"Stop Over-Spending" Rally in London 03 Oct.
- Thread starter a_majoor
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Did you see the coverage of the London Health Sciences spending issue? $3 million in sole-sourced contracts doled out without bid by the female VP of IT (can'd remember her name) to someone she used to work with at Union Gas.
The part that drives me nuts about this is that although the LHS have known about this since May, the only reason the public knows anything is a whistleblower released internal documents to A-Channel about it this month.
Why the heck do they have the right to keep such an issue silent? It's public money!
The other one that nearly sent me into a rage was the LTC drivers/mechanics asking for 11%/3%/3% over the next three years. They interviewed the LTC Union Rep and his comment was: "Well the Federal Government has come to the table with an extra $54 million (which is the wrong number) and so we want our cut."
Bottom Line: I'm totally with you....how the politician here deal with taxpayer money is appalling....then we can afford more metal trees to beautify he downtown.
Matthew.
The part that drives me nuts about this is that although the LHS have known about this since May, the only reason the public knows anything is a whistleblower released internal documents to A-Channel about it this month.
Why the heck do they have the right to keep such an issue silent? It's public money!
The other one that nearly sent me into a rage was the LTC drivers/mechanics asking for 11%/3%/3% over the next three years. They interviewed the LTC Union Rep and his comment was: "Well the Federal Government has come to the table with an extra $54 million (which is the wrong number) and so we want our cut."
Bottom Line: I'm totally with you....how the politician here deal with taxpayer money is appalling....then we can afford more metal trees to beautify he downtown.
Matthew.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
You're not alone out there in London.
I can't think of a single government (rural municipal district, municipal, provincial, or federal) which isn't somehow tainted with the same habits.
Personally - I hate the increase usage of "user fees" for many services. It seems that the "menu" of services offered by governments haven't necessarily expanded, but the provision of those services must be funded by previously unknown "user fees". And yet, tax rates seem to increase more than can be explained by inflation, etcetera.
The Forest City Institute seems to have done a good job of tracking the various expense increases and revenue increases in your neck of the woods - good on them.
I can't think of a single government (rural municipal district, municipal, provincial, or federal) which isn't somehow tainted with the same habits.
Personally - I hate the increase usage of "user fees" for many services. It seems that the "menu" of services offered by governments haven't necessarily expanded, but the provision of those services must be funded by previously unknown "user fees". And yet, tax rates seem to increase more than can be explained by inflation, etcetera.
The Forest City Institute seems to have done a good job of tracking the various expense increases and revenue increases in your neck of the woods - good on them.
- Reaction score
- 4,155
- Points
- 1,260
What's ironic is that some politicians, when pondering budgets, actually like the idea of increasing user fees because they can crow about how the tax rate is (frozen/not increased as much as planned). A quick review: how many pockets are there on the taxpayer? One, folks! :Roy Harding said:
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,635
- Points
- 1,040
>And yet, tax rates seem to increase more than can be explained by inflation, etcetera.
Over the long term (eg. several contracts), how many public sector compensation packages do you think have merely kept pace with economic growth? I doubt the number is much greater than zero. Each contract's incremental growth above the mean growth line has to come from somewhere.
If we could set the minimum wage at $40/hr, we'd just do it and be happy. No-one seriously proposes that to be workable. Although wealth creation and allocation is not a zero-sum game over the long term, for any given year's "net" it is a zero-sum game. If more is allocated arbitrarily to some purposes, less must be available for others. The pie grows, but more slowly.
Over the long term (eg. several contracts), how many public sector compensation packages do you think have merely kept pace with economic growth? I doubt the number is much greater than zero. Each contract's incremental growth above the mean growth line has to come from somewhere.
If we could set the minimum wage at $40/hr, we'd just do it and be happy. No-one seriously proposes that to be workable. Although wealth creation and allocation is not a zero-sum game over the long term, for any given year's "net" it is a zero-sum game. If more is allocated arbitrarily to some purposes, less must be available for others. The pie grows, but more slowly.
Similar threads
