Clark's fake surplus and accounting skills

[matai]

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.

[GordonH]

Interest on the debt since it borrowed money, same as if you took a loan out from a bank.

[matai]

Interest on the debt since it borrowed money, same as if you took a loan out from a bank.

So you agree we're still doing a deficit, and not a surplus right?

[GordonH]

Interest on the debt since it borrowed money, same as if you took a loan out from a bank.

So you agree we're still doing a deficit, and not a surplus right?

Did I say that, no.

I answered your question

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

[LoneWolf_53]

matai how you view it, and how accountants view it, would be two different things.

[Captain Awesome]

I call that a deficit, don't you?
.

No.

You have rather simplistic and uneducated (no offense) view of govt financials. All govts have debt but it doesn't mean all of them are in deficit.

[Gilchy]

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.

Equalization payments have nothing to do with the provincial government or budget.

[Rwede]

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.

There's a big difference between net income and net cash flow. Spend a day or two at the library reading up on it, and it will all make sense to you.

[Steve-O]

My understanding was that deficit/surplus are the terms used for the current year. Debt is the term used for deficits carried forward from previous years. Not aware of any gov't not in the red so what would they call one that is in the black?

So ya, Christy and her accountants are not wrong. While we may have a deficit from this year, next is looking like there will be a surplus of income that can be used to pay down the debt from this and previous years.

[matai]

Let's keep it simple as I certainly know it's more complicated than 1+ 1 = too much taxes.

For as long as this government is digging its hole deeper like they're doing now, they are NOT in a surplus, they're in a deficit.

[matai]

Equalization payments have nothing to do with the provincial government or budget.

It certainly has to do. It's there so provinces can offer "comparable" services to their citizens.

Equalization payments enable less prosperous provincial governments to provide their residents with public services that are reasonably comparable to those in other provinces, at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

https://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/eqp-eng.asp

How do you think some provinces can afford a subsidized $7/day daycare & fully paid paternity leaves? LOL

[Captain Awesome]

For as long as this government is digging its hole deeper like they're doing now, they are NOT in a surplus, they're in a deficit.

Well, if we start making up our own definitions of everything to suit our needs, then I guess you are right.

[Gilchy]

It certainly has to do. It's there so provinces can offer "comparable" services to their citizens.

How do you think some provinces can afford a subsidized $7/day daycare & fully paid paternity leaves? LOL

Equalization payments are funded from federal income tax payments, based on on per-capita revenue yield calculated on a provincial basis. The federal government does not take money from provincial governments to allocate, they distribute from collected federal taxes to provincial governments to spend as they please (such as the aforementioned cheap daycare).

But by all means, continue to blame Clark for something she has no control over.

[matai]

Equalization payments are funded from federal income tax payments, based on on per-capita revenue yield calculated on a provincial basis. The federal government does not take money from provincial governments to allocate, they distribute from collected federal taxes to provincial governments to spend as they please (such as the aforementioned cheap daycare).

But by all means, continue to blame Clark for something she has no control over.

Where did I blame her for equalization?

What I said is that it would be wise to keep OUR money here instead of giving it away since we are in deficit and clearly - BC doesn't offer comparable services than other provinces for the same amount of taxation. BC is biafra compared to Canada.

Maybe in direct taxes on the income we pay less than the country, but I don't know anywhere else you buy a $3 case of water and it amounts to $8 after taxes.

Where in the country are the homes the most expensive? And the wages the lowest (at the exception of govt workers)?

How do we compare with:
-Daycare?
-Taxes (overall)?
-Car insurance?
-Jury duty?
-Social services?
-Parental leave?
-Health Care?
-Etc etc etc.

We run a $2 BILLION deficit yet the first thing someone did after winning their election was to increase their pension!

[fluffy]

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.