on it a week ago
But, do you consider yourself a professional political hack? Who do you think would read and reply to a public forum about politics on a mainly locals only website if not "amateur political hacks"? Perhaps you are just overwhelmed by the level of debate here and can't keep up?