the winnipeg sandbox
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
the winnipeg sandbox

Latest topics

» Gord Steeves should run for Mayor
by FlyingRat Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:58 pm

» To discontinue?
by EdWin Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:26 pm

» Sandbox breakfast get-together, Saturday, January 25, 2014.
by rosencrentz Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:27 pm

» 2013-14 Bisons/CIS Thread
by Hollywood Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:56 pm

» Katz must resign
by cobragt Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:09 pm

» Best Breakfast/Brunch
by cobragt Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:07 pm

» Manitoba Action Party
by RogerStrong Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:24 pm

» Police Respond to a silent alarm With Guns Drawn
by EdWin Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:10 pm

» Details about Cineplex SuperTicket -- interesting promotion
by MattKel Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:08 pm

» Freep locks out non-subscriber commentary
by Deank Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:58 pm

» 7-year sentence for Berlusconi
by FlyingRat Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:32 pm

» New Stadium
by grumpy old man Mon May 27, 2013 4:34 pm

» Winnipeg News Android App
by grumpy old man Mon May 27, 2013 4:33 pm

» First Post
by grumpy old man Fri May 24, 2013 2:43 pm

» The New Sals at Pembina and Stafford
by grumpy old man Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:35 pm

» Emma Watson wants to do nude scenes for 50 shades of grey movie
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:39 am

» Museum finally admits it needs to raise more money priovately.
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:32 am

» And You Thought Your Taxes Are High Now!!!
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:21 am

» free chocolate sample
by cobragt Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:12 pm

» Do you want a gift certificate for A winnipeg restraunt?
by cobragt Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:12 pm


You are not connected. Please login or register

the winnipeg sandbox » winnipeg sandbox.. » manitoba... » just for the record... 602 million is technically zero.

just for the record... 602 million is technically zero.

5 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

Guest

Anonymous
Guest


"Despite the deficit, the budget is projected to still be technically balanced, as the NDP government changed the balanced budget legislation in 2008 to allow the government to balance its budgets on a four-year average."

Typical NDP. Trying to spin this off anyway they can. How gullible do they think Manitobans are?

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

if this is balanced on a 4 year average and we lost that much this year.... the next 3 years are going to see a lot of belt tightening to make up the average right?

cherenkov

cherenkov
contributor plus
contributor plus

"Despite the deficit, the budget is projected to still be
technically balanced, as the NDP government changed the balanced budget
legislation in 2008 to allow the government to balance its budgets on a
four-year average."

That's not correct The budget is technically not balanced, but it complies with the balanced budget legislation. Those are two different things. That is poor reporting. I haven't read the article yet, but I do hope that the government isn't actually claiming that it's a balanced budget!!!

http://anybody-want-a-peanut.blogspot.com/

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

they certainly are...because they redefined what a balanced budget is.

St Norberter

St Norberter
major-contributor
major-contributor

hehehehee.....

NDP accounting principles: Don't matter what the numbers actually are. The numbers are what you say they are!

IMHO balanced budget rules should apply to operating account i.e. exclude hydro, MLCC, MPI etc. THAT would be in line with the original intent of the legislation.

Of course, since the NDP takes in $500M + in VLT revenue that will never happen!

http://bgilchrist.wordpress.com/

cherenkov

cherenkov
contributor plus
contributor plus

balanced budget rules should apply to operating account i.e. exclude hydro, MLCC, MPI etc.

Agree. They could have a rolling four-year balanced budget requirement for the overall budget including crown corps, but the legislation should require them to balance the operating budget every year.

http://anybody-want-a-peanut.blogspot.com/

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

cherenkov wrote:
balanced budget rules should apply to operating account i.e. exclude hydro, MLCC, MPI etc.

Agree. They could have a rolling four-year balanced budget requirement for the overall budget including crown corps, but the legislation should require them to balance the operating budget every year.

heh.. it did... up until 2008 when the NDP changed it.

cherenkov

cherenkov
contributor plus
contributor plus

They sort of did. The old legislation still allowed them to run operating deficits because they could pad the numbers by raiding the fiscal stabilization fund or Manitoba Hydro revenues. It was flawed legislation before, but now it's even worse.

http://anybody-want-a-peanut.blogspot.com/

Freeman

Freeman
uber-contributor
uber-contributor

I wonder what the unfunded liability behind the Teachers Retirement Fund is as well??

