Author Topic: Canadian Budget 2017  (Read 5159 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 188,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,432
Canadian Budget 2017
« on: March 22, 2017, 22:16:59 »
They are increasing alcohol tax!?  That is mean.


Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2017, 22:30:04 »
They are increasing alcohol tax!?  That is mean.

I think it works out to ~0.01 per ounce.

Online SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 105,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,394
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2017, 00:06:34 »
That is not the point! They are increasing tax on alcohol!

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 472,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,903
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2017, 06:40:09 »
I think it works out to ~0.01 per ounce.
OK, most have come to accept that you consistently ignore people with experience -- who actually understand -- procurement, warships, fighter aircraft, etc.... but now we're talking alcohol.

Let me assure you, on this topic you are wayyyy  out of your league!

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 87,634
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,484
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2017, 06:44:33 »
OK, most have come to accept that you consistently ignore people with experience -- who actually understand -- procurement, warships, fighter aircraft, etc.... but now we're talking alcohol.

Let me assure you, on this topic you are wayyyy  out of your league!

 [cheers] [cheers]


Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 427,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,390
  • Crewman
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2017, 09:09:47 »
Let's see now......Trudeau has been repeating the same canned lines in the House of Commons for the past year ad nauseum on how he has taxed the top 1% and lowered the taxes of the Middle Classes........How does raising the taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, carbon products, and all those other new or increased taxes help the Middle Class?  How does doing away with the ability to claim Transportation on Public Transit help the Middle Class?  How does taking monies dedicated to infrastructure (Public Safety on roads, bridges, etc.) and directing it to Child Care really help the Middle Class or any Canadian?  I would say that what has actually happened is that the Middle Class is getting taxed even more than ever before and the Liberal claims of helping the Middle Class are 'Smoke and Mirrors'.  The Middle Class will soon have less in their pockets than before.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Lightguns

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,022
  • I live for trout and deer
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2017, 09:33:41 »
That is not the point! They are increasing tax on alcohol!

Which works out to an expected 55 million, la drop dans la bucket!  Nothing in this budget makes any sense.  it's like a five year old is punishing people who don't like him and rewarding people who do like him.
Done, 34 years, 43 days complete, got's me damn pension!

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2017, 11:00:01 »
Basically, the budget had no new taxes or spending.  It simply reallocated some money.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 427,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,390
  • Crewman
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2017, 11:36:07 »
Basically, the budget had no new taxes or spending.  It simply reallocated some money.

So there IS NO increase in taxes on alcohol and tobacco?

You mean the Liberal's actually lied in their budget when they announced those increases?  The Middle  Class will not be taxed more heavily on daily items such as alcohol, tobacco, Carbon Products, public transit, etc. 

I'll drink to that.

DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2017, 11:40:29 »
We're talking about taxes totalling less than $500M on a $300B budget in a $2T economy.  That's why I said basically no new taxes.  There was, from what I understand, zero new spending.  $1.3B was reallocated from already budgeted funds from last year.  Basically this budget did nothing in terms of either revenue or expenses.

Offline kratz

    Happy 150th.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 222,508
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,721
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2017, 11:42:14 »
The carbon tax is going to cost me another $204 per year for rent, and I'm not even in a PMQ / RHU. 
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 131,102
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,455
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2017, 13:06:37 »
We're talking about taxes totalling less than $500M on a $300B budget in a $2T economy.  That's why I said basically no new taxes.  There was, from what I understand, zero new spending.  $1.3B was reallocated from already budgeted funds from last year.  Basically this budget did nothing in terms of either revenue or expenses.

I would like to know what optometrist you're using, as your rose coloured glasses are even better than the Sunny Ways glasses that some others like wear here in Canada, and to be frank I really need a good pair or corrective lenses to block out the pile of garbage that is being presented on a plate.

Your glasses allow you to see budget increases where none came to exist, and now you're seeing
Quote
taxes totalling less than $500M on a $300B budget
...  Goddam, I wish I had these glasses right now, as it would enable me to not see the $5K+tax bill I'm paying this year.  Psst!!! a hot tip.... less than $500M is still greater than $0 (which would mean no new taxes)  But then, I'm not an accountant or economist myself...

