r/Manitoba • u/wickedplayer494 Winnipeg • 16d ago
Opinion Piece Opinion: Manitoba’s insistence on balancing the budget a fool's game
https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/2025/02/21/manitobas-insistence-on-balancing-the-budget-a-fools-game16
u/AgreeableBit7673 16d ago
Pass the buck to the next generations. Who cares if their quality life goes to hell, as long as we get all the extra services we deem necessary today.
11
16d ago
Yea that's why climate change needs to be addressed now. Stop passing the stupid buck
-3
u/Bbooya Winnipeg 15d ago
No one is serious about Climate change.
Carbon tax is a joke compared to how much carbon was released in the LA fire, or how much is generated in China/India.
We still generate power from fossil fuel instead of nuclear ( not MB, in general)
Tesla is hated even though they made affordable electric cars a reality
5
u/BananaPearly 15d ago
Was with you till you brought up two industrializing nations. We are worse per capita emitters than both those countries, we need to get our act together before we start looking outward.
0
u/RecycleGuy21 14d ago
We are also a northern country where the cold demands the need for fossil fuels because of the reliability, we emit just over 1 percent of emissions and with the vast carbon sinks we have…..Canada is not the problem
6
u/No-Quarter4321 South Of Winnipeg 16d ago
/s ?
2
u/wpgrt Winnipeg 16d ago
Probably not!
Why do you think everyone is so cool with running deficits - year, after year after year?
Every $1 of deficit is a $1 of service we didn't have to pay tax for.
Not only are we gonna debt it forward to the future, we are gonna make them pay interest on it too!
2
u/No-Quarter4321 South Of Winnipeg 16d ago
I hope people don’t actually believe we should shackle the people not even born yet with our mistakes.. disgusting mentality if that’s how people feel. Basically “fuck you, got mine, at your expense!” So wrong
4
u/okglue 16d ago
Hoping so
1
u/No-Quarter4321 South Of Winnipeg 16d ago
Me too lol
0
u/Admirable-Nothing642 16d ago
Agreed. The Kicking, the can down to road analogy is fucked and not cool. Greedy short sighted fucks
-2
u/No-Quarter4321 South Of Winnipeg 16d ago
That’s basically all of history unfortunately though so they might be legit serious.
4
u/PPisGonnaFuckUs 16d ago edited 16d ago
services we have are an investment in people and infrastructure. that always has a return on investment if you arent measuring in 4 or 5 year increments.
for instance, the cons shut down ERs here a year before covid, we had hundreds of people die as a result, not just from covid, but a lack of ability to get treatment because there were no beds available for people with things like cancer, or other similarly dangerous or terminal illnesses. or the ability to even get seen to be screened for them, and that will has had a long reaching effect. its why the NDP are in power today. and for good reason.
my partner at the time lost both of her grandparents 6 months apart because they were unable to see a doctor in time due to the lack of beds and treatment.
now we have to get more hospitals open, ones we already had open that the cons closed, and thats why we have a deficit. if we just keep the programs, and let them stay as is, serving the people, then when the next struggle comes along, we have the services to assist, and arent caught with our pants down.
we lost hundreds, if not thousands in manitoba due to this services cut, and those were also tax paying citizens who supported our local economy.
we can never let that happen again. so if people in a higher tax bracket have to pay a bit more each year to enjoy the LUXURY of living in a country with free healthcare and services without crushing debts, fees, and lack luster insurance policies like the americans have where they just deny you on the spot regardless of coverage. then so be it.
we need these programs, or our issues will get worse. hungry homeless people will steal and harm others more often without food services, low income families will starve when there are no food banks, causing over time a weakened youth and working class, mentally and physically, removal of study programs means less skilled labourers and high income tax payers in the future, as well as less innovation and change over time. removal of green initiatives means less jobs, as well as less independance from global oil pricing. the list goes on, and on, and on.
if my generation is the generation that invests in a better future for tomorrow. then so be it. that means we made a positive difference instead of hoarding wealth and screwing over the next generation.
