| Author |
Topic |
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
252 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2012 : 5:36 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by johngenx
I would increase the corporate tax rates, and not by 1%.
...
All good points, unfortunately the game only provides options that are currently being debated. I was thinking the same thing, corporate tax hike of 2% would change the scope quite a bit. |
|
|
41 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2012 : 07:44 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by peter1955
Again, do you have a source for your numbers? What revenues are included, and which aren't? I suspect Parks doesn't want us to know how much of a kickback they get from Brewsters, and I wonder how much the ski hills are paying to lease land.
And what does that cost include? If it covers things like infrastructure in Jasper and Banff, then those would be paid by the tax base, not from Park revenues. And maintenance of highways, including the Parkway, should be covered by transport budgets since they are not specifically park costs.
You can cook the books a lot of ways if you're a good accountant.
But regardless, just think about it. If there isn't enough money to pay all the park expenses, is it worth creating atrocities like Viad's Discovery Walk to get there? Should there be ticket booths at the parking lots for every scenic attraction?
Either the Parks have an intrinsic value to Canada and as a World Heritage Site, and to the Canadians who pay for them, or they're just a Disneyland to be sold off piece by piece.
I 100 Per cent agree with you on this !
Although I would like input on how more money is used..
My priorites would include trail maintenance..
Again though many people don't see the Parks having an intrinsic value to Canada ...
There needs to be a big push in that area...
|
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
874 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2012 : 2:52 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by McLeod99
quote:
Originally posted by peter1955
[quote]Originally posted by McLeod99
[quote]Originally posted by johngenx
[quote]Originally posted by McLeod99
Parks Canada still spends around $500 million to keep our national parks up and running. The trouble is that it only receives about 30 per cent of its budget from those who visit and do business in our national parks. In essence, the government is subsidizing the existence of our national parks.
Now don't ge me wrong i am with you on this but we need to come up with some ideas...
Harper spent almost that much invading Libya. I don't think preserving the environment ranks very high on his list of spending priorities.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/05/11/pol-libya-mission-costs-department-of-defence.html?cmp=rss
|
Edited by - weedWhacker on 05/11/2012 2:59 PM |
|
|
3022 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2012 : 11:38 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by oldmatt
I think it is unfortunate since parks are near and dear to the site users, but hard choices have to be made. There are no easy times for the politicians these days since we can all see (with Greece) what continued overspending and deficits lead to. So what gets cut instead?
Should old age, unemployment insurance, child benefits, provincial transfers (health care and education), aboriginal affairs, health, human resources etc be cut instead? I would put those higher on my list, and those account for 2/3 of the federal government expenses.
I guess the near unanimous response on this site would be to save the parks and further reduce the defense budget...
yeah, don't need F-35s. Some solid deep cold far ranging search & rescue and delivery vessels[ air & water] would be a better investment.Veterans need more access to psychologists and psychiatrists post trauma syndrome-mental health.
Schools are getting less & today I read that 5-more 'noneducational days' will be added to the new school year, on-top of the many existing pro-D-days and longer spring breaks.
Health care. Inadequate staffing fluctuations.Restricted times of leaves.
Duty Counsel and Legal Aide.
A lot of canadian life is connected & plugged into one another one way or another and many have merits to funding.
Trim the fat is all I seem to hear each year,& some parks need to be sheltered from effects of extreme underfunding. & Other parks may benefit from the absence of intense pressure and revert to greater wildlife again.
Hard to say where on the list some cuts should be imposed.Then again, cuts need to heal and receive renewed fundings.
Did 'occupy' have anything to say about 'cuts'?
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Parks Canada hit by latest federal job cuts
