Taxpayers first

[jamapple]

I was just wondering if anyone else in our fair city has a problem with a "group" of people seeking coucil positions under a banner that promises no tax increases for 4 years. Sounds like a great way to get elected, (by some), but what ramifications could we see after the 4 years? I also understand if they don't stick to their guns that they will all forfeight their wages. I say, if after 4 years they need to raise the taxes by a number with 2 digits, they should also pay back all of their wages. Easy to let the city go to Hell in a handbag and just leave it until the 4 years is up and then say we need a 20% tax hike to make it all up. I personally like the idea of a budget, and possible 2-2.5% increases rather than a 20% shot in one taxation year. What do you all think??

[kgcayenne]

I find that right-wing ideology is inversely proportionate with big-picture thinking.

ie: "Let's decrease taxes. durrrrrrr Why are the roads going to hell? durrrrrrr"

[pentona]

I find that right-wing ideology is inversely proportionate with big-picture thinking.

ie: "Let's decrease taxes. durrrrrrr Why are the roads going to hell? durrrrrrr"

This happened a few years back, in Vernon....(before the Sean Harvey era)..Mayor Wayne Mc___ let the city infrastructure go to you know where, saving dollars for a few years but then when things really needed to be fixed, it cost taxpayers millions in repairs.

[kgcayenne]

They just want to change which boys are in the old boys club, that's all.

[Glacier]

Walter is considered pretty right-wing, but when he was asked about this group he basically said that it wasn't possible because roads have to fixed, etc., especially when we consider that a 4 year freeze on budget increases equates to a significant cutback in spending due to inflation. Taxpayer's first plans to roll back wages, but as Walter Grey pointed out, the CUPE contracts have been negotiated and signed already, so you can't just immediately stop paying raises.

The "Taxpayer's first" was on the radio later, and the guy representing them said that might not freeze spending. They would look at spending, and if they can't find any government waste, they won't actually do what they are promising to do.

[delSol97]

Taxpayers first ... what an oxymoron.

Shouldn't taxpayers first mean quality services and safety and not nickeling and diming?

As they say, you get what you pay for.

[delSol97]

The "Taxpayer's first" was on the radio later, and the guy representing them said that might not freeze spending. They would look at spending, and if they can't find any government waste, they won't actually do what they are promising to do.

That's what politicians do these days. They aren't held accountable for their campaign promises. They say whatever needs to be said to get elected, then do whatever they need to do to get the job done. Often those end up being opposites.

[Symbonite]

I think there should be no "party" style groups in the mayor or councillor race. they should be independent so their views don't automatically skew to a passing vote.

[Mtn Biker]

That's what politicians do these days. They aren't held accountable for their campaign promises. They say whatever needs to be said to get elected, then do whatever they need to do to get the job done. Often those end up being opposites.

You're so bang on as that's exactly what Wally did 3 years ago. Played the smoke and mirrors game from the get-go as directed to him by the mayoral handlers he sold out to. Don't forget the For Greed Group. And in the end it changed the flavor and spirit of Kelowna municipal elections for the bad and perhaps that will now keep viable strong candidates from running because who needs their reputations drag through the mud and propagandized, when really it should be about debating the issues and establishing a platform.

[Rwede]

There may be some merit to the idea. There's a lot of fat that can be trimmed in municipal governments, as there's been little to nothing in the way of operational efficiency audits or improvements for ages.

Will you feel a pinch in services if some overhead is trimmed? Doubtful. Are the people running under this banner the ones to get it done? Questionable.

[MAPearce]

Any taxpayer , anywhere would be best served if they could fire the top third of the civil service...

That's where the fat lies...

Take your pick from the photo above .

[bob vernon]

“I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, ‘I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!’” -

[Joe Public]

I just spent a few minutes reading through the Taxpayer First website.

While the concept of keeping taxes low is laudable, their strategy to do so is scary. If you read between the lines, they seem to have two real objectives; to reduce or eliminate public service pensions, and to privatize all civic operations.

Public service pensions are a subject to be negotiated by both parties, but it seems that those negotiations will start with the threat of privatization, so taxpayers can expect ongoing difficult labour relations with the unions, not exactly an incentive for anyone to work harder and more efficiently. Although taxpayers can expect reduced services and efficiency from a labour group under attack, it is an issue between employer and employee, not between politicians and taxpayers.

The part that really scares me is privatization. Privatization in the provincial government has been an abject failure, both reducing services to taxpayers and increasing costs to taxpayers. Privatization cost taxpayers more for two reasons; private companies need to make profits and private companies must pay much more in insurance fees. The result is usually a rise in costs of private service delivery of approximately 30%. You don't have to drive far on a highways to see the results of privatization; poorer maintained roads, more potholes and most particularly, reduced snow removal services in winter. Prior to privatization, snow was cleared as it fell, not when it reached 6", as it is today. Many accidents and fatalities have occurred in recent years, which are directly attributable to reduced road maintenance standards required to make privatized services appear to be cost effective. In the case of the provincial government, in order to appear cost effective, standards were reduced and contracts were awarded to private companies at the same cost as public service delivery. I have no doubt that the Taxpayer First candidates intend to reduce services in order to have service delivered by private contractors.

