Skip to content
0
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Sketchy)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Wandering Adventure Party

  1. Home
  2. Canada
  3. Mark Carney’s first budget projects $78B deficit, program and civil service cuts

Mark Carney’s first budget projects $78B deficit, program and civil service cuts

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Canada
canada
78 Posts 23 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • T tleb@lemmy.ca

    Conservatives are requiring electronic votes for travelling MPs as far as I understand, so there’s very few excuses to “accidentally” abstain. However, one has already crossed the floor, and more are to come. If the Liberals don’t get a majority then I’m sure enough NDP are going to abstain for it to pass.

    M This user is from outside of this forum
    M This user is from outside of this forum
    MyBrainHurts
    wrote on last edited by
    #31

    Yeah, I really wonder if it’ll be a whipped vote. Part of me wonders if that’s why whats-his-name crossed the floor. If they let it be a free vote, then anyone can abstain as they see fit.

    Probably have to wait and see some polling on the budget but from casual conversations/reactions, it seems pretty rocking.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • M MyBrainHurts

      Good riddance they are a plague. Make them pay their taxes before they leave.

      Ummm, did you forget you propsed they would be the solution to our budget woes? Or are you not old enough to pay taxes and don’t realize we do those on an annual basis? (Putting aside the fact that most billionaires don’t earn it on taxed wages but more that they own unsold stock.)

      We are paying more, but guess what bowing down to trump has left us where exactly?

      One of the best tarrif rates in the world?

      Fucking nationalize shit if they play that game.

      Dafuq? You’re saying nationalize google?

      Jesus though, this is why it can be so hard to take progressives seriously. This is just mindless slogan yelling with zero thought.

      T This user is from outside of this forum
      T This user is from outside of this forum
      t00l_shed@lemmy.world
      wrote on last edited by t00l_shed@lemmy.world
      #32

      Ummm, did you forget you propsed they would be the solution to our budget woes? Or are you not old enough to pay taxes and don’t realize we do those on an annual basis? (Putting aside the fact that most billionaires don’t earn it on taxed wages but more that they own unsold stock.)

      I never said they would be the sole solution lol. I’m old enough to pay taxes and I’m pissed that my tax dollars subsidize them, you should be too. There are businesses that get crazy tax breaks that we should take back, spend taxes on the population not the ultra wealthy. Yes close the fucking loopholes.

      One of the best tarrif rates in the world?

      I’d rather not be kissing his ass at all.

      Dafuq? You’re saying nationalize google

      The infrastructure yes, but Google won’t leave Canada if we enforce our laws because there are millions of Canadians and they would still make criminal amounts of money.

      Jesus though, this is why it can be so hard to take progressives seriously. This is just mindless slogan yelling with zero thought.

      And this is why it’s so hard to take centrists seriously, this is just mindless asskissing and excuse making to keep getting bent further and further over the barrel. We keep this up and you will own nothing and be happy for it, with no rights, no privacy, living in a corporate town using musk bucks to buy your Microsoft verification cans.

      M 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • T t00l_shed@lemmy.world

        Ummm, did you forget you propsed they would be the solution to our budget woes? Or are you not old enough to pay taxes and don’t realize we do those on an annual basis? (Putting aside the fact that most billionaires don’t earn it on taxed wages but more that they own unsold stock.)

        I never said they would be the sole solution lol. I’m old enough to pay taxes and I’m pissed that my tax dollars subsidize them, you should be too. There are businesses that get crazy tax breaks that we should take back, spend taxes on the population not the ultra wealthy. Yes close the fucking loopholes.

        One of the best tarrif rates in the world?

        I’d rather not be kissing his ass at all.

        Dafuq? You’re saying nationalize google

        The infrastructure yes, but Google won’t leave Canada if we enforce our laws because there are millions of Canadians and they would still make criminal amounts of money.

        Jesus though, this is why it can be so hard to take progressives seriously. This is just mindless slogan yelling with zero thought.

        And this is why it’s so hard to take centrists seriously, this is just mindless asskissing and excuse making to keep getting bent further and further over the barrel. We keep this up and you will own nothing and be happy for it, with no rights, no privacy, living in a corporate town using musk bucks to buy your Microsoft verification cans.

        M This user is from outside of this forum
        M This user is from outside of this forum
        MyBrainHurts
        wrote on last edited by
        #33

        I remain unconvinced that cuts for austerity purposes are ultimately beneficial, raise taxes on the ultra wealthy instead

        never said they would be the sole solution lol.

        Okay, so if we’re admitting your first plan of tax the wealthy is a little myopic here, which tax breaks are you considering removing? And how will this stop those businesses from instead, setting up shop in a lower tax, lower regulation, larger single market like Americas?

        I’d rather not be kissing his ass at all.

        How many people should lose their jobs because of your sense of pride? Just curious.

        Google won’t leave Canada if we enforce our laws because there are millions of Canadians and they would still make criminal amounts of money.

        Read what I wrote about the digital services tax. The concern was not that Google would leave.