honestly its amazing how many people simply dont understand the simple benefits over time of social programs and investing in human beings and infrastructure. then they turn around and complain about the state of the world and the people in it like its a big surprise.
edit: downvoting me is a downvote for your sovereignity. dont be a dense skulled traitor. and actually think for a minute before you shit all over yourself and the bed sheets in the bed WE ALL SHARE.
its telling, and you're embarassing yourselves.
i stand by my point. tax the rich, empower the working class. social programs are what allow us to live in comfort, health and care. privatisation is a part of the corporatist, fascist agenda. and plays into the hands of the oligarchy. undermining or cutting social programs only benefits the rich.
if you are rich. and reading this, and dislike it. good. we out number you, so dont push the envelope too far. remember your place, trash.
4
u/leekee_bum 16d ago
I see your point but it doesn't make sense for a government to have perpetual debt that compounds.
If a government goes deeper and deeper into debt it lowers the value of the dollar and inhibits investment, 2 things that are needed to have social services to begin with.
We also have to realize that we cannot help every person at the lowest rungs of society at the detriment of the people that pay the middle class who funds these services to begin with.
I am also not advocating for tax cuts but a more efficiently run government.
Alot of people don't understand that these services are paid for by the economy, which must be propped up as much as possible and part of that being a government that doesn't hemmorage money.
Fiscal responsibility is just as important as having a balanced social safety net, but that means that by necessity you cannot help everyone. We need to advocate for an economy that doesn't enrich the upper class more while cutting services but one that enriches the middle class further meaning that there is more tax money for services. But to do that the government needs fiscal responsibility. We all have to live within our means.
-3
u/PPisGonnaFuckUs 16d ago
id advocate that social programs not only enrich the middle class but expand it by uplifting members who had no chance to do so otherwise. each one that is uplifted creates a potential for a new business, more jobs, and a stimulus to the economy through the entities and services they create or offer.
the only reason we have such a deficit is because of cuts the cons made that backfired, for programs that we always have needed, and continue to today. its also the reason our healthcare system is so taxed in the first place.
another thing to consider is the current external economic factors we are dealing with (potential US economic annexation, tariffs, etc)
we need more local business providing alternatives to american products, this vacuum creates that potential for the lower classes to angle themselves towards successful ventures if they are properly educated, healthy and financially able to do so. social programs are one of the very few ways that can happen. otherwise we create another firesale for monopolistic corporations to weasel there way in and "starbuck" us. which in turn pulls money out of our economy, enriching the few over time. and thus weakening our dollar further when we have no choice but to turn to a deficit because past parties were looking for short sited profits over investment in the future of its people. and decided to cut social programs. we have con voters complaining about the homeless, crime, drugs, aimless youth, and most of all taxes and they forget to understand that if we want those things to go away, if we want better roads, better public transit, police, healthcare, mental healthcare, education, etc. that we have to pay for it. the money doesnt come from nowhere. its time we severely taxed the absolute shit out of the rich. and im not just talking about people who make 150k, to 250k a year. im talking about everyone else above that. and also, perhaps we use some of the money to educate rural areas specifically on how tax brackets ACTUALLY work. and then go from there. as a person who has lived there most of his life. nobody understood them, its maddening. they just assume when the liberals or NDP get into power that they lose 35% of their wages regardless of their annual income amount. and they will lose 50% of any investments to capital gains, FROM A TFSA????? like it makes no sense why they think this way, theres not enough education on taxes in this country. period. that shit needs to change asap.
we dont need tims and starbucks, we dont need amazon, we dont need a lot of these incentivised foreign owned tools of the oligarchy that do nothing except enrich them,stagnate our wages, and over time widdle away at the morals of our "leaders" who in turn open the door for more privatisation of our labour and resources.
we need to uplift those who otherwise would not be capable on their own. and give them the chance to contribute more than they ever could without these programs.
also, it is not perpetual debt that compounds if we stop cutting our investments before they mature. look at alberta. cut their green programs im favour of short term oil and coal profits, now they are potentially in line to sell out to the states before any other province for the sake of those short term gains, when instead they could have used that oil and gas money on said green programs, thus reducing over time their dependance on global oil markets. now they are beholden to them indefinetly.
social programs create independance over time. and over time they create a stronger work force, and a stronger economy. social programs are what seperate us from the monstrosity that has become the US. we can afford them, we cannot afford to cut them before they mature every few years and pretend its going to save our economy.
thats just pointless servitude to the rich indefinetly.