While the Taxpayer First agenda seems innocent, and who would argue with reduced taxes, it is really about the reducing services and creating labour unrest in order to move forward an ideology of lower services and lower paid workers.

Small businesses are the economic engine of the Okanagan, of BC, and of Canada. Most small businesses survive on the disposable income of hard working people, and recent actions by right leaning governments have reduced the disposable income of the middle class, with the resulting decline small businesses. They are suffering, but not from red tape. They are suffering because wage settlements have been much less than the cost of living. They are suffering because user fees such as MSP and Hydro, and ICBC have increased substantially. They are suffering because workers now live in fear of their jobs and the economy, and are refusing, or unable to spend their disposable income. Every issues in the Taxpayer First agenda is designed to reduce the disposable income of working people, not increase it as they state, and this will hurt small business far more than reducing red tape and reducing minor tax increases.

The Taxpayer First agenda is a thinly veiled corporate friendly ideological movement similar to the ideology of the BC Liberals, which seeks to reduce services, while at the same time increasing the provincial debt and hurting small businesses. If it was successful in reducing costs to taxpayers, why is the provincial debt at record levels, why has their never been a balanced budget in BC in the past 10 years, and why have services been greatly reduced?

[twobits]

I just spent a few minutes reading through the Taxpayer First website.

While the concept of keeping taxes low is laudable, their strategy to do so is scary. If you read between the lines, they seem to have two real objectives; to reduce or eliminate public service pensions, and to privatize all civic operations.

Public service pensions are a subject to be negotiated by both parties, but it seems that those negotiations will start with the threat of privatization, so taxpayers can expect ongoing difficult labour relations with the unions, not exactly an incentive for anyone to work harder and more efficiently. Although taxpayers can expect reduced services and efficiency from a labour group under attack, it is an issue between employer and employee, not between politicians and taxpayers.

The part that really scares me is privatization. Privatization in the provincial government has been an abject failure, both reducing services to taxpayers and increasing costs to taxpayers. Privatization cost taxpayers more for two reasons; private companies need to make profits and private companies must pay much more in insurance fees. The result is usually a rise in costs of private service delivery of approximately 30%. You don't have to drive far on a highways to see the results of privatization; poorer maintained roads, more potholes and most particularly, reduced snow removal services in winter. Prior to privatization, snow was cleared as it fell, not when it reached 6", as it is today. Many accidents and fatalities have occurred in recent years, which are directly attributable to reduced road maintenance standards required to make privatized services appear to be cost effective. In the case of the provincial government, in order to appear cost effective, standards were reduced and contracts were awarded to private companies at the same cost as public service delivery. I have no doubt that the Taxpayer First candidates intend to reduce services in order to have service delivered by private contractors.

While the Taxpayer First agenda seems innocent, and who would argue with reduced taxes, it is really about the reducing services and creating labour unrest in order to move forward an ideology of lower services and lower paid workers.

Small businesses are the economic engine of the Okanagan, of BC, and of Canada. Most small businesses survive on the disposable income of hard working people, and recent actions by right leaning governments have reduced the disposable income of the middle class, with the resulting decline small businesses. They are suffering, but not from red tape. They are suffering because wage settlements have been much less than the cost of living. They are suffering because user fees such as MSP and Hydro, and ICBC have increased substantially. They are suffering because workers now live in fear of their jobs and the economy, and are refusing, or unable to spend their disposable income. Every issues in the Taxpayer First agenda is designed to reduce the disposable income of working people, not increase it as they state, and this will hurt small business far more than reducing red tape and reducing minor tax increases.

The Taxpayer First agenda is a thinly veiled corporate friendly ideological movement similar to the ideology of the BC Liberals, which seeks to reduce services, while at the same time increasing the provincial debt and hurting small businesses. If it was successful in reducing costs to taxpayers, why is the provincial debt at record levels, why has their never been a balanced budget in BC in the past 10 years, and why have services been greatly reduced?

So what are we to understand here? Taxpayers First with a fiscal responsibility message or Kelowna First made up of prominent business leaders who would also promote fiscal responsibility. Excuse my interruption here but as a non resident of Kelowna, am I missing something here or is this a pizzing match between two groups with the same end game just with different faces?

[jamapple]

I think there should be no "party" style groups in the mayor or councillor race. they should be independent so their views don't automatically skew to a passing vote.

I say go ahead and have them....I just think we as voters should be smart enough to see through them, so as to just not vote for them.