So to sum up, you were contradicting people from within the defence community on what they were seeing happening on the basis of no current (or ever?) military experience, and now you're continuing to do more of the same on how the budget works.  I'm wondering, you're not even an economist either, are you?
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline Flavus101

  • Member
  • ****
  • 12,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 218
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #12 on: March 23, 2017, 13:39:13 »
Some people just like to hear themselves...

Or in this case know that others are reading their posts.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2017, 14:19:38 »
So to sum up, you were contradicting people from within the defence community on what they were seeing happening on the basis of no current (or ever?) military experience, and now you're continuing to do more of the same on how the budget works.  I'm wondering, you're not even an economist either, are you?

I said basically:

in the most essential respects; fundamentally.

used to indicate that a statement summarizes the most important aspects, or gives a roughly accurate account, of a more complex situation.

I didn't say literally.  I didn't mean literally.  There were virtually no new taxes.  In other words, basically, there were no new taxes. 

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 131,102
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,455
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2017, 15:30:36 »
I said basically:

in the most essential respects; fundamentally.

used to indicate that a statement summarizes the most important aspects, or gives a roughly accurate account, of a more complex situation.

I didn't say literally.  I didn't mean literally.  There were virtually no new taxes.  In other words, basically, there were no new taxes.

When you're right, you're right.  No new taxes, except almost $500 million in new taxes. 

I've got you pegged now.  You're not military, not a mathematician, not an economist.  I've seen this kind of reasoning and solid fact based talking before, and with your keen interest in Canadian politics etc, you can only be...... Question Period at any of our Legislative Assemblies in Canada including the HoC, in human form.  That can be the only logical explanation why you're as hard to nail down on the wall as a bowl full of Jello.   :stars:
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2017, 15:49:36 »
When you're right, you're right.  No new taxes, except almost $500 million in new taxes. 

In the context of a $2T (slightly more) economy, that's basically no new taxes.  that's less than 0.05% of the economy.  That's less than 0.2% of the budget.  Some of you find some very strange things to argue about.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2017, 15:55:24 »
But yes - by my quick estimation, there are ~$500M in new taxes, none of which you actually have to pay if you don't take transit, uber, or buy alcohol or cigarettes.

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 131,102
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,455
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2017, 16:35:06 »
 :pointdexter:   :brickwall:
« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 16:38:04 by jollyjacktar »
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 188,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,432
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2017, 16:48:15 »
For anyone looking to add a little more depth to the discussion, the government has the budget available to see here: http://www.budget.gc.ca/2017/home-accueil-en.html

… or just take a pundit’s view that the budget was nonsense:
Quote
Andrew Coyne on federal budget 2017: No money, no ideas, but a wealth of bafflegab and buzzwords from the Liberals
Andrew Coyne
National Post
22 Mar 2017

The good news is they’ve run out of money.

The nonsense in this nonsense-filled budget might have cost us all a lot more if the Liberals had more faith in the fundamental piece of nonsense underpinning the rest: that deficits stimulate growth. But as the economy has once again failed to play its part in the old fiscal conjuring trick — can it be just a year ago that the Liberals were claiming the multiplier on government spending could reach as high as “between three and four”? — the Grits now find themselves having to finance their ambitions by reallocating existing spending, rather than simply tacking more on top. Give thanks for small favours.

Mind you, they’re still talking the same old game. “There is a general consensus,” the budget declares, falsely, “that fiscal policy is the right tool to grow our economy for the long-term.” But while the budget also repeats the usual ritual claims that “the plan is working,” the reality is that growth is coming in well below the levels forecast even last November, let alone way back in March of 2016.

Meanwhile, the fiscal situation continues to deteriorate: deficits over the next four years, forecast in last year’s budget to total $84-billion, are now headed for $101 billion, on the strength of spending that is now roughly $20 billion per year over the track laid out in the last Harper budget. The $10-billion deficits originally promised, of course, are but a distant memory; the balanced budget is nowhere in sight or even promised; even the steadily declining debt-to-GDP ratio, last and loosest of the Liberal benchmarks, is gone — it rose last year, is projected to rise again this, and may well rise again the next.

But of course it isn’t just that they’ve run out of money: they’ve run out of ideas. Or at least, good ideas. The Liberals had a good idea in the last budget: the rationalization of several different child benefit programs into a single, income-tested Canada Child Benefit, albeit at a cost of $4 billion-plus. And they had a bad one: the notion that Canada’s middle class is falling behind, a claim that is increasingly the object of ridicule. The middle class isn’t falling behind — median incomes have been rising steadily for the last 20-odd years — and if it were the Grits have no sensible plan for remedying it.

