8 Responses to “Pre-Budget Consultation 2009”

1. 1
   CarlM Says:
   January 14th, 2009 at 6:41 pm

   Keith – I’d like to see more done on stuff that we really need – like an LRT or the E&N. Maybe you could also suggest that the government could tighten its belt by firing a couple of Ministers that don’t do anything anyway…

2. 2
   SookeRocks Says:
   January 14th, 2009 at 6:57 pm

   I hope to make it to your Sooke Meeting on this too, but just incase I can’t I want to make sure you get these two very important items:

   1. Fix Sooke Road – it’s a mess. Fixing it would put a lot of people back to work.

   2. Build our Military equipment in Canada (supply ships / buffalo SAR etc). This would give our troops the tools they need while supporting our industry in Canada. Win-Win.

3. 3
   gemoore Says:
   January 15th, 2009 at 10:53 am

   the unemployment rate is forecast to be less than it was 15 years ago – so why all this panic now?

   there should be a very small deficit if any

   completing underway projects would be better than starting new ones (all should be completed by jun 2011)

   there is insufficient population to have commuter rail on the island. better would be small frequent local buses connecting to priority distance buses

   Hwy 14 needs work victoria – sooke

   a second ayre house in sooke could be built now using same plan, contractor

   overpass at mackenzie

   gemoore

   2nd river crossing in sooke

4. 4
   madeincanada Says:
   January 15th, 2009 at 7:56 pm

   Hi Keith, My user name says a lot. You’re talking federal budget, so how about income splitting for married Canadians? One parent making $70,000.00 pays way more tax than two parents each making $35,000.00. This happens even though both family’s gross incomes are the same and they have the same number of kids. It’s a penalty for bringing home more money for your family. It’s just like BC hydro’s two tier system that we all hate. Income splitting can erase this unfair tax bite, and it will strengthen family’s by allowing more parents to raise their kids instead of placing them in a daycare. The more cash that the taxman leaves in Canadian wallets, the more cash that Canadians will spend. We all know that spending keeps the economy rolling. If you get this approved, you’ll be the next Canadian hero.

5. 5
   stanlib Says:
   January 20th, 2009 at 8:37 pm

   Using the GAS-Tax Fund ($2 billion in 2008 budget) for infrastructure expenditures by municipalities is a program which is acceptable to all 3 levels of government, as well as Canadian voters and taxpayers.

   The Gas-Tax-Fund could be used to fund the incremental infrastructure expenditures that are expected to be included in the 2009 budget. Due to the magnitude and urgency of these infrastructure expenditures, I recommend that the excise tax revenues that provide the revenues for the Gas-Tax Fund be collected over a period of time which is 2-3 times as long as the period in which the funds are required. The revenues for the near-term deficits would be paid in large part by the taxpayers that benefit from the expenditures and future taxpayers will not have to bear a disproportionate share of the tax burden.

   For example, $20 billion in infrastructure expenditures over the next 2-3 years would be financed over a 6-9 year period under this modification to the Gas-Tax Funding program.

6. 6
   visualator Says:
   January 23rd, 2009 at 12:40 pm

   For the upcoming budget, a very important issue is to consider small and medium sized businesses (SMBs) differently than large / multinational businesses. SMBs need to be encouraged, and one of the best tools government has for SMBs are tax incentives, or tax reductions.

   By their very nature, large businesses are not innovative, and are slow to react to a changing world, to an economic shift. Indeed it is large business that come looking for bailouts and handouts, such as the auto industry, because their own lack of vision leads them to failure. The leverage they have is the number of people they employ, and therefore the threat of laying off hundreds or thousands of people, and the consequences of that.

   SMBs are different. Certainly they employ less people so do not have that leverage, but they also innovate more, and can react much quicker to a changing marketplace and a changing world. Indeed, as our economy shifts and our demographics change, it will be the SMBs that will be at the forefront of solutions. Don’t consider this as just in the hi tech field. Some solutions, no doubt, will be low tech.

   SMBs are tied to their communities. The owners and entrepreneurs are people who are active in their communities, volunteer their time with boards of trade, charities, social organizations, school groups, etc. One study in BC found that 96% of SMBs do charitable donations of time and money in their communities. SMBs stay in their communities, and not relocate to low wage, low regulation parts of the world.

   In hard times, SMBs having to lay off staff is much harder than for large businesses. It could be their neighbours, people they have community connections with, that they are forced to lay off. SMBs want to hire, especially as they develop and launch new products and services that address issues in our changing world.

   My company has been negatively affected by the downturn in the real estate industry, because half our clients are real estate agents. We run a very tight ship, a very efficient organization, and are very careful with our expenditures, but we still had to lay off. As a response we are developing new products. But as the owner of an SMB I find it incredibly frustrating that if we face closure because of the economic downturn, we cannot fly to Ottawa to get a bailout. Our clients, all of whom are either SMBs or single person, self employed businesses (SOHO), cannot get bailouts either.

   With the amount of tax we send to Ottawa, we could instead use that money to employ another programmer or designer who would live and work and support our community, and pay taxes. Yet the thought that those taxes may end up going to a large, inefficient company that is whining for a handout, makes my blood boil. If we decide to delay paying that tax so we can keep our doors open and our staff paid (so they can pay their own bills and spend money in our community), we would get hit with a severe penalty. Revenue Canada is no friend of SMBs.

   You must refuse to bail out inefficient companies. If there are two companies in the same industry, one that is managing, and one that is failing and comes asking for a handout, don’t do it. Let it fail. You need to encourage the efficient company. An efficient company will find it hard to compete against an inefficient company that sucks money out of the government. With the auto industry, and large companies looking for handouts (bailouts), be wary of them taking the money, paying bonuses, continuing that lack of vision and innovation, and then relocating to another country.

   For infrastructure, look at projects that appear to be better long term. Rather than widening the highways, which encourages more automobile use, consider high speed rail lines through and between metropolitan areas. Hope to Vancouver, Calgary to Edmonton, Ottawa to Montreal.

   Though not a budget item, more an overall philosphy, we should consider the concept of ‘enough’. How much income do people need? Rather than cap salaries and bonuses, there should be a fixed range of earnings between what the highest paid people in a company make, and what the lowest paid people make. For some of the more abusive companies, it is over 400%. To illustrate, a shop floor employee who earns $10/hour or $16,000 in a company in which the CEO earns over a million dollars a year. The range should be set, maybe at 100% or 150%. It doesn’t mean the CEO can’t earn so much. It means the CEO has to find ways to have the lower wage staff earn more, earn a decent, livable wage.

7. 7
   starnowski Says:
   January 24th, 2009 at 12:32 pm

   The Public Sector Accounting Board requires all municipalities to take inventory, perform condition assessment and start amortizing our capital assets. Through this exercise, the federal government is finally clued in to the extent of our infrastructure. President Obama has been strongly advocating for infrastructure spending as one method to rejuvenate the ailing economy. I firmly believe that the Canadian Government should follow the US advocation, funding two different types of infrastructure expenditure, one for new construction and one for asset maintenance. It serves little purpose to fund building new infrastructure and leave municipalities to scramble to maintain the infrastructure.

8. 8
   cls Says:
   January 26th, 2009 at 9:08 pm

   Light transit, proper sewage treatment, protection of our parks and wildlife. Please note that this constituent does not support a coalition government, although I think what you have done over the years is wonderful.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.