        And this is why it’s so hard to take centrists seriously

        He just descends into mindless sloganning again. Everything I’ve said can be backed up, whereas your thoughts aren’t even consistent in this single thread!

        T 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • M MyBrainHurts

          I remain unconvinced that cuts for austerity purposes are ultimately beneficial, raise taxes on the ultra wealthy instead

          never said they would be the sole solution lol.

          Okay, so if we’re admitting your first plan of tax the wealthy is a little myopic here, which tax breaks are you considering removing? And how will this stop those businesses from instead, setting up shop in a lower tax, lower regulation, larger single market like Americas?

          I’d rather not be kissing his ass at all.

          How many people should lose their jobs because of your sense of pride? Just curious.

          Google won’t leave Canada if we enforce our laws because there are millions of Canadians and they would still make criminal amounts of money.

          Read what I wrote about the digital services tax. The concern was not that Google would leave.

          And this is why it’s so hard to take centrists seriously

          He just descends into mindless sloganning again. Everything I’ve said can be backed up, whereas your thoughts aren’t even consistent in this single thread!

          T This user is from outside of this forum
          T This user is from outside of this forum
          t00l_shed@lemmy.world
          wrote on last edited by
          #34

          Alright, I see you won’t take this seriously, and as such I won’t take you seriously. Best of luck to you

          M 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • N Nils

            That $2B USD from the digital service taxes would not be so bad now.

            Also, guess who will pay less taxes, and who will foot the bill?

            https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2025/11/government-of-canada-releases-budget-2025-canada-strong.html
            A bit better diluted: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/budget-highlights-9.6966595

            (detailed): https://budget.canada.ca/2025/report-rapport/pdf/budget-2025.pdf

            S This user is from outside of this forum
            S This user is from outside of this forum
            shaggysnacks@lemmy.myserv.one
            wrote on last edited by
            #35

            Also, guess who will pay less taxes, and who will foot the bill?

            Less taxes for the richies and the corpos. Service cuts for everyday Canadians.

            1 Reply Last reply
            5
            • M MyBrainHurts

              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?

              P This user is from outside of this forum
              P This user is from outside of this forum
              patatas@sh.itjust.works
              wrote on last edited by
              #36

              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!

              M 1 Reply Last reply
              1
              • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

                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!

                M This user is from outside of this forum
                M This user is from outside of this forum
                MyBrainHurts
                wrote on last edited by
                #37

                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!

                P 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • T t00l_shed@lemmy.world

                  Alright, I see you won’t take this seriously, and as such I won’t take you seriously. Best of luck to you

                  M This user is from outside of this forum
                  M This user is from outside of this forum
                  MyBrainHurts
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #38

                  Nothing says serious like: “We’ll just get the billionaires to pay for it!”

                  “and if they leave?”

                  “We don’t need them!”

                  Lol.

                  Cheers kid.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  1
                  • S Swordgeek

                    The budget was designed to pass.

                    That means that it was pathetically compromising towards environmental protections, worker protections, a strong stance against the US, etc., etc.

                    In other words, it’s pretty much a fucking milquetoast mess with nothing good.

                    K This user is from outside of this forum
                    K This user is from outside of this forum
                    krooklochurm@lemmy.ca
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #39

                    That’s Carney through and through though.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • M MyBrainHurts

                      To each their own.

                      Edit: removed personal details.

                      If you know anyone who works in government or a quasi governmental agency, they will tell you horror stories of colleagues who couldn’t be removed but couldn’t be arsed to do anything over the bare minimum (like being sober, showing up and handling at least one file a day.)

                      There has to be something in between the nihilistic conservative “burn it all down, no more bureaucracy!” and the opposite “every government employee is sacred!” I think a slow reduction through attrition and buyouts seems pretty reasonable and gives enough time to actually find efficiencies and innovations.

                      K This user is from outside of this forum
                      K This user is from outside of this forum
                      Kindness is Punk
                      wrote on last edited by kindnessispunk@lemmy.ca
                      #40

                      The fundamental flaw is equating corporate efficiency with public effectiveness. A company’s goal is shareholder returns, so it serves profitable customers and abandons the rest. We see this taken to its extreme with certain venture capital and private equity firms: they can buy a company, burden it with the debt used for its own acquisition, extract massive fees and dividends, and leave it a hollowed out shell. When it collapses, the architects of that failure are shielded from the consequences.

                      A government’s mission is the opposite: to serve everyone, especially the vulnerable. Applying this profit extraction model to public service doesn’t eliminate costs it just shifts them, following the destructive maxim of ‘privatize the profits, socialize the costs.’ For a corporation, this might be a successful short-term play. But for a government it’s long-term ruin

                      M 1 Reply Last reply
                      1
                      • K Kindness is Punk

                        The fundamental flaw is equating corporate efficiency with public effectiveness. A company’s goal is shareholder returns, so it serves profitable customers and abandons the rest. We see this taken to its extreme with certain venture capital and private equity firms: they can buy a company, burden it with the debt used for its own acquisition, extract massive fees and dividends, and leave it a hollowed out shell. When it collapses, the architects of that failure are shielded from the consequences.