What they have are a lot of meaningless buzzwords. I have read a good many tedious, empty budgets in my time. I cannot recall ever reading one quite as mind-bendingly empty as this one. Innovation, strategic, whole-of-government, world-class, value chain, smart cities, centres of excellence: the budget burbles happily on for page after page in this vein; one has the strong sense its authors have no more idea of what any of it means than they do “middle class.” Much is promised, but put off until the future: I lost track of the number of plans that “will be proposed” or policies that “will be developed” at some later date.

But as to the here and now: almost none of the promised reform of tax expenditures — credits and deductions favouring this interest or that, to the detriment of general economic efficiency — materialized in the budget. Indeed, the government is adding new ones — for example, extending accelerated capital cost allowance to “a broader range of geothermal projects.” Perhaps they are holding off on this, until they have a clearer sense of what kind of tax cuts the Trump administration has in mind. Or perhaps the very public burial given to the notion of taxing employer health benefits was a sign of things to come.

If there is a theme to the budget, it is of course “innovation.” As with “infrastructure,” last year’s favourite buzzword, the Liberals tend to attach this to virtually everything that catches their eye, including Liberal campaign slogans (“Innovation is, simply put, the understanding that better is always possible.”) But as the budget drones on, it becomes apparent that to this government it means the very latest in advanced, state-of-the-art 1930s-style state planning.

As the University of Ottawa’s Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy has lately reminded us, the federal government alone already has 147 different programs with interchangeable names intended to foster innovation. To these will be added, inter alia, an Innovation and Skills Plan, an Impact Canada Fund, a Venture Capital Catalyst Initiative, a Canadian Business Growth Fund and a Strategic Innovation Fund, though in fairness the last is intended to replace several existing funds. Indeed, the budget promises a review — sorry, a “whole of government review” — of current innovation programs. Perhaps they could throw in the new ones to save time.

Talking of sucking and blowing at the same time, I’d be more exercised about the proposal to throw public money at six industries the government is so sure will prove to be winners that it cannot be left to people investing their own money — “Canada can be a world leader in digital innovation,” was one of the things Finance Minister Bill Morneau professed to “know” in his budget speech, a page after confessing “we never could have imagined” the impact of mobile computing — if they were not also proposing to support virtually every other industry.

Some of the subsidy is disguised as procurement: rather than buy the best product at the lowest price for the taxpayer, government will serve as “first customer.” And there’s a truly bizarre proposal to seed what are called, inevitably, “Superclusters” — clusters is no longer enough — on the theory that if we can observe the spontaneous evolution of clusters, in places like Silicon Valley, in retrospect, we can surely envision them in advance, and create them by policy.

Oh, and there’s a chapter devoted to gender-based analysis. The point of this would seem to be that some programs benefit women more than men, and others benefit men more than women. Another data nugget turned up by the same analysis — that men pay 66 per cent of the taxes — seemed to attract rather less attention.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-no-money-no-ideas-but-a-wealth-of-bafflegab-and-buzzwords-in-the-liberal-budget

 

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 427,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,390
  • Crewman
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2017, 19:26:53 »
But yes - by my quick estimation, there are ~$500M in new taxes, none of which you actually have to pay if you don't take transit, uber, or buy alcohol or cigarettes.

Ah!  So now we do have new taxes, and the only way to avoid them is to be dead or not leave the comfort of your own home and live the life of a sequestered Nun.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2017, 19:52:12 »
Ah!  So now we do have new taxes

I never said otherwise.  I said there were basically no new taxes.  I then gave the definition of basically for context, since the statement was obviously very controversial for some reason.

Look, I think that's enough from me.  I'd like to thank you all for your time and for the great information.  This forum is really not a place for discussion. 

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,837
  • It's all good
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #21 on: March 23, 2017, 21:12:35 »
I never said otherwise.  I said there were basically no new taxes.  I then gave the definition of basically for context, since the statement was obviously very controversial for some reason.

Look, I think that's enough from me.  I'd like to thank you all for your time and for the great information.  This forum is really not a place for discussion.

