The Shotgun Blog
Friday, August 22, 2008
Taxpayers and PETA-philes agree: corporate welfare stinks
Is a zero-interest federal loan to a Quebec company part of a Tory vote buying scheme? I asked Canadian Taxpayers Federation national director John Williamson.
Should vegetarians be forced to subsidize the meat industry? The PETA-philes say “no.”
And what can be done to improve private sector lending to growing Canadian businesses? Libertarian Party leader Dennis Young commits to a strategy that could help phase out corporate welfare completely.
Read all of this and more in the latest Western Standard news story “Does it take Tory pork to process pork?” here.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Taxpayers and PETA-philes agree: corporate welfare stinks:
I'm all for the elimination of corporate welfare, banking welfare (sub prime fiasco) and pretty much all welfare unless it is genuinely, provably for dire humanitarian needs. In fact, I pretty much want the government out of the subsidy business altogether. Its just another black hole for taxpayers who (amazingly) trust their government, to throw money into.
Posted by: JC | 2008-08-22 2:15:25 PM
Should vegetarians be forced to subsidize the meat industry? Should people without children be forced to pay school taxes?
Posted by: glen | 2008-08-22 2:25:04 PM
...and should pro-lifers be forced to pay for abortions?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-22 2:31:39 PM
Spot on JC. It is the whole thing, not just the meat industry.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-22 2:34:30 PM
If vegetarians don't have to subsidize the meat industry, rednecks shouldn't have to subsidize the arts.
If vegetarians don't have to subsidize the meat industry, those who drive shouldn't have to subsidize transit.
If vegetarians don't have to subsidize the meat industry, childless couples shouldn't have to pay school taxes.
If vegetarians don't have to subsidize the meat industry, those of robust constitutions shouldn't have to subsidize the medical care of the weak and sickly.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-22 2:53:58 PM
I'm amazed you managed to pay for your own education when you were a child.
Or was somebody else stuck with the bill?
Posted by: set you free | 2008-08-22 3:28:55 PM
I think the question here is:
Should the government subsidize industry, the arts, transit and education when absolutely not necessary? Should we not be provided with choices and the liberty to control our own existence and aid those who really require it and not those who want it and just don't want it bad enough to sacrifice cable television or their automobile? It's time that society grows up. The government is stunting our growth. We should have the right rise to great heights which comes with the possibility of falling. I'd take rising to great heights with the possibility of falling anyday over the artificial "comfort zone" that the government has created by punishing those who succeed greatly and promoting mediocracy through income based taxation rather than consumption based taxation. But I digress.
Posted by: Ike | 2008-08-22 9:47:32 PM
Right On Ike!
Posted by: JC | 2008-08-22 10:14:39 PM
Ike wrote: "Should the government subsidize industry, the arts, transit and education when absolutely not necessary?"
Define "not necessary." I think the yardstick should be whether the benefit derived from the subsidy exceeds the cost. Subsidizing poets and grunge artists is a waste of money. Universal primary and secondary education is not.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-22 10:40:47 PM
The point is, should government be able to choose winners and by default, losers?
Posted by: DML | 2008-08-22 10:45:37 PM
Should the government fund those who truly cannot afford basic education, I would say yes. Should the government provide the system and develop and enforce the content of the curriculum? I have to say no. There's a difference between providing the means for everyone to have an education and providing and education for everyone.
Posted by: Ike | 2008-08-22 10:53:14 PM
DML wrote: "The point is, should government be able to choose winners and by default, losers?"
Yes. Because that's no more than any private citizen does. Provided their choices are correct and reasonable, where is the problem?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-23 11:28:51 AM
Ike, it costs anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000 per year to educate a child. That's an expense most people would not be able to manage, even with the reduced taxes that not having to pay school taxes would engender. Society has benefited enormously from compulsory and free education.
There's a difference between government getting out of a business because they're not the best ones to run it and kicking them out of that business as a matter of principle. Efficiency and economy of operation are the driving principles, not keeping the government below a certain size.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-23 11:32:29 AM
I'm not one to quote myself but "There's a difference between providing the means for everyone to have an education and providing an education for everyone." I am not saying the government should stop paying altogether as well some cannot pay and a big number are well, too irresponsible to organize their finances to do so. But then again, who am I to infringe opon the family with a $80,000/per year combined income who wants a house too large for their pockets, new automobiles and education for their child. With regards to efficiency, the government is terribly inefficient in running the education system. Think of all the bureaucrats, administrators and pensioned teachers. I have worked admin in the health section and inefficiencies abound. There is no incentive to become efficient when you can request more funding and then whine about long waitlists as a way of showing that you need that funding.
Posted by: Ike | 2008-08-23 11:48:24 AM
Then, Ike, perhaps the government simply needs to cast aside "Dirty Thirties" ideology and start employing a firmer hand with its workers, and perhaps it's time for the public to start demanding it, too. I thought the government handled the BCHA strike and the illegal teacher's strike rather well, and the BCTF certainly got off easier in court than they deserved. They should have been fined the full economic cost of the strike--parents missing work, extra daycare costs, the whole smack.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-23 1:10:33 PM
I say employ cuts to force them to tighten up and keep on cutting them until they stop squaking.
Posted by: Ike | 2008-08-23 7:20:03 PM
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-23 8:33:00 PM
IMHO, it is squaking to complain about wages when you have an undergrad, one year of post-undergrad, "earn" $50,000+, work 9 momths a year and receive full pension at 55.
Posted by: Ike | 2008-08-23 9:29:36 PM
It is time to cut corporate welfare, cultural and arts grants as well as the granting of "Tax-free Charity" status to Special Interest groups.
A few like the CHRC and hrcs around Canada (and their intervenors) that then become lobbyists and use their power to try and silence free speech for others according to the principles they use to receive tax-free status from Canada in the first place.
There are enough priorities in any country to suggest a limit to the fringe. Right now - it appears the special interest groups are at war with each other as to who speaks for any one ethnic or religious group let alone who is the best to fight HATE CRIME.
Posted by: The LS from SK | 2008-08-24 9:12:48 AM
Ike, I presume you meant "squawking"? And yes, many government workers, including teachers, nurses, and especially judges, have some nerve crying poverty; I fully agree.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-24 10:33:46 AM
Touche Shane, point taken. My bad.
Posted by: Ike | 2008-08-24 2:07:54 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.