Funding the CBC

[Praktik]

At what point have I (or anyone else in this thread) actually suggested we should withold taxes?

I'll just start with this cause I think it evidences quite well that you're taking my posts way too adversarially.

That was a general statement, not directed at you.

I know its not a thread about Canadian defense policy. But you tried to make objection to fundcing the CBC equivalent to funding the Canadian military.

No - I objected to you classifying anti-tax arguments with defense spending as illegitimate on their face because defense spending is a "necessity". Up to a certain level, yes it is.

But other Canadians think we've passed that point - and whether you agree with them or not (and I'm not 100% sure I do) - you should be able to concede that there is such thing as a principled and legitimate objection to defense spending above the point of basic homeland defense.

That was the narrow point I was trying to make. I don't think there's anything less legitimate about these positions on defense then there is with your arguments against the CBC - and note that this completely apart from my personal judgment on these questions.

"Saving lives" doesn't really enter into it - others may point out reasonable objections to this, that we shouldn't be in the business of saving non-Canadian lives, that maybe we cause deaths through collateral damage, that in missions with no defined end point and questionable chances of success that the number of lives saved may be dwarfed by what happens due to our meddling after we leave. There might even be something to a crasser calculation that even if we could save foreign lives, redirecting the tax dollars spent there to saving Canadian lives is better policy.

My sole point here was that your "necessity" counter-argument only works up to a point - and current and past Canadian defense policy, partly due to a streak of democratic idealism, and partly due to a southern neighbour who demands a certain level of spending and committment around the world, has exceeeded that point of "necessity".

You were the one that brought the military into it, so you shouldn't be suprised when people actually respond to your queries.

I'm not surprised, though perhaps I am "miffed" that a comment like this turned up in your post....

I was expecting this not to develop into a thread on Canadian defense policy, I was expecting you to grant that perhaps there are valid arguments against military spending supported by our tax dollars that go over and above the basic needs of homeland defense - even if you don't agree with them.

To cordon off such arguments as illegitimate on the basis that ALL military spending is a "necessity" I think is a bit myopic, given that the only real necessity is homeland defense and protection of our soveriegnty in sparsely populated corners of our country.

 

[Corsair 115]

Because, I'm not an anarchist, and as such, I DO see a need for elected individuals to represent the 'will of the people' in day-to-day government activities.

Fine. Replace the exaggerated point with something more reasonable, things like, say, equalization payments or industry subsidies.

 

[Segnosaur]

Fine. Replace the exaggerated point with something more reasonable, things like, say, equalization payments or industry subsidies.

For the most part I'm against industry subsidies. It may also be beneficial to do away with equilization.

You know, we could go through each and every potential and actual spending item in the budget... there are some things that I will say yes, and some things I will say no to. I'm sure you are the same way, and will probably object to at least some spending proposals.

Put it this way... just because you favour federal funding of the CBC (I'm assuming you do, if not, forgive my assumption), does that mean that you favour the government's funding of a "Dumb Blonde" joke book?

I've already set out general criteria where government spending is a 'good thing' and where government spending should be avoided... In the areas where government spending is a 'good thing' we have certain natural monopolies/infrastructure (roads, etc.) and areas where health and safety are a concern (fire services, health care, welfare, defence, etc.). Whatever government spending you suggest, if it doesn't fall into any of those areas, then spending should be cut (or at least seriously reconsidered.) The CBC certainly doesn't qualify as a natural monopoly, and it has nothing to do with health/safety.

(Edited to add: Note that in my post, I did use a few weasle words... for example, I said for the most part I'm against subsidies. I do recognize there may be grey areas, such as situations where subsidies are given to offset subsidies offered elsewhere, but these should be exceptions.)

 

[Corsair 115]

You know, we could go through each and every potential and actual spending item in the budget... there are some things that I will say yes, and some things I will say no to. I'm sure you are the same way, and will probably object to at least some spending proposals.

That 's exactly my point. Once one starts down the road of, "I don't want my tax dollars going to that purpose," it'll never end. There are too many different opinions on too many different purposes to ever make changes based on that sort of opt-out thinking.

Seems to me it's more useful to press for efficient spending of the tax dollars on the various purposes, regardless of whether or not one supports the purpose.

 

[Patrick_R]

BBC. Argument done.

----

Details:

BBC programming is exellent, and I whole-heartedly endorse their funding scheme.