Please don't assume that.  I have followed your posts with interest - sadly, so have some of the usual gang of those who pile on to someone who is either new, or thinks differently.  Your voice has as much value as anyone else's on this site - and many of your posts are more reasoned than those of others.
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 456,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,074
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #22 on: March 23, 2017, 22:33:21 »
Please don't assume that.  I have followed your posts with interest - sadly, so have some of the usual gang of those who pile on to someone who is either new, or thinks differently.  Your voice has as much value as anyone else's on this site - and many of your posts are more reasoned than those of others.

 :ditto:

I often disagree with you, jmt, but, then, I usually disagree with almost everyone on almost everything.

In fact I was going to post something to support your view that there are, essentially, "no new taxes" ~ at least not in the big scheme of things. I was going to add that there is, in fact, "no new anything," this is a timid, conservative, do nothing budget because no one in official Ottawa wants to do anything because no one knows what the global economic situation is going to be like in six days, much less in six weeks, six months or six years. Brexit, Donald Trump, the South China Seas, global terrorism, supply and demand and, and, and ... are all out of whack.

There are, generally, three major inputs to a budget: government, officials and allied experts, and the business community. In my opinion this budget is about 95% officialdom, and 2.5% each government/politics and business. The officials are, by their very nature and by the nature of their environment, very, Very, VERY conservative and this is a conservative, stand-pat, do nothing, signal nothing, wait and see budget. The verbiage is "Team Trudeau"trying to set the table for 2019 ~ they will shift away, I suspect, from the green, feminist and sunny ways agenda and towards an "innovation" agenda, but that's just a WAG ~ but the numbers, that "do nothing" are pure, cautious, timid, Canadian civil service.

Oh, and money for defence? Surely you all jest ... which amongst you can posit a coherent, sensible, comprehensible threat to Canada or its vital interests for which more military is the best answer? Overall, Journeyman has it about right.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,459
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #23 on: March 23, 2017, 23:29:46 »
Wasn't a round of public budget consultation conducted to great fanfare?  Presumably this budget is the outcome.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

Omnia praesidia vestra capta sunt nobis.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

"Yet another in a long line of books about how libertarians are plotting to enslave you by devolving power to the individual and leaving you alone" - Warren Meyer, author of Coyote Blog

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #24 on: March 24, 2017, 02:00:29 »
I just have to say this.

I know most of you won't believe it.  I was angry earlier.  The truth is, I really enjoy this place.  It's a place where I've learned a lot from people that have a lot of information.  I realize now that for me, what's just a discussion, is real life for many of you.  I guess I didn't understand how that would impact your perspective on some pretty forceful outside views.  That's not the way I meant to or mean to come across.  On (some) military matters, I should probably shut up most of the time (and indeed, I do most of the time, but I should shut up more often), because even if I can't verify who you are, you're most likely who you claim to be.

I'm sorry for offending people and coming across as a jerk.  If I stay, I'll probably do it again.  It's not necessarily intentional (we're all intentional jerks sometimes).

That said, I do know a fair bit about government.  I don't know as much about government as a senior bureaucrat or politician, but I've studied it as my main hobby for about 15 years.  I've always loved it.  When I said that there was basically no new taxes, I meant just that.  It wasn't meant to be a confrontational or controversial statement.  It was simply my view that all of that tax increases (none of which I will pay [okay, I'll pay the alcohol and tobacco ones, but not as an end consumer]) amounted to nothing when compared with the size of the budget and the economy.  If you disagree, that's fine - it's simply my assessment.

I'm not trolling.  I know some of you see me that way, but I'm not.  I'm sorry for that perception as well.  Have a good night and or day, whenever you read this.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,865
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,425
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #25 on: March 24, 2017, 02:59:29 »
I realize now that for me, what's just a discussion, is real life for many of you.  I guess I didn't understand how that would impact your perspective on some pretty forceful outside views.

Yup.  Some of us will spend our entire life's work, or most of it, in uniform.

Quote
On (some) military matters, I should probably shut up most of the time (and indeed, I do most of the time, but I should shut up more often), because even if I can't verify who you are, you're most likely who you claim to be.

Even those of us who've spent or will spend decades in uniform are limited in the areas we will become SMEs in.  I have strayed out of my lane, so have many others on here;  as long as you see your heading off the shoulder and can crank it back over between the lines, IMO its no big deal.