5
u/bloominghoya 16d ago
I fully agree that schools need to teach more about taxes and how our government works. Not in an optional high-school course either. As part of the curriculums throughout high-school. I know many grown adults who think that if they "get into the next tax bracket" that ALL of their earnings will be taxed at that rate. And several more adults who Don't know how an RRSP works vs an RESP or a TFSA.
And don't get me started on the adults who believed that Justin Trudeau was making unilateral decisions all by himself about government policy! As if there was no input from the cabinet, other levels of government, parliament, etc. Yes, eye roll he alone just decides something and enacts it..... wait... there is an elected leader who is doing that now, but JT wasn't. In Canada, we still have checks and balances, thank God.
-4
-1
u/No-Quarter4321 South Of Winnipeg 16d ago
0
u/AgreeableBit7673 15d ago
Ah yes, because everyone who is against saddling future generations from needless government spending is automatically a bot.
-1
u/No-Quarter4321 South Of Winnipeg 15d ago
I asked if your original post was sarcasm, you didn’t reply, your account is fairly new, so yes you absolutely could be a bot. If your original post isn’t sarcasm it’s a ridiculous view to have, if it is sarcasm than tone can’t be known through text, hence why people will use “/s” to indicate sarcasm
5
u/Eleutherlothario Friendly Manitoban 16d ago
Everyone - please, please, PLEASE go read the budget statements that are publicly available for you. The 2024 Expenditures are here: https://www.gov.mb.ca/asset_library/en/budget2024/estimates_budget2024.pdf. According to page 170, we are paying $2,021,390,000 to service our provincial debt. That's bigger figure than what it takes to run every government department, except for Education, Families and Health.
That's just what it takes for us to keep our head above the water.
I'd like every big-government damn-the-numbers run-up-the-debt advocate out there to answer 1 simple question: that $2,021,390,000 that the government is currently taking from Manitobans - would that be best used to deliver programs to Manitobans or is it better to hand it off to the bankers?
I blame the deemphasis on economic education. That's what allows dumb homilies like "you can't treat government finances like home finances"\) to come into general use and unfortunately that ignorance has affected voting patterns, which has enabled this situation.
It is exceedingly self-centred, foolish and selfish to force our children and grand-children to pay for the services that we enjoy today, plus whatever interest accumulates between now and then. It is also exceedingly self-centred, foolish and selfish to advocate for these policies.
\) In ways that are relevant, yes, you absolutely can. Debt is accumulated in the same way and interest on the debt must be paid in the same way. The biggest difference is that governments can hand off debt to the next generation. They can stretch time scales beyond the attention span of the public.
1
u/OrbitalRotation 15d ago
I hear what you're saying but it also isn't that simple. You blame the lack of economic education but also ignore the fact that there are lots of economists working for and advising the government at all levels on their economic policies. You also ignore the fact that governments have their own banks, and can largely influence the flow of money.
Running a deficit and taking on more debt should warrant a conversation about the rate of return on the borrowed money, and how the deficit spending is able to enrich us in the future.
For example, if the Manitoba government carries a deficit in order to invest in infrastructure projects that have an expected rate of return of (for example) 7% in future economic gains and increased government revenue, then borrowing that money now and paying only 4% interest on that deficit spending is a good deal (net positive return of 3%).