I don't remember the details as I was only there 4 years an only bought one TV. But people who buy TVs are logged, and everyone with a TV needs to pay into the pot.

BBC has no ads, and very high-quality programming. This helps keep the networks with ads in line. The BBC's presence has a knock-on effect on other TV programming in the UK.

CBC is halfway between the UK and US systems. I'll take UK TV programming over US programming any day. I think CBC should go to the UK's system of no ads and full funding from TV owners.

Quality won't last long, it rarely can when your income is derived from subsidies...but from what I've seen from old British comedy maybe the brits have bad taste in entertainment....

 

[D'rok]

For the most part I'm against industry subsidies. It may also be beneficial to do away with equilization.

...

Beneficial to separatists in the east and west, maybe. Yikes. That would be he end of confederation, CBC or no CBC.

 

[Segnosaur]

For the most part I'm against industry subsidies. It may also be beneficial to do away with equilization.

Beneficial to separatists in the east and west, maybe. Yikes. That would be he end of confederation, CBC or no CBC.

I don't think the people in the west would complain too much about the ending of equilization payments... after all, Alberta tends to be a net contributor, and Saskatchewan (with some undeveloped oil/gas potential) will probably be in the same boat. Ending equilzation might actually remove the incentive for Albertan separatists to leave since they'll be seeing less of their tax revenue taken away and given to those "lazy ungrateful socialist Quebecers" (Note: Just channeling what a separatist might think; not actually trying to characterize Quebecers that way.)

As for Quebec... I DO think Quebec should stay in confederation. Even without equilization payments, I think both Quebec and the rest of Canada benefit far too much from being linked. However, IF the only think that keeps Quebec in confederation are bribes, and IF those bribes are somehow harming the country as a whole, then it may cause less damage in the long run to end the subsidies. (The problem I see with the equilization payments is that giving to 'have not' provinces may end up subsidizing poor economic activities.)

Note however, that I did use the weasel words "may also be beneficial to end equilization". I might be open to arguments supporting equalization, but that should be left to another thread.

 

[Segnosaur]

Seems to me it's more useful to press for efficient spending of the tax dollars on the various purposes, regardless of whether or not one supports the purpose.

So, what you're saying it would be OK for the government to build bridges that will carry no traffic, and buildings that nobody will ever occupy, as long as those bridges and buildings are built as efficiently as possible. That's not exactly a philosophy I can agree with.

 

[D'rok]

You're right that this is a discussion for another thread. If we go there, I would reject your premise that Alberta (or any other province) is a net contributor. Provinces don't contribute to equalization. Equalization comes out of federal tax revenue.

 

[Segnosaur]

BBC has no ads, and very high-quality programming.

Quality won't last long, it rarely can when your income is derived from subsidies...but from what I've seen from old British comedy maybe the brits have bad taste in entertainment....

You might not be the only person who thinks so...

From http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/2507745/Ricky-Gervais-I-cant-stand-Brit-comedy.html

FUNNYMAN Ricky Gervais says British TV comedy is so bad he cannot bear to watch it. The Office star, 48, reckons our shows are just lazy copies of more ambitious US series. In a scathing attack he also claimed American comedy is more sophisticated than home-grown attempts at humour.
...
And it follows a similar assault on British telly by John Cleese earlier this year. The former Fawlty Towers star, 69, blasted: "I don't think the writers work as hard as they used to.

 

[Segnosaur]

You're right that this is a discussion for another thread. If we go there, I would reject your premise that Alberta (or any other province) is a net contributor. Provinces don't contribute to equalization. Equalization comes out of federal tax revenue.

You're right, technically it comes out of federal tax revenue. However, if you look at the total federal revenue collected on a province by province basis, and compare it to the amount the province then receives from the federal government in equilzation (and other) payments, the citizens of SOME provinces are going to receive more than they contribute, and the citizens of SOME provinces are going to receive less than they contribute.

Its just easier to talk about "provincial contributions" (even if its not technically accurate) rather than going into details about how tax revenue is collected and then dispersed.

 

[Corsair 115]

So, what you're saying it would be OK for the government to build bridges that will carry no traffic, and buildings that nobody will ever occupy, as long as those bridges and buildings are built as efficiently as possible.

That's what the Auditor-General is for, to point out stupid government spending and waste so that the public can see what's happening and gets the chance to vote out the politicans responsible for such shoddy practices.

In any case, you're still left with the never-ending road that opt-out offers. Everyone will find something to opt-out on and pretty much everything will be underfunded.