I did quite a few years in Army DEU.  Despite that...I know nothing (from experience) about how the artillery works, or Engineers, or how to set up and run a Brigade Command Post.  Someone who knew how to run a Bde CP in their sleep wouldn't be able to do the job I did.  That's why we have SMEs.   As Air Force now, I have a general idea about how some things work, but what I really know and can speak about is the LRP dry sensor and crew/Sqn level stuff.  Point...we all have our limits on what we can actually know, competently, and speak about from the BTDT perspective.   I've crossed my lanes before, I've been put back in place on the thread itself or via PM.  It happens.

Quote
When I said that there was basically no new taxes, I meant just that.  It wasn't meant to be a confrontational or controversial statement.  It was simply my view that all of that tax increases (none of which I will pay [okay, I'll pay the alcohol and tobacco ones, but not as an end consumer]) amounted to nothing when compared with the size of the budget and the economy.  If you disagree, that's fine - it's simply my assessment.

And, you're not alone.  I don't agree with the public transit tax credit change (aren't we supposed to be encouraging a smaller carbon footprint, etc?) but on what I will call non-essential items, I'd rather see that stuff taxed than things that can really hurt people in tight spots;  diapers or something that could make things tough for a single parent.

I'll give you an example of something you said that made me think "wtf";  in the FWSAR discussion when you made a comment that basically said the RCAF cooked up the requirements to "get the plane that they wanted".  Maybe the better way to think of it was the RCAF SAR professionals, SMEs...they gave the requirements to the bean counters that would enable them to do the job they do now, but better, faster and safer than they do it now.  Capabilities are something we will normally (always?) want to see go UP, not DOWN.  I've flown up North before.  I know how long it takes to get there at the speed we can go in an Aurora.  The new SAR bird will be slower than that.  That could, someday, literally be the difference between life and death for someone.  As an operator at the unit level...I care about capabilities and limitations and I will always push for increased caps and decreased lims.  That doesn't mean I want a shiny new plane, I want the capabilities that come with it; better endurance, better speed (time to LKP is important!), better serviceability, whatever.   Its not just 'we want this nice shiny plane!!!".

Accept that some people here are SMEs and figure out who they are, then you'll have a better sense of who is talking and who is talking from knowledge and experience.  You don't see me posting too much on anything that has to do with sailing, because the only sailing I've ever done was on Marine Atlantic.    8)
« Last Edit: March 24, 2017, 06:59:25 by Eye In The Sky »
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 131,102
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,455
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #26 on: March 24, 2017, 05:57:16 »
JMT,  I have been rude and boorish towards you and for that I do apologize.
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 71,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,418
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #27 on: March 25, 2017, 12:06:39 »
Number 5 is interesting re Gun Control.

https://www.therebel.media/_fakenews_top_5_things_missing_from_media_party_coverage_of_trudeau_budget

March 23, 2017
#FakeNews: Top 5 things missing from Media Party coverage of Trudeau budget

Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,204
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #28 on: March 25, 2017, 13:29:43 »
The budget may reference that treaty, and we may as well be a party to it, but the implementation all the way from shipper to "end user" will require some sort of domestic statutory implementation. If they think they are going to sneak that in by stealth (e.g.- a regulation and not a statute), they will have one hell of a fight on their hands.
The purpose of the treaty is to create country of origin, manufacturer and arms dealer/ broker accountability to prevent the flow of weapons into the hands of rogue nations and terror groups, not to impose registries like the former gun registry.
You're right. I Never  Met A Motherfucker Quite Like You, or someone as smart as you.  Never ever will, either.

Offline QV

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 234
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #29 on: April 19, 2017, 09:05:51 »
With the distinct lack of defence spending in this budget, do you think Trump's latest comments on NAFTA and the Canadian dairy industry are the US administration's opening salvo? 

What are we at now, 0.88 % GDP for defence spending?  Is that a record low?

Offline Lightguns

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,022
  • I live for trout and deer
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #30 on: April 19, 2017, 09:35:28 »
The budget may reference that treaty, and we may as well be a party to it, but the implementation all the way from shipper to "end user" will require some sort of domestic statutory implementation. If they think they are going to sneak that in by stealth (e.g.- a regulation and not a statute), they will have one hell of a fight on their hands.
The purpose of the treaty is to create country of origin, manufacturer and arms dealer/ broker accountability to prevent the flow of weapons into the hands of rogue nations and terror groups, not to impose registries like the former gun registry.

