Ontario budget tries to keep province – and Liberals – afloat

[puckstopshere]

The first budget of Premier Kathleen Wynne’s term is as much about keeping her minority government alive as keeping afloat the nation’s largest provincial economy.

The $127.6-billion plan walks a line between gradually bringing down the province’s deficit – which is projected at $11.7-billion this year – while implementing Ms. Wynne’s Fair Society package of social legislation.

“We’re talking and taking the right approach – eliminating the deficit while protecting services people rely on,” Finance Minister Charles Sousa said. “Building a strong economy that creates jobs does not have to come at the expense of those more vulnerable who need help.”

And it is no coincidence that nearly all of the splashiest spending promises resemble the budget demands made by NDP Leader Andrea Horwath.

Ms. Wynne’s minority Liberals must secure the support of at least one other party to get the budget passed and avoid an election. With Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak gunning to go to the polls, Ms. Wynne must depend on Ms. Horwath.

The budget dutifully responds, in whole or in part, to all of the third party’s demands: cutting auto insurance rates, putting more money into home care and changing some corporate tax credits.

But Ms. Horwath was not prepared to immediately endorse the plan. She acknowledged that the government had incorporated her ideas into the budget, but said the Liberals must put in place “accountability” measures to ensure the NDP-friendly policies are enacted.

For instance, she said, the party wants a mechanism to ensure auto insurance rates are cut within a year and that the government’s new money for home care reduces wait times.

Ms. Horwath said the NDP would spend the next week consulting voters – possibly through town halls – before deciding how to vote on the budget.

“We want to make this budget accountable and we’re going to listen to Ontarians in terms of how to achieve that,” she said.

In a few instances, the Liberal plan goes further than the NDP demanded. It pledges $700-million for home care over the next three years, removes the employer health tax exemption for big companies while offering more tax relief to smaller ones and brings in sweeping welfare reform.

Under the social-assistance plan, which will cost $400-million over three years, benefit rates will climb 1 per cent and recipients will be allowed to own a car and have up to $2,500 and still qualify for benefits. They will also be allowed to keep the first $200 per month of their benefits after finding work.

Other spending pledges include funding for First Nations housing, education and policing; added dollars for legal aid; $42-million a year for adults with developmental disabilities and money to toughen up enforcement of employment standards. Millions more dollars will go toward helping people with mental health issues.

It also contains a few incentives for businesses, including a plan to help manufacturing businesses buy new equipment.

But for the most part, the budget eschews ambitious spending for a hold-the-line approach to the books. The $11.7-billion deficit projection is $1.1-billion lower than previous projections. The budget also proposes to freeze public-sector salaries until the books are balanced in fiscal year 2017-18. Government figures show Ontario with the lowest per-capita public sector spending of any province.

This year’s deficit is projected to be higher than last year’s $9.8-billion. In part, this is because of lower economic growth forecasts. It is also because over the past year the government undertook tougher one-time fiscal measures, including an elimination of teacher sick days, which saved the government piles of cash.

As it is, this year’s projections lean heavily on austerity measures the government already took last year, including imposing contracts on teachers and raising more revenue from corporate taxes. It is not clear how the government can wash away the red ink without such tough measures in future.

And the PCs argued that the spending restraint does not go nearly far enough. The opposition party wants to see spending slashed, thousands of government workers fired and taxes cut. The Liberals’ attempts at balancing the books are too minimal, Tory finance critic Peter Shurman said.

“[It’s] like your doctor telling you to lose weight, eat better, quit smoking, stop drinking  start exercising – so you swear off Twinkies and you say that you’re a success,” he said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario-budget-tries-to-keep-province-and-liberals-aflo...

[puckstopshere]

Although the provincial NDP leader has not said whether or not she will support the budget, it is pretty obvious that she will.

What is the other option?  Call for a non-confidence vote and call an election.  But we know she will not do that.  The NDP have only chosen 6 candidates for all of Ontario.  She is not ready for an election.  The Conservatives have nominated candidates in every riding.

