Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-ean.CDN Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!ubc-vision!ubc-ean!robinson From: robinson@ubc-ean.CDN (Jim Robinson) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: First Chance Program and other Ramblings Message-ID: <741@ubc-ean.CDN> Date: Mon, 20-Aug-84 00:57:14 EDT Article-I.D.: ubc-ean.741 Posted: Mon Aug 20 00:57:14 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 14-Aug-84 08:13:34 EDT Organization: UBC EAN, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 85 > Recently Prime Minister Turner announced the 'First Chance' program to > provide youth with initial job training. It's supposed to provide > training for zillions of unemplyed youth so they won't be turned down > from a job just because they don't have any experience. > > What good is this program???? Besides wasting humungous amounts of > govt money (I seem to recall $1 billion after a couple of years) all > it does is provide youth with training for non-existent jobs. The > guys with experience will just get shuffled bit further back in the > unemployment line. > > Shouldn't the first priority be job *creation*, not redistribution? > Start public projects or something (I can think of quite a few streets > that need repaving...) Tom Haapen is correct in pointing out that all the training in the world is not going to help people if there are simply no jobs out there. However I strongly disagree with his proposal that the government should be involved in job creation ( read make-work ). The government is simply not equipped to create permanent jobs in the private sector and public works projects are merely a way of postponing the inevitable crunch since there are deep rooted problems in the economy and in all probability it will not be enough to just wait out this bust we're going thru. What the government should be doing is trying to create an enviroment which facilitates the creation of new businesses and the growth of present ones. Unfortuneately, I cannot pretend to know just how to do this, but I think a certain amount of deregulation is a first step. The Liberals were on the right track with wanting to deregulate the airline industry, but have so far merely paid lip service to the idea. Over-regulation often has the effect of reducing competition among the various players, and competition is an essential ingredient in a free market system. Another move in the right direction would be for the federal and provincial governemnts to drastically reduce their taxes on gasoline. I can sort of understand high taxes on alcohol and tobacco since they are considered to be "sin taxes" and those commodities are certainly not essential to the well being of the country ( or for that matter the person that uses them ). But, to tax gas at the present horrific rate seems to make as much sense as taxing water. Gasoline is the lifeblood of an industrialised country and over-taxation of it cannot help but produce a downward pressure on the economy. It's really quite amazing to compare what we pay for gas in Canada to what is paid in the US especially when you take into account that the gas purchased from Alberta is about $2 a barrel cheaper than imported gas. My last suggestion is to implement a flat income tax rate. This will have a double pronged effect in that a) From then on EVERYBODY would have an interest in seeing that their tax dollars are being put to good and efficient use (e.g. is it really necessary to create a new position for Eugene Whelan in Italy just because he wanted to be Prime Minister ), and b) The disincentive that presently exists for those making above a certain amount to work any harder would disappear and would undoubtedly result in increased productivity on their part which will in turn result in a healthier economy. ( Of course, it would be necessary to increase the standard deduction so that the truly poor are not hurt by this change. ) I am expecting to hear some rather heated replies concerning this suggestion. Unfortuneately, the Tories and the Grits are presently hell bent on seeing which of them can regurgitate the greatest number of worn out ideas. The didn't taste too good the first time around, and they don't taste too good now. In case you haven't guessed from the above, my personal opinion is that the people best qualified to spend taxpayers' money is the taxpayers themselves. This was at one point termed supply side economics. Then when Ronnie adopted it, it was derisively called Reagonomics. Then, when the US economy took off like a 747 it went back to being supply side economics. The idea which has the least merit is increasing taxes, which is precisely what will happen on October 1st when Marc LaLonde's silently ticking tax time-bomb goes off and the price of nearly everything that you and I buy on a day to day basis goes up. J.B. Robinson