Clark's fake surplus and accounting skills

[dudlee]

So basic maths in here.

B.C. is forecast to end the fiscal year 2013-14 with a surplus of $175 million, with progressively larger surpluses forecast in all three years of the fiscal plan:
· $184 million in 2014-15.
· $206 million in 2015-16.
· $451 million in 2016-17.

Yet the total provincial debt is forecast to be $ 64.7 billion in 2014-15, $66.9 billion in 2015-16 and $68.9 billion in 2016-17.

Hum, if we do surplus, why is the debt growing an extra $2,000,000,000 a year?

I call that a deficit, don't you?

BTW, we're sending a $10,000,000,000 equalization payment to Quebec because they are so poor. If BC is doing a $2G deficit, we're not very rich either... Ah well, anyways, who cares.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=2076

Exactly , check out this website, Gasoline usage has apparently reduced by this tax, cash grab, of course it's gone down when gas prices have gone up . It's not the tax working , it's being over taxed . They manipulate with phrases like " BC has the lowest income taxes in Canada " yah , so ? We pay more taxes and fees charged by this government than any other provincial government in Canadian history . Debt growing while proclaiming a surplus , this is a page outta the Bill Clinton play book , exactly the same thing . Following this pattern of over spending BC will not be able to survive another World wide Financial crisis, BC will declare bankruptcy , like Detroit had too.

It's never the stuff that you see that you should be leery of , it's the back door deals that you don't see, like in the HST . The people didn't want it and they pushed it on us , terrible for families and great for the rich and big money .when they sit in parliament for 61 days total for 2 years they are earning $1000's /day that they work , plus BS expenses and freebies and golden parachutes.

[tgm929]

It doesn't really make sense to me either that a surplus budget would result in an increased debt, unless the interest payable on the debt is not being included in annual budget calculations? I think this is likely more an example of Gov't window dressing than any sort of higher accounting.

I haven't looked at this in detail yet, just the media reports that tend to be very inaccurate, but the mostly likely thing is that the surpluses being mentioned are operating surpluses only. The increasing debt is most likely a result of capital expenditures that are not covered by available capital funds.

[matai]

Thank god for the last couple posts, I almost thought I was crazy and totally out of track - not.

[tgm929]

Thank god for the last couple posts, I almost thought I was crazy and totally out of track - not.

I wasn't really agreeing with you. There is no fake surplus and there is nothing wrong with their accounting skills.

The BC government budgets the exact same way all other governments and most larger companies budget...they separate operating from capital budgets.

My point was that they should be more specific in their terminology and call it an operating surplus and not just call it a surplus. It would help greatly is the media that wrote about it had a basic understanding of budgeting so they would not end up writing articles that basically mislead the general public.

So you trashing Clark and the BC governments accounting skills in this situation does make you somewhat crazy and totally off track. This is kind of the same as trashing Ford for putting 4 tires on their cars.

[matai]

Thank god for the last couple posts, I almost thought I was crazy and totally out of track - not.

I wasn't really agreeing with you. There is no fake surplus and there is nothing wrong with their accounting skills.

So you trashing Clark and the BC governments accounting skills in this situation does make you somewhat crazy and totally off track. This is kind of the same as trashing Ford for putting 4 tires on their cars.

My previous post was applying to the last couple posts above of yours.

As for the budget, who's budget is this? Certainly not Ford's.. this is BC we are talking about, not Toronto.

As for saying we made a "surplus" it's as accurate as a bank saying they made losses because they made 2 billions profits, but 500 millions less than what they "expected".

[tgm929]

As for the budget, who's budget is this? Certainly not Ford's.. this is BC we are talking about, not Toronto.

I was referring to the car company, not the fat idiot.

Sorry if you misunderstood that also.

[LoneWolf_53]

As for the budget, who's budget is this? Certainly not Ford's.. this is BC we are talking about, not Toronto.

Face it, you just don't understand common, "accepted" accounting procedures.

That lack, does not however translate into some Christy Clark conspiracy, much as you wish to portray it that way.

Contact the Institute of Chartered Accountants of BC if you have a grievance.

[Smurf]

It is very misleading, and I believe meant to be so, for a great deal of the public who do not understand how it works. They never make any attempt to explain it. They would sooner leave it so it looks good. That is not just the Liberals but all governments. Just as big a shame is the number of people, at least I believe, that don't take the time to understand it. Then they vote thinking "Oh boy is this government good". Uninformed is a terrible part of the democratic system, but I still feel it is by far the best system out there. Could there be some changes, I believe so.

[The Rooster]

So basic maths in here.

B.C. is forecast to end the fiscal year 2013-14 with a surplus of $175 million, with progressively larger surpluses forecast in all three years of the fiscal plan:
· $184 million in 2014-15.
· $206 million in 2015-16.
· $451 million in 2016-17.

Yet the total provincial debt is forecast to be $ 64.7 billion in 2014-15, $66.9 billion in 2015-16 and $68.9 billion in 2016-17.

Hum, if we do surplus, why is the debt growing an extra $2,000,000,000 a year?

I call that a deficit, don't you?

BTW, we're sending a $10,000,000,000 equalization payment to Quebec because they are so poor. If BC is doing a $2G deficit,



we're not very rich either... Ah well, anyways, who cares.

They are Fiberals , all they are capable of is misleading and lying after all , quit voting them in

[bob vernon]

Money borrowed by crown corporations doesn't count in the way the Liberals calculate the debt. As the sole shareholder of a crown corp, the province has told the crown corps to borrow money and spend it.

Example: the North West Transmission Line, a very expensive hydro line being built by BC Hydro that runs from near Kitwanga to Bob Quinn. Find them on a map. BC Hydro had spent $873 million by the end of last summer and the line isn't finished yet. The original estimate was less than $300 million. It will easily go over a billion this summer. All borrowed money by BC Hydro. And it is the major reason that your Hydro bill is increasing so much over the next few years and it won't cover this line. This billion doesn't count against the deficit. Nor does any borrowing by any crown corporation. Like ICBC or BC Buildings Corp. All kinds of spending can be buried in a crown corporation without telling the public.

[Smurf]

That's right and if the government wasn't taking so much money from them they could borrow less or maybe even not at all. So in a roundabout way it is the government borrowing all that money, they just don't have to admit it. Can you imagine running a private company where it was forced to borrow huge amounts of money to keep going, while the management was taking out all the money they wanted for other uses. Even worse yet they raise their rates and people are forced to buy their product anyway because it is a necessity in most cases.