So, it s not only a budget to keep the Liberals alive, it is a budget to keep the NDP afloat. 

Once again, the decisions are made - not on what is best for Ontario - but what is best for the political parties.  So much for ideals and principles. 

[stevephinn2012]

which will cost $400-million over three years, benefit rates will climb 1 per cent and recipients will be allowed to own a car and have up to $2,500 and still qualify for benefits. They will also be allowed to keep the first $200 per month of their benefits after finding work.

REALLY????? maybe she can explain how I did at least 5 tax returns this year for families that were on "social assistance" that were also claiming the credit as "first time home buyers"

How can you be on welfare and buy a house???

[puckstopshere]

One can only hope that this is a no-Wynne situation.

[ilurkthereforiam]

And it is no coincidence that nearly all of the splashiest spending promises resemble the budget demands made by NDP Leader Andrea Horwath.

This is problem that I have with Hudak.

The polls say that the people do want an eletion at this time, but Hudak boldly claims that he will vote against anything Wynne puts forward.

Since Wynne knows that she can't work with Hudak she will have to make deals with Horwath.

Imo is an idiot. Not only does he come across as a racist homophobe, but he shows that he doesn't have the ability to work with others.

[rafael.xavier]

How can you be on welfare and buy a house???

Owning house may be more reasonable than renting.

For example MLS 1303547, 3bdrm house for $17k and you can always knock 10-20% down with the quick buy. The only cheaper housing option is tent in the woods. $20k mortgage over 10yrs comes to $200/m, you will not get a small room for that.

Couple years ago we were both unemployed and our official combined family income was under $20k/yr from seasonal work and we lived off savings and paid $1100/m rent. Never on unemployment, because I refuse to ask for handouts but rent was hurting bad, but we were flexible with the location so we looked at options. I don't believe in debt and always pay off as fast as I can and my credit rating was very high, Scotia gave me mortgage up to $120k with my $30k savings down and we found nice older home in town about 200km from where we lived. Solid, spacious, better made than modern homes, large yard and safe neigbourhood with mostly retired folks living here. Don't understand why it was so inexpensive, home insurance companies value it at $400-$500k to replace. We owned $300k house, sold 6yrs years ago, then we rented small house with miniscule backyard at $1100/m for 2yrs and wife and kids love this one the most.

My point is, if you are hurting financially and unemployed, it makes financial sense to buy home. Buy what you can afford, with some effort you can make even trailer cozy and comfortable. The best part, you probably pay off your house in 2-3yrs with almost no effort and when you get back on your feet, you move on or just keep it and live simple life outside of the rat race.

[rafael.xavier]

Above text should not be fully quoted, I only wanted to quote this: stevephinn2012 How can you be on welfare and buy a house???

[stevephinn2012]

welfare is a stop gap messeaure to "get you by" IF they can afford to put money away on welfare ( MINE AND YOURS) then they are getting TOO MUCH!

It is AGAINST THE RULES to be getting government assistance and buy a house but it goes on and on.

By the way can you provide that quote as I have NEVER NEVER NEVER ever rented a house in my life!!! Bought my first house when i was 17 and sold it 4 years later and bought the current house I am in now!

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

My point is, if you are hurting financially and unemployed, it makes financial sense to buy home. Buy what you can afford, with some effort you can make even trailer cozy and comfortable. The best part, you probably pay off your house in 2-3yrs with almost no effort and when you get back on your feet, you move on or just keep it and live simple life outside of the rat race.

True and in many cases it's cheaper to pay a mortgage than to pay rent.....but a mortgage is an investment, while rent, you're just throwing good money out the window IMO. So strictly from a business point of view, a person on 'assistance' (for assorted reasons) may pay 500 a month for mortgage ...or 1000 a month for rent. Which is smarter when one looks at the big picture for the government to help with financially?

I find that there are people in society who as soon as they hear someone is on welfare or assistance they automatically label that person with a long list of names. This is one of the many things I detest in human beings.