The only thing that treaty will do is increase the cost of firearms and weapons systems to end user.  If ISIS wants a gun, ISIS will get a gun regardless of where in the world ISIS is.  Marking "made in Canada" as a means of keeping firearms away from rogue orgs is as bright as registering guns to keep them away from criminals.  The parliament hill shooter's lever-gun was marked "made in the USA", do they have any idea of where and how he got it?  NK, China and Russia are going to continue to make unmarked guns for those rogue nations from the factories they have set up for that specific purpose.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2017, 10:17:01 by Lightguns »
Done, 34 years, 43 days complete, got's me damn pension!

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2017, 09:56:31 »
What are we at now, 0.88 % GDP for defence spending?  Is that a record low?

That's according to the Senate - it may be calculated differently by NATO, who expects Canada to be at 1.0% this year.

As for Trump - he hasn't managed to get much done yet other than talk.  I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it.

It's also worth noting that the Canadian dairy industry gets no subsidies and uses no hormones.  The US is the opposite.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 166,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,776
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #32 on: April 19, 2017, 09:59:15 »
With the distinct lack of defence spending in this budget, do you think Trump's latest comments on NAFTA and the Canadian dairy industry are the US administration's opening salvo? 

What are we at now, 0.88 % GDP for defence spending?  Is that a record low?

Not sure they're linked, QV.  I'm thinking POTUS' comments are more liked a sawed-off shot gun than a hunting rifle.  Interestingly, w will likely not hear about things like soft-wood lumber inequities that many even within the US begrudgingly acknowledge are lop-sided.

Regarding the budget, like others, I have less issue with a VAT-like element of taxation n consumption, but so to am I concerned that some incentives (public transport credit, for example) that would directly support greener travel are eliminated.  This is counter-intuitive to the LPC's greening agenda.  I am also concerned about the weakness of the plan to return to a balanced budget -- that the new mantra appears to be "so long as the deficit is a reasonable small proportion of GDP, it's not a bad thing."  I seems that the PM and Co.'s mind is made up already that deficits will be around for a long time to come.  Canada would do well to look at Quebec's journey towards the cliff-edge of deficit unsustainability, and see what they did to get back to a position away from that precipice...good on Qc for getting back to sustained balanced budgets as they try to recover from their debt position.

Regards
G2G

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #33 on: April 19, 2017, 10:05:49 »
Not sure they're linked, QV.  I'm thinking POTUS' comments are more liked a sawed-off shot gun than a hunting rifle.  Interestingly, w will likely not hear about things like soft-wood lumber inequities that many even within the US begrudgingly acknowledge are lop-sided.

Regarding the budget, like others, I have less issue with a VAT-like element of taxation n consumption, but so to am I concerned that some incentives (public transport credit, for example) that would directly support greener travel are eliminated.  This is counter-intuitive to the LPC's greening agenda.  I am also concerned about the weakness of the plan to return to a balanced budget -- that the new mantra appears to be "so long as the deficit is a reasonable small proportion of GDP, it's not a bad thing."  I seems that the PM and Co.'s mind is made up already that deficits will be around for a long time to come.  Canada would do well to look at Quebec's journey towards the cliff-edge of deficit unsustainability, and see what they did to get back to a position away from that precipice...good on Qc for getting back to sustained balanced budgets as they try to recover from their debt position.

Regards
G2G

After this year, the debt to GDP ratio will again begin to shrink.  That is the exact opposite of unsustainable (though a balanced budget is certainly the preference in my view).

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 166,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,776
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #34 on: April 19, 2017, 10:08:13 »
That's according to the Senate - it may be calculated differently by NATO, who expects Canada to be at 1.0% this year.

Agree.  Until the "method of accounting" is confirmed, the %GDP can be all over the place.  I for one, would like to see a more specific break down of what money goes where, including for specific "whole-of-Alliance" benefit, not just the logic/justification of "We, [insert country name here] are a Mediterranean country so 100% of our Coast Guard is a NATO contribution."

It's also worth noting that the Canadian dairy industry gets no subsidies and uses no hormones.  The US is the opposite.

