The theme seems to be “reduce operating spending, increase capital spending”. We’ll see how that will blow over with the opposition.

    • MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Which services are you thinking of?

      The major thing I’ve seen is reducing the number of public sector employees back to 2020 levels, which doesn’t seem wild. (I haven’t seen a good explanation of why we needed to increase the public sector by 20% since then, nor of what we got out of that. If you have anything, I’d love to read it!) Throw in some reductions of outside consultants etc…

      There are undoubtedly some programs getting cut. But given we’re teetering on the edge of an adversary induced recession, that doesn’t seem unsreasonable.

      • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I don’t have anything in particular, as I haven’t seen details, but the public service exists to serve the public, cutting the workforce ends up reducing services. Since we’re on the edge of a recession I’d say tax the billionaires, go back and charge Google for the billions that we were supposed to get before Carney bowed down to trump. We will now also have many unemployed more unemployed people which causes strains in other areas. I remain unconvinced that cuts for austerity purposes are ultimately beneficial, raise taxes on the ultra wealthy instead

        • MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          the public service exists to serve the public, cutting the workforce ends up reducing services.

          But what services did we get with our ridiculous expansion of the public service over the last four years?

          charge Google for the billions that we were supposed to get before Carney bowed down to trump.

          If memory serves, the tax in total, wad supposed to bring in 2 billion. We are paying an order of magnitude more than that to deal with tarrifs affected industries. It seems pretty reasonable to assume something that hits trump’s donors so precisely would elicit a reaction that would cost us much more than we brought in.

          I’d say tax the billionaires

          Sure, I’d like to as well. But there are I think less than 100 billionaires in Canada. Say we could soak them for even another 100 million a year each (which would be extraordinary and almost require some wild changes to the tax code because of the nature of their wealth, but let’s put those complications to the side.) Groovy. Until what, 1 in 10 decide it’s worth that 100 million plus the existing difference to move to the States or elsewhere. It’s a tricky balance and I’ve yet to see any of our populist “just tax the rich!” really show their math.

          Edit: finished my thought after clicking accidentally.

            • MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Okay, but the person to whom I’m responding wanted to save money by taxing them. So, what services would you cut to be rid of the people who are paying for those services?

              • patatas@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                The problem with the existence of billionaires is really the wealth inequality itself, not the number of dollars in their bank accounts.

                Inequality is what gives the ultra-wealthy their outsized influence in the political economy.

                Dollars are not scarce items; the government can issue currency essentially at will. Taxes aren’t there to fund services. They exist to reduce inequality.

                So yes, tax the billionaires. And if they leave: we’re better off that way too!

                • MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Sorry, I seriously disagree with about all of this.

                  Inequality is what gives the ultra-wealthy their outsized influence in the political economy.

                  This is about Canadian politics. We have strict rules and limits on donations, advertising and support. Like anything, could probably be better but it’s a pretty fair balance.

                  the government can issue currency essentially at will.

                  Apologies but this is childishly ignorant. Look to most countries in South America about the consequences of doing so. Inflation is very real and reducing the value of the Canadian dollar hurts those who can afford it least.

                  Taxes aren’t there to fund services. They exist to reduce inequality.

                  Absolutely not. Being equally poor without teachers, doctors, roads, defence, I mean my God.

                  tax the billionaires

                  We do. You let me know how much you think we do currently, how much more you would like.

                  And if they leave: we’re better off that way too!

                  Who needs hospitals, schools, emergency responders etc anyway? At least we won’t have dumb ol’ rich people anymore!