[stevephinn2012]

True and in many cases it's cheaper to pay a mortgage than to pay rent.....but a mortgage is an investment, while rent, you're just throwing good money out the window IMO. So strictly from a business point of view, a person on 'assistance' (for assorted reasons) may pay 500 a month for mortgage ...or 1000 a month for rent. Which is smarter when one looks at the big picture for the government to help with financially?

I find that there are people in society who as soon as they hear someone is on welfare or assistance they automatically label that person with a long list of names. This is one of the many things I detest in human beings.

so then i guess you will help join with Pierre to complain along with a few millioniarres that their cpp and old age should not be clawed back just because they have saved for their future! They paid into it just like every other person that is on it.

Why should those that do not save for their future (when making the same money) and paid the excat same for benefits get some while other don't???

[puckstopshere]

I would be curious as to how someone on welfare "qualifies" for that mortgage.  I remember having to have a certain level of income to qualify.  If a person on welfare is unemployed, has no income other than welfare, how do they get a mortgage?

Of course, the U.S. found out that many people who got mortgage loans really didn't qualify. 

On CNN this morning, they were talking about squatters in California.  Apparently, it is legal to squat in an unoccupied house.  As long as you register and pay taxes on the house, you can stay.  If, after 5 years, the original owners have made no effort to have you removed, you own the house. 

[dipmicro]

On CNN this morning, they were talking about squatters in California.  Apparently, it is legal to squat in an unoccupied house.  As long as you register and pay taxes on the house, you can stay.  If, after 5 years, the original owners have made no effort to have you removed, you own the house. 

It is "adverse possession" and property must be vacant and California also has clause that property taxes must not be paid by owner on the title.

Moving into an occupied house is not squatting, but home invasion.

Btw. it's not just United States. Read this:

I had a squatter in my rental home, I tried to get him out and even took him to court to get him out. I was told I was the jerk for doing this from the courts and he could stay another 2 months before getting out of my unit. In that time he just about bankrupted me. I paid the morgage, hydro so he could live there and pay nothing so my credit didn't suffer. I do not feel sorry for these people. Get a job like the rest of us honest people. If its not yours you can't be there. Its a shame the courts don't see it that way.

http://realestate.yourmoney.ca/2011/08/ask-a-realtor-whats-the-deal-with-squatters-rights.html

I like the "property taxes must not be paid" clause California has. It would remove lot of ambiguity and probably let the guy with comment above to exercise his right to private property.

[dipmicro]

On the other hand, the case above may not have been squatter, but non-paying tenant, in which case the 2 months before eviction make more sense.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

so then i guess you will help join with Pierre to complain along with a few millioniarres that their cpp and old age should not be clawed back just because they have saved for their future! They paid into it just like every other person that is on it.

Why should those that do not save for their future (when making the same money) and paid the excat same for benefits get some while other don't???

Your 'guess' would be wrong. A person who works for something (and hopefully has not walked over the bodies of others to get it) deserves what they made for themselves. However I also believe there should be a certain moral obligation by the wealthy to help the poor and others who have fallen on hard times. As my old religious grandmother use to say "there but for the grace of god go I". There are many, many, many etc etc etc people in this world and in this nation who need a hand up and not just a little....but a lot. This is something not understood by many people who stand on the outside, insulated from the reality of others in this day and age.

I would be curious as to how someone on welfare "qualifies" for that mortgage.  I remember having to have a certain level of income to qualify.  If a person on welfare is unemployed, has no income other than welfare, how do they get a mortgage?

I'm not sure how it is done. I do know that a person on welfare, or disability can keep their home. I also knew a lady who was basically given a home by the government. She had 6 kids.....husband deserted the family....and she herself had health problems. From what I understand through the grapevine it was more economically viable and better for the children psychologically to live in a home than in a low income apartment in some sort of 'project'. Three of the kids are on their own now and have done extremely well and have become contributing members of society. I don't think that they would have become who they are if they had had to exist in a different atmosphere. Paying now......seems to pay off in much larger benefits later.  