Are you sure about that, jmt?  Perhaps "direct" (as in an identifiable transfer of funds) subsidies, but I'm not so sure that there aren't notable credits that, at least to the Americans (and even between the Ontario and Quebec dairy associations) are credits that preference regional dairy production.  Family friends of ours dairy farm in Southern Ontario and the issue of credits, inter-Provincial and international dairy quotas, etc. comes up in conversation often.  I would say that if the Americans look at Canadian dairy in general the way that Ontario and Quebec look at each other, then I'm not surprised we hear what we hear from Trump.

Regards
G2G

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 166,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,776
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #35 on: April 19, 2017, 10:12:28 »
After this year, the debt to GDP ratio will again begin to shrink.  That is the exact opposite of unsustainable (though a balanced budget is certainly the preference in my view).

Agree. 

That said, if there were the two factors being considered (surplus/balance/deficit, and debt:GDP ratio), my preference would be to see responsible Government put the emphasis on the former (working off debt) rather than the latter (ensuring growing debt 'isn't so bad.').  Just my preference though...I know that there are many, many more "bad offenders" in the Debt:GDP world, but I don't think that justifies one's own nation's current policy alignment.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 71,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,418
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #36 on: April 19, 2017, 10:49:06 »
jmt18325:
Quote
As for Trump - he hasn't managed to get much done yet other than talk.

Care to backup that statement? Obama care at present is a given.
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 131,102
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,455
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #37 on: April 19, 2017, 11:46:28 »
Agree.  Until the "method of accounting" is confirmed, the %GDP can be all over the place.  I for one, would like to see a more specific break down of what money goes where, including for specific "whole-of-Alliance" benefit, not just the logic/justification of "We, [insert country name here] are a Mediterranean country so 100% of our Coast Guard is a NATO contribution."

Are you sure about that, jmt?  Perhaps "direct" (as in an identifiable transfer of funds) subsidies, but I'm not so sure that there aren't notable credits that, at least to the Americans (and even between the Ontario and Quebec dairy associations) are credits that preference regional dairy production.  Family friends of ours dairy farm in Southern Ontario and the issue of credits, inter-Provincial and international dairy quotas, etc. comes up in conversation often.  I would say that if the Americans look at Canadian dairy in general the way that Ontario and Quebec look at each other, then I'm not surprised we hear what we hear from Trump.

Regards
G2G

Listening to a talking head on the radio on the way in today re the milk wars.  He said that what's griping the US is that they have a hard time getting milk and products into Canada as we do have barriers so to speak barring that and therefore Trump is not totally out to lunch in this regard.  They have an over supply of milk that is low priced and they want into our market, which is protected to a certain degree.  The EU have made headway with loosening the red tape to get more exposure into our market.  You just have to compare what we pay for milk and cheese here and what they pay for milk and cheese south of the border to see that there is an imbalance of sorts in the market.
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #38 on: April 19, 2017, 15:46:04 »
jmt18325:
Care to backup that statement? Obama care at present is a given.

What has he accomplished so far?  His executive orders have been either general statements, or have been stopped by the courts.  His bluster of Syria and North Korea got very little done.  I don't care - it's not my ball game.  I'm only saying this in relation to us.  I wouldn't set my hair on fire over his comments.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,832
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #39 on: April 19, 2017, 17:11:49 »
Agree.  Until the "method of accounting" is confirmed, the %GDP can be all over the place.  I for one, would like to see a more specific break down of what money goes where, including for specific "whole-of-Alliance" benefit, not just the logic/justification of "We, [insert country name here] are a Mediterranean country so 100% of our Coast Guard is a NATO contribution."

Are you sure about that, jmt?  Perhaps "direct" (as in an identifiable transfer of funds) subsidies, but I'm not so sure that there aren't notable credits that, at least to the Americans (and even between the Ontario and Quebec dairy associations) are credits that preference regional dairy production.  Family friends of ours dairy farm in Southern Ontario and the issue of credits, inter-Provincial and international dairy quotas, etc. comes up in conversation often.  I would say that if the Americans look at Canadian dairy in general the way that Ontario and Quebec look at each other, then I'm not surprised we hear what we hear from Trump.

Regards
G2G

US Dairy firms in Canada - Zero

Canadian Dairy firms in the US -

Saputo of Montreal  http://www.saputo.com/en/Our-Products/USA-Sector
Agropur of Longueil http://www.agropur.com/en/profile/plants/

Agropur is particularly interesting as it is protected by Canadian Co-Operative laws but all the Co-Operative members are in Quebec.  This despite buying up processing facilities in the rest of Canada and the US.  They don't solely process their own milk.  They are shareholders in a multi-national corporation based in Quebec.  The Western Co-Ops were all bought up by Saputo. 