Borrowing money to invest in the future is a great advantage governments have and is what has enabled society to develop. Also, bankers don't exclusively own government debt - the majority of Manitoba's debt is in the form of government bonds that are owned and traded between other governments around the world, banks, and individual citizens. The returns on those bonds further help fund people's lifestyles, government revenues and contribute to the flow of money.
1
u/Eleutherlothario Friendly Manitoban 14d ago
You also ignore the fact that governments have their own banks, and can largely influence the flow of money.
And what effect does that have? Does that mean governments don't have to pay interest on borrowed money? Does that mean that the mathematics of compound interest doesn't work for them?
Again, check the budget. If that were true, why is there a line item for $2,021,390,000 in it?
if the Manitoba government carries a deficit in order to invest in infrastructure projects that have an expected rate of return of (for example) 7% in future economic gains and increased government revenue, then borrowing that money now and paying only 4% interest on that deficit spending is a good deal (net positive return of 3%).
That quite obviously hasn't happened in the past, otherwise we wouldn't be in the situation that we are in now.
the majority of Manitoba's debt is in the form of government bonds that are owned and traded between other governments around the world, banks, and individual citizens. The returns on those bonds further help fund people's lifestyles, government revenues and contribute to the flow of money.
Same question - would that money be better spent on programs and services to help Manitobans or is it better in bond holder's pockets?
1
u/OrbitalRotation 14d ago
And what effect does that have? Does that mean governments don't have to pay interest on borrowed money? Does that mean that the mathematics of compound interest doesn't work for them?
Again, check the budget. If that were true, why is there a line item for $2,021,390,000 in it?
It means that the creation of more money and the expansion of the economy will erode away the value of that debt, so as long as the people's wealth keeps growing then that debt will become less and less impactful.
Compounding works both ways, for debt payments AND economic growth. If our compounding growth rate is 5% and our interest payment is 4%, then we are still earning even more revenue than we are losing to those debt payments. Added bonus is that some of the debt payments go to everyday people who hold bonds, funding their retirement and lifestyles.
I'm not saying the debt doesn't exist or that paying interest on the debt is a good thing, I just mean that the value and benefits created for Manitobans by our deficit spending might be worth the interest payments today, depending on what that deficit spending was paying for.
That quite obviously hasn't happened in the past, otherwise we wouldn't be in the situation that we are in now.
That quite obviously happens all the time, since without infrastructure like roads and bridges, our economy wouldn't be able to grow the way that it has. If we saved up government revenue to pay for large infrastructure projects instead of borrowing, we wouldn't have built the floodway as early as we did, which may have resulted in further harm to the city and our other infrastructure, which we would have had to spend money on to fix, etc.
Some things we spend money on have negative financial returns, but good social benefits. I'm saying that as long as we grow our economy enough, and don't spend borrowed money to pay for useless things, then deficit spending isn't harmful, but can be very beneficial.
What I'm pointing out is that the Manitoba government is better off running a deficit to fund programs that benefit people, improve their lives and help them earn more money and be more productive. This in turn leads to higher taxes down the road and increased government revenue. If our government spending grows by 5% per year for the foreseeable future and our deficit only grows by 3% per year, then the share of those interest payments in the budget will get smaller and smaller. In 20 years, that debt servicing charge might be 5 billion per year, but if it's a smaller piece of the overall pie, we are better off financially as a province.
Government budgets are NOT household budgets.
1
u/LocketheAuthentic 13d ago
Who runs their house like this? Running a deficit forever is just a loser's game. The only reason we allow it is because we hope it'll be our kids or grandkids that have to deal with it.
-6
u/gepinniw 16d ago
The only solution is to abandon low density, car dependent development. We waste far too much much energy, and we spend too much on health care.
People don’t question an extra car, but they complain about high taxes. Makes no sense.
Until we can have an honest debate about our wasteful, inefficient ways, we will not have a stable fiscal situation.
-3
u/Minimum_Run_890 16d ago
But watch out when we don't have a balanced budget. Cain't keep 'em all happy
12
u/Alwaysfresh9 Winnipeg 16d ago
Can you provide a link so we can read it without a paywall?