[stevephinn2012]

 would be curious as to how someone on welfare "qualifies" for that mortgage.  I remember having to have a certain level of income to qualify.  If a person on welfare is unemployed, has no income other than welfare, how do they get a mortgage?

they qualify much easier than someone working! They are guaranteed that income they will never be cut off. Where as someone that has only been working for say 6 months is not guaranteed anything tomorrow!

There is a pattern of some on welfare that have been there for 5-10 years and making $24-$30K a year and it's the same year after year (with slight increases) yet someone starting off at a job will usually have to have been employeed by the same company for at least 1 year with guaranteed hours to be approved.

and before "someone" says that they do not make that much i do taxes for a living and know exactly what some make including exactly what they will get each month for the trillium benefit and what they will get each month for child tax and exactly what they will get every 3 months for GST credit. (all which is Tax free)

[dipmicro]

Steve, interesting. Perhaps you should take some numbers and send them over to Globe and Mail, without naming anyone particular of course. I think press should be all over this.

[stevephinn2012]

The press know and the government knows. They don't say anything because just like on here "someone" would accuse them of "attacking" the less fortunate!

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

"someone" would accuse them of "attacking" the less fortunate!

I am sure there are people out there who 'use' the system....because in any 'system' you always find those who use it, up to and including the wealthy who have the abilities to 'really use'.

However when it comes to the wealthy......they are gently classified as to not offend them. People say "well they worked for it'....or "they are smart people and deserve it".....and that may be true in some cases but in others they are the same people who use others and have destroyed others all so they can become more wealthy and more powerful.

 But when it comes to people on welfare, that classification is not there and some people like to put them ALL down and paint them all with the same brush. They are easy to see because they always have stories about people who they feel abuse the system (in their estimation) and never a good thing to say about others or the troubles they have in their lives. I find them angry people....people who lived and work in a 'system' that is run by politicians and the wealthy powerful and these angry people can do nothing about the injustices and imbalances in the 'system'. They themselves feel .....powerless. So what they do, or need to do, is attack those they can and often that is those who cannot fight back, the needy, the homeless, the single mother trying to make ends meet and even those on disability. It reminds me of the days in history where some people never had anything good to say about Black people, or in Germany, those who never had anything good to say about Jews. It's not much different....just bigotry on a different scale.

Many of these people who are on assistance have problems that others have no understanding for. They could be people with little education, people from dysfunctional homes that as a child they never wanted but continue to deal with, people with physical or mental problems and yes, even people who turned to drugs because it was a way to shut out the pain in their lives. But some people are happy to attack them because........they can....it's easy.

If I am someone who dislikes attacking the 'less fortunate'........then I plead guilty and proud of it. 

[dipmicro]

In that case let's bring up that self-employed person managing $25k/yr is liable for $4-$5k in income tax, while some people for years on tax-free welfare have pizza delivery daily.

I know a microbiology lab owner, who has 4 employees and pays them on time, but his family lives very poorly. There is many self-employed folks who struggle greatly and government is not helping them, while giving tax breaks to large corporations and now we learn there is people 5-10yrs on welfare receiving more tax free than this microbiology lab owner makes in gross. This guy created his own little economy, employs 4 people. Who is attacked here ? Maybe the non-taxable minimum income should be increased at least to match what welfare folks are receiving.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

There is many self-employed folks who struggle greatly and government is not helping them, while giving tax breaks to large corporations

Very true and wrong! There isn't and rarely has been enough help for small business.....yet it is the backbone of society. The government has always pampered Big business because they know these people through everything from personal connections to the champagne at garden parties.

now we learn there is people 5-10yrs on welfare receiving more tax free than this microbiology lab owner makes in gross.

Everyone of those people have their own stories and some of them are horrible and we are lucky we haven't lead their lives past or present. Every time I hear of a story about someone on assistance I first want to hear the whole story and then I judge the person and the reasons.