Quote
Agropur looking for growth in U.S. while defending Canada’s quota system

Damon van der Linde | February 10, 2016 | Last Updated: Feb 11 9:19 AM ET

Agropur has been an outspoken defender of Canada's supply management system, which sets a quota for how much milk can be imported tariff free in order to protect farmers including the co-op's 3,367 (Edit to add Quebec) members from foreign competition.

MONTREAL — Canada’s second-largest dairy producer, the farmer-owned Agropur Cooperative, says it sees the company’s growth not here in the country, where it has defended the protectionist supply-management system when threatened with free-trade deals, but in the U.S. where it can import to international markets including north of the border.

“It’s certain that development for us will come primarily from the United States,” said Agropur CEO Robert Coallier during a news conference following the company’s annual general meeting in Montreal on Wednesday.

“This year we became one of the five largest makers of cheese and dairy ingredients in the United States. We have achieved the critical mass to become a major player.”

The Longueuil, Que.-based company reported a 26 per cent revenue increase in the past year, totalling $5.9 billion. Of that, 44 per cent of revenue came from U.S. operations.

Related
$4.3 billion TPP compensation for Canada’s dairy industry is not a done deal: Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland
Butter shortage forces Canada’s dairy commission to import 8.8-million pounds of butter as cream supply dries up

Agropur has been an outspoken defender of Canada’s supply management system, which sets a quota for how much milk can be imported tariff free in order to protect farmers including the co-op’s 3,367 members from foreign competition.

It spoke out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal allowing countries including New Zealand and the U.S. greater access to Canada’s dairy market amid slow-growing domestic consumption.

Dairy from Europe, New Zealand, the United States and other countries will gain access to 5.5 per cent more of the Canadian market once the TPP and  are ratified and fully take effect.

Critics say Agropur is hedging its bets by advocating for a system that protects its members while setting up shop in the U.S. and taking advantage of being able to import foreign dairy protein.

But the company says it’s only keeping up with other two major Canadian dairy players, Saputo Inc. and Parmalat, which also have U.S. operations.

“Agropur is making a case for how supply management is not working,” said Sylvain Charlebois, a professor in the Food Institute at the University of Guelph. “Agropur feels compelled to compete against Saputo and other companies, so that’s why they have to bring in cheaper protein from abroad,”

The company says it produces 30 per cent of Canadian dairy while importing 12 per cent of milk protein — proportionally less than its competitors. 

In August 2014, Agropur acquired Davisco Foods International operations, doubling its U.S. operations and increasing total milk supply by 50 per cent.

For 2015, Agropur reported a 10.2 per cent increase in EBITDA to $306 million and processed more than 5.7 billion litres of milk at its plants across North America.

“Agropur is a well-managed business, but politically they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place right now because of supply management,” Charlebois said.

Along with its dairy farmer ownership, Agropur also has high-powered backers in Quebec, including the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec.

Last December, the co-operative received $300 million from a team investors led by Quebec’s public pension fund manager, putting the group’s total contribution at $770 million.

Nice work if you can get it.  Government protected fortress at home. Freedom to sally forth at will.

http://www.foodincanada.com/features/the-big-cheese/

And Saputo is also in Australia

http://www.saputo.com/en/Our-Products/International-Sector/Dairy-Division-Australia
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,832
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #40 on: April 19, 2017, 17:19:26 »
Oh, and by the way, I will put the quality of American fluid milk up against Canadian fluid milk any day.  As for cheese - Canada could be making a killing selling Real Canadian Cheddars like Balderson's into the States and overseas.  The Yanks can't make a decent cheese for love nor money.  Canada has the ability to raise more dairy cattle than it currently is and could export the surplus on the open market.  Even Quebec would benefit.  I know of plants shut down in Quebec (and elsewhere) due to lack of supply.  That is why the same companies that want to keep American money out of Canada were having to import milk proteins and butter to meet even local demand.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 367,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,666
Re: Canadian Budget 2017
« Reply #41 on: April 19, 2017, 17:32:23 »
...and don't get me started on "colouring butter = OK; colouring margarine = not OK" in Quebec...
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html