Statist Guile
A few things on this afternoon:
- The new plan for public education in New Brunswick was unveiled today by Premier Shawn Graham and Education Minister Kelly Lamrock titled When Kids Come First. I won't get into the details of the report, however, I will note that the first fundamental stage or goal "Every child will arrive at kindergarten ready to learn" struck me as curious. Why? Because, to me, this indicates that the state is interested in expanding its power and influence earlier in a child's life. And by doing this, people expect the state to assume more responsibility. Not to mention, bigger government requires more spending which will result in higher taxes. Higher taxes which erode the connection between family and the community, as well, a multitude of individuals who depend on the state and not each other for their well-being.
- Who said tax cuts weren't the right thing to do? According to a new CRA poll, NBers feel unsatisfied with the "sweeping tax hikes" implemented by the Liberals in their last budget. Voter satisfaction with the government and its policies has dropped 10 per cent since that ill-advised budget was dropped.
- And lastly, if it wasn't bad enough that the New Brunswick Liberals rescinded the tories' corporate tax cut and ripped up the energy rebate, since then they have used our tax-dollars unwisely on such schemes as corporate welfare programs for big business (Rogers), Liberal friendly firms and projects (Alan Graham et al. & Larry Jewett) and a fledgling textile industry (Atlantic Yarns). Not to mention, the bailing out of a Caisse populaire under criminal investigation without even consulting the people of New Brunswick. I know what you're thinking, it couldn't possibly get any worse, right? Guess again folks, the Liberals announced yesterday that they would divert $1 million of our hard earned tax-dollars over to the harness racing industry in the form of purse money. I am so shocked that I am at a loss for words. This is not exactly what I call investment on infrastructure which will benefit the greater good of society.
Furthermore, isn't this the same premier whose government pledged to look into "using tax breaks instead of grants and loans to attract companies to invest in the province, stimulate job creation and further the government's agenda of self-sufficiency"? So just where are the tax breaks? Where are the companies?
7 Comments:
Far different than the deal NS Premier John Hamm put through in 2000 on behalf of his campaign chairman who stood to benefit from the $1 million.
Cyril Reddy's involvement with both the Truro raceway and the premier made it a conflict of interest. There's no such situation here in NB as far as i know?
I was of the same mind when I saw the line, "Every child will arrive at kindergarten ready to learn". Maybe I'm reading more into it than is there but Bernard Lord was musing about creating a state-sponsored pre-kindergarten when he was in power. Smells a lot like state-sanctioned daycare. I have zero problem with putting more money into education if there's a solid plan with realistic goals but throwing bad money after bad money in education isn't the answer. Great Britian has been doing that and it hasn't worked for them.
This really all comes back to having healthy kids and when tax policy isn't exactly family friendly (although the federal Conservatives have made a few baby steps in that direction) it's tough to have healthy kids mentally, socially, and physically.
ddamours: I oppose these kind of irresponsible investments right across the board. If they wanted to do something for the agricultural sector/energuy sector, then maybe they should look at boosting research into ethanol, biofuels, biomass, etc. At least then we could reduce our dependency on oil while giving the declining agricultural sector the much needed tools to succeed in a very competitive and diverse industry.
Spinks: you hit the nail right on the head buddy. The conservatives have made considerable headway on this issue, however, by not implementing income splitting for middle income familes in the last budget, they have basically said that a single-earner family will pay more than a dual-earner family earning the same income. This policy is unfair and discriminates against those who chose to have one parent stay at home to raise the children.
So you are not alone on this one my friend as I think its imperative that a quality education be given every single child and young adult entering the system. However, limiting choice and expanding their influence is not the way to go.
And what you read today in that report is not a Minister who believes in choice nor does he believe in family friendly policies. In other words, it's like everything this government has done, it's a small dose of what is coming down the pipe. That being, state-run uninionized daycares.
OK. I know what I have to do to become self sufficient in New Brunswick. I am going to run a harness racing off track betting VLT casino, right next to the new Conference Center, selling twice taxed beer at twice the price - well at least until the Supreme court rules in my favour, while offering low interest loans with zero collateral in my own caisse poplaire, and open a per-kindergarten day care center during the day... and when she all goes bust! No worries.
Thanks for that kit and well said.
I may add that they probably would have struck at least 4 to 5 commisions and task forces to investigate that before manking those decisions. ;-)
Discrimate against family who want to have one parent staying at home make me laugh. They also discrimate against family who want to both stay at home.
They discrimate against people who do not want to have any kids.
Think about this they pay full tax but they will not use the education system nor health system as much. They will work more hour than you with less pay leave. They are the one being really discriminate against.
What are those family you are talking about. You mean the one who make more than 40000$ on one income. I get it. Those poor bastard.
Did you ever went on social welfare? You would better give it to people who already make 40000$ a year instead of a sick mother raising her three kid on welfare with only a earning of 11000$ a year.
I swear people want their plasma screen tv and still raise their kid full time. Why should I pay tax for that?
Also how can we pay for education and health when you want to have half of our population working for the same delivery of services. Do you really think we can print money on tree. Tax come from earnings.
I didn't know conservative where so socialist in their thinking. The pursuit of money is the cornerstone of free enterprise. You just remove the drive for a family to make more money.
Wife : I want to work
Husband : Why bother, we will make the same money
Wife : I understand
And she goes back to scrubbing and cleaning and cooking.
Or maybe I never found a real conservative in any blog I've read.
What's wrong with a state-run uninionized daycares?
It's unfortunate that people paint such a grim picture of those who take the direct responsibility to raise their children.
All I'm saying is that tax policies should allow families to keep more of what they earn.
Instead of favouring those who both choose to work and leave their kid at daycare, why not give the single-earner family the same benefits under the tax system. In other words, in a more equitable system, more families may chose to have one parent stay at home for the pre-school years of the childs life.
I know many that come on here don't value the impact of a tax break, however, as Stats Can reported a few years back, personal taxes are the largest family expenditure, well ahead of shelter, food and clothing. So there is no question, unfair tax laws stand to discourage single-earner families, not aid them in their quest for a strong family unit.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home