                        A government’s mission is the opposite: to serve everyone, especially the vulnerable. Applying this profit extraction model to public service doesn’t eliminate costs it just shifts them, following the destructive maxim of ‘privatize the profits, socialize the costs.’ For a corporation, this might be a successful short-term play. But for a government it’s long-term ruin

                        M This user is from outside of this forum
                        M This user is from outside of this forum
                        MyBrainHurts
                        wrote on last edited by mybrainhurts@piefed.ca
                        #41

                        Applying this profit extraction model to public service

                        Getting back to 2019 spending levels over a few years is hardly hollowing out the government.

                        And what that freed up money is doing is investing in stuff that makes those services work better.

                        For example in healthcare, which is hanging on by a thread, I think a few billion are going to building and renovating hospitals and investing in a new medical school. Those all make the services more efficient and sustainable in the long run.

                        Edit: My goodness, the cuts are something like 13 billion out of a 500 billion budget.

                        K 1 Reply Last reply
                        1
                        • M MyBrainHurts

                          Applying this profit extraction model to public service

                          Getting back to 2019 spending levels over a few years is hardly hollowing out the government.

                          And what that freed up money is doing is investing in stuff that makes those services work better.

                          For example in healthcare, which is hanging on by a thread, I think a few billion are going to building and renovating hospitals and investing in a new medical school. Those all make the services more efficient and sustainable in the long run.

                          Edit: My goodness, the cuts are something like 13 billion out of a 500 billion budget.

                          K This user is from outside of this forum
                          K This user is from outside of this forum
                          Kindness is Punk
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #42

                          Most of the money got reallocated to the military though.

                          M 1 Reply Last reply
                          1
                          • K Kindness is Punk

                            Most of the money got reallocated to the military though.

                            M This user is from outside of this forum
                            M This user is from outside of this forum
                            MyBrainHurts
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #43

                            They’re cutting 13 billion. 51 billion (over 10 years) is going to local infrastucture; housing, roads, health and sanitation facilities.

                            Yes, military got more (~82 billion) and I don’t love that. Though, one part I do love is that a chunk of that military is also dual use, so climate emergencies like wildfires, floods etc.

                            K 1 Reply Last reply
                            1
                            • M MyBrainHurts

                              They’re cutting 13 billion. 51 billion (over 10 years) is going to local infrastucture; housing, roads, health and sanitation facilities.

                              Yes, military got more (~82 billion) and I don’t love that. Though, one part I do love is that a chunk of that military is also dual use, so climate emergencies like wildfires, floods etc.

                              K This user is from outside of this forum
                              K This user is from outside of this forum
                              Kindness is Punk
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #44

                              Then give it to firefighters, climate scientists and forestry. The military is reactive not preventative.

                              M 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • K Kindness is Punk

                                Then give it to firefighters, climate scientists and forestry. The military is reactive not preventative.

                                M This user is from outside of this forum
                                M This user is from outside of this forum
                                MyBrainHurts
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #45

                                Sure, you can dislike the military spending.

                                That doesn’t mean the budget isn’t investing more in the public than it is withdrawing.

                                K 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • M MyBrainHurts

                                  Sure, you can dislike the military spending.

                                  That doesn’t mean the budget isn’t investing more in the public than it is withdrawing.

                                  K This user is from outside of this forum
                                  K This user is from outside of this forum
                                  Kindness is Punk
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #46

                                  I dislike the increase in spending on military because the returns to the public are minimal, the US has proven that, decades running.

                                  M 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • K Kindness is Punk

                                    I dislike the increase in spending on military because the returns to the public are minimal, the US has proven that, decades running.

                                    M This user is from outside of this forum
                                    M This user is from outside of this forum
                                    MyBrainHurts
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #47

                                    Again, that’s a fine and valid critique of the budget.

                                    The fundamental flaw is equating corporate efficiency with public effectiveness…

                                    This position however, does not seem valid when the budget is putting in more than it removes from actual public services, 51 billion v 13.

                                    K 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • R Rentlar

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

                                      Nik282000N This user is from outside of this forum
                                      Nik282000N This user is from outside of this forum
                                      Nik282000
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #48

                                      Cut the 30B that subsidizes oil and gas.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      10
                                      • M MyBrainHurts

                                        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!

                                        P This user is from outside of this forum
                                        P This user is from outside of this forum
                                        patatas@sh.itjust.works
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #49

                                        You’re welcome to disagree - but everything I said is factual. If there’s something you don’t understand, I’m happy to explain - just ask.

                                        M 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

                                          You’re welcome to disagree - but everything I said is factual. If there’s something you don’t understand, I’m happy to explain - just ask.

                                          M This user is from outside of this forum
                                          M This user is from outside of this forum
                                          MyBrainHurts
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #50

                                          the government can issue currency essentially at will.

                                          Okay, sure, this is technically true. In the same way that technically, you can drink bleach it’s just a very bad idea.

                                          P 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0

                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          • First post
                                            Last post