St Norberter

St Norberter
major-contributor
major-contributor

Freeman wrote:I wonder what the unfunded liability behind the Teachers Retirement Fund is as well??
The short answer is that it is the difference between the value of the fund and the funds required if every member retired and took their pension at the rate based on years of service.
Sounds a little confusing, but one of the requirements is that defined benefit pension plans usually require a certain level of funding. The unfunded liability is the difference between that and full requirements.
Since MTS is an ongoing organization, there really isn't any need to worry about having to come up with the difference. It's really just a accounting entry.

http://bgilchrist.wordpress.com/

Freeman

Freeman
uber-contributor
uber-contributor

St Norberter wrote:
Freeman wrote:I wonder what the unfunded liability behind the Teachers Retirement Fund is as well??
The short answer is that it is the difference between the value of the fund and the funds required if every member retired and took their pension at the rate based on years of service.
Sounds a little confusing, but one of the requirements is that defined benefit pension plans usually require a certain level of funding. The unfunded liability is the difference between that and full requirements.
Since MTS is an ongoing organization, there really isn't any need to worry about having to come up with the difference. It's really just a accounting entry.

Really, aren't all DB pension plans based on the on-going concern theory, and don't they have to have, by law, an actuarial valuation every 3 years, and don't they also have to pass a solvency test, which would require additional solvency payments by the owner of the plan, but noneof this applies to the Teachers Retirement plan because its underwritten by the Province of Manitoba.

I also wonder about the unfunded liability of the Civil Service Superannuation plan. Think they'll show that on the balance sheet?

Freeman

Freeman
uber-contributor
uber-contributor

Well, at least Selinger can blame it on Doer, who has fled the country. Pity the poor guy that was responsible for finance under Doer....what a minute.....

umcrouc0

umcrouc0
contributor plus
contributor plus

So what's the 4 year average at? Every province is getting killed this year. It's stupid to call the thing technically 'balanced', but if there's some legislation that requires you to keep things balanced at all times, I could see them doing something like the 4 year average to comply with it so you don't need to cut programs like crazy for something like a temporary economic hit.

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

There is no way possible that they can be pulling numbers out of their arses that somehow balances out a loss of 600 mill this year. They MUST be thinking that the next 3 years are all going to have some Magical 200+million in extra cash coming in. This would require a 800 million turn around for next year. THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN WITHOUT SELLING SOMETHING.

umcrouc0

umcrouc0
contributor plus
contributor plus

Deank wrote:There is no way possible that they can be pulling numbers out of their arses that somehow balances out a loss of 600 mill this year. They MUST be thinking that the next 3 years are all going to have some Magical 200+million in extra cash coming in. This would require a 800 million turn around for next year. THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN WITHOUT SELLING SOMETHING.

Really? 2006-2007 had a surplus of $430M, 2007-2008 had a surplus of around $330M, don't know the exact number of 2008-2009. Reuters lists the 4 year total including this $600M loss at $221M surplus. I'm sure everyone who has been complaing about paying too much tax which results in these high surpluses for the last few years remembers this.

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

Look to the future... not the past. The economy is going to be turning around very slowly and there WILL be a loss again next year. This loss coupled with next years.. and possibly the year after that... that 4th year is going to have to do some freakin wonderful magic to balance things outs.

umcrouc0

umcrouc0
contributor plus
contributor plus

I don't know how slow the pace of turnaround is going to be. Wouldn't be surprised if things are back in a couple of years. One year with good transfer payments and not much increased spending will balance everything out. But are you saying it should be averaged over an even longer time because if we get caught in a cycle that takes another year or two to turn around it doesn't make sense to tear the whole system apart to make the books look a little better if we are aware of the temporary situation?

St Norberter

St Norberter
major-contributor
major-contributor

Wouldn't assume good transfer payments. All indications are that they are going to be decreasing. Besides, we should be scaling back on the amount of transfer payments we accept from Ottawa.

http://bgilchrist.wordpress.com/

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

fuuck no.. I am saying it should not be averaged since it VERY obvious that the government can not properly predict the future.

Harper has already said be prepared for some serious belt tightening.. that will mean a cut in transfer payments. Probably a substancial cut.

without our transfer payments we are really screwed.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

the winnipeg sandbox » winnipeg sandbox.. » manitoba... » just for the record... 602 million is technically zero.

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum