The stimulus is working.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5vkPiCEjjdg/SquuDlDcQII/AAAAAAAAEe0/K2ScycGbAzc/s1600-h/14.gif

"A recent survey by the Canadian Payroll Association found that 59% of Canadian employees report they would have trouble making ends meet if their pay check was delayed for even one week. The Americans have spent their way into the grave, but we in Canada are not far behind and unfortunately it isn’t over yet."

If you think people have trouble making their payments now, wait till the HST hits the consumers in B.C. next summer. Putting this HST on an already far too leveraged consumer is akin to throwing an anvil to a drowning man.

Ditto!

"No one to pay taxes, no money, seems like a simple enough equation, but very hard for some to understand. If government has no money, like the province, you can’t spend something that you don’t have."

-----------------------------------------
Ben, it may come as a surprise to you and the other readers of your column, but governments always spend something they don't have.

They can do this directly, through the issuance of "Teasury Notes", as was done for many years prior to the creation of the Bank of Canada, or through the delegation of this power to "create money", (in the form of currency), to that institution. Provincially, they do it by "borrowing", since we don't allow Provinces the sovereign right to issue "money" ~ yet the fact they all do their own books, and can raise loans in their own name, indicates that they DO control their own "credit". And ALL "money" is "credit".

That any sovereign government
CAN do so is without question. HOW they do so, if this power they possess is to be truly beneficial, is what should concern us. Especially in these times.

Every sovereign community is "self-financing", with the "community" and each "individual" in that community in a position of
technical opposition; the "community" and the "individual" always being on opposite sides of the ledger.

If you doubt this, just ask yourself how a country like Canada, whose various Ministers of Finance repeatedly told us all through the "dirty Thirties" that such and so that needed doing "couldn't be done, because we have 'no money" ~ and not
'new'things either,
but rather just keeping schools open and teachers paid, and roads maintained, etc. ~ could suddenly find all this long
missing "money" when we decided to go to war against Hitler in 1939.

By the end of that conflict we had the third largest navy in the world, a sizeable air force, and a well-trained, well-equiped army. And industries we never possessed previously.

We also had a higher standard of living at home than we had when we entered it.

And all this with the "creme" of Canadian manhood, young men in their most productive years, in uniform serving Crown and country valiantly,
BUT from a "productive" point of view, absolutely "useless" towards adding to any of the country's industrial output.

Yet we still paid them all. Now where did
all that "money" come from?

"Debt", you say? "Debt" to WHOM? Who did we owe all this "money" to? To the Banks? Where, pray tell, did they get it from?

Surely not from their depositors, for we all know 'money' was scarce all through the 1930's because our governments all told us neither they, nor anybody else, (save the "rich", of course), had any?

And the war cost far more than the collective fortunes of the "rich" and everyone else
combined, and there's precious little evidence anyone was
any LESS "rich" when it was over.

So where did it come from if it was not "created" by the "community" on its own behalf, (or,at least, supposedly so)?

The unfortunate reality is Canada does not have a large enough population to adequately support major internal industry. As a result we are forced to export raw resources and materials to other countries in order to support our own. This is not a bad thing necessarily. However when the companies extracting those resources are foreign owned then we increasingly become subject to their whims and ideals. As a result we, as Canadians, often will find ourselves caught up in matters that really have no bearing upon us as a country just to ensure that we do not enrage our trading partners.

"the Yanks". wtf?

"We are told that well, we have diversity, we have for example, School District 57, a large medical component with Northern Health, UNBC, the College, and UNBC. Interestingly enough, all of these venues that get mentioned as being the major employers, have one thing in common, they are all supported by taxpayer money."

- And, are not these sectors experiencing major cutback also? You bet they are.

Like I have said on here many times before. The group of tax payers is shrinking and the groups of government employees and the poor is increasing. Government is over spending and giving themselves raises and the tax payers are not seeing much in the form of raises due to the economic downturn. How much longer do u think the tax payers are going to be able to carry everyone? How many more tax increases from our city, regional district and provincial goverment are we going to be able to take on? When and how do we as the group who pays for everyone say "That is enough!" If you are middle class making less than a 100,000.00 a year you are already living on the edge. All the utilities and essentials such as food has increased by 25% in a matter of a few years. I for one do not know where this will all end but I am quit certain it will be a nightmare. I hope to God that an individual will miraculously appear and become priminister and be for the people but reality tells me this is just a nice dream.

I just have to shake my head when I hear yet again the claim that Canada with a population of over 30 million is too small to support an industrial base. Yet Singapore (4.8 million), Switzerland (7.8 million), Sweden (9.2 million), Finland (5.3 million), and perhaps the best example, Taiwan (22 million), manage it quite well.

I just have to shake my head when I hear yet again the claim that Canada with a population of over 30 million is too small to support an industrial base. Yet Singapore (4.8 million), Switzerland (7.8 million), Sweden (9.2 million), Finland (5.3 million), and perhaps the best example, Taiwan (22 million), manage it quite well.

How the hell did that get posted twice, must ask the dept of redundancy dept about it...

"We are told that well, we have diversity, we have for example, School District 57, a large medical component with Northern Health, UNBC, the College, and UNBC. Interestingly enough, all of these venues that get mentioned as being the major employers, have one thing in common, they are all supported by taxpayer money."

I'm not sure whether to reply "great" or "so what", LOL.

Unless you are of the belief that the Province will stop spending on health care and education (which would seem insane given that they are the two biggest expenditures for the Province) or that Prince George's population is going to shrink dramatically in the years ahead, I'd say it's good news for us that we have those components so strongly represented in our city.

These areas DO add diversity and it they DO add stability to our local economy when certain industries go through the natural and predictable cycle of growth, maturity and decline. Furthermore, while every city will benefit from this type of spending to some extent, not every city is lucky enough to be positioned as a regional center and to receive the increased levels of spending that naturally come with that position.

Instead of constantly bashing this type of spending/investment and thinking of it as "second rate", why don't we start being cognizant of our position and start leveraging it to yield even more future advantages for our city?

Are we scared of having industries that require employees other than blue collar workers? Too worried that our "tough" image will be negatively impacted by these "sissy" jobs? Perhaps the historic population of PG is a little intimidated when they see suits, ties and khaki's replacing flannel jackets and jeans? Maybe the influx of BMW's and other fancy "Vancouver cars" is offensive to the "dually" crowd?

What exactly is it? I personally find it incredible that people would be upset about having more high paying jobs located in our community (as opposed to somewhere else), especially business people who require high paying customers . . .

How the hell did that get posted twice, must ask the dept of redundancy dept about it...

Mercenary, NO modern industrialised country on Earth can currently "buy" ALL its own production internally solely from the incomes distributed in the course of making that production.

No matter how large their population is. Not even any of the countries that Flash mentioned.

The 'problem', in Canada's case, is not our inability to "produce". On average, we don't even operate the plant we already possess at its rated capacity, even in "boom" times.

The 'problem' is how to "distribute" what we are more than capable of producing, or its exchange through export.

To do that we need "money" in the hands of those who would 'consume' what they, and/or others have 'produced'. Or would, if there were only "money" available to buy it. "Money" equivalent overall to the FULL aggregate "price values" of that production.

In any modern, industrialised society with continual 'labour displacement' as the whole structure of overall production constantly lengthens and broadens through increasing division of labour, current overall labour "incomes" and "profits" are falling in ratio to the 'financially' accounted for overall "costs of production" carried forward into the prices of goods and services we all need and desire.

Collectively, "incomes" distributed in any given cycle of production are not sufficient in their totality to liquidate the "costs of production" fully that have been incurred in that same time period.

We currently make up the difference, while we can, by a frenzied quest for "exports". Not so we can receive alternate "imports" we'd rather have, but so that we can have a so-called "favourable" Balance of Trade. Where "foreign credit" is received instead of foreign goods.

And, also, internally, by ever increasing, unrepayable DEBT.

There is no need for us to do either. Any country should be FREE to trade its relative surpluses for any other country's alternate surpluses. But we should never be FORCED to trade for 'money'. Simply to make up a deficiency between collective "incomes" and "prices" in our own markets.

No amount of trading blocs we might enter into through Treaties with other countries will solve this problem. Even if we had a "one-World Government" and no national boundaries, it would still remain. The "problem" can be easily corrected without our going further down these "one-way streets" than we've already gone.

Use the Bank of Canada to distribute to all of us the periodic difference between the overall "costs of production" and the earned "incomes" that are supposed to be able to fully liquidate them, but never can.

We could do that by simply 'rebating' Consumers a portion of the retail prices we currently pay for all goods and services sold into final consumption.

This would "stimulate" our entire economy far more effectively for all of us than the various ways governments are currently trying to.

All these current methods involve increasing "debt", and debt charges, which will be increasingly difficult to get rid of in time to come. They all involve "costing" new money that's needed to liquidate PAST "costs" against future "incomes".

Which simply raises "prices" and makes those future "incomes" all the less likely to be able to meet the calls made on them.

What is needed is to introduce new money that is NOT "costed" into ANY new production. It simply enables existing "costs" to be fully amortized.

How the hell did that get posted twice, must ask the dept of redundancy dept about it...

When you refresh right after posting you post again. I hit home after I post then come back. I am sure someone else has a better way but that is how I do it. :}

"I just have to shake my head when I hear yet again the claim that Canada with a population of over 30 million is too small to support an industrial base."

I agree totally. To assume we have no industrial base is not understanding what drives the Canadian economy. The main problem is that we have virtually only one trading partner who we export to.

Here are some stats on the countries you mentioned, compared to Canada. The figures are from the CIA world fact book and from 2008 sorted from high to low with respect to industry GDP.

GDP % by sector - agriculture, industry, service
1 switzerland 1.5% 34.0% 64.5%
2 finland 2.8% 32.4% 64.9%
3 canada 2.0% 28.4% 69.9%
4 sweden 1.6% 28.0% 70.5%
5 singapore 0.0% 27.8% 72.2%
6 taiwan 1.7% 25.1% 73.2%

Exports in Billions, Imports in Billions, balance of trade in Billions, trade income per person sorted in order of trade income per person

1 singapore $343 $220 $123 $26,452
2 switzerland $233 $213 $20 $2,643
3 sweden $183 $165 $18 $1,965
4 finland $97 $88 $9 $1,735
5 canada $459 $415 $44 $1,311
6 taiwan $255 $237 $18 $792

GDP/person, world ranking, primary export category
1 singapore $51,500 9 machinery + equipment (incl electronics)
2 switzerland $41,800 18 machinery
3 canada $39,100 22 energy then motor vehicles and parts
4 sweden $38,100 26 machinery 35%
5 finland $36,900 31 electrical and optical equipment
6 taiwan $31,100 42 electronics

Single largest trading partner in percentage - sorted by %
1 sweden 10% Germany
2 finland 11% Russia
3 singapore 12% Malaysia
4 switzerland 21% Germany
5 taiwan 30% China
6 canada 77% USA

Here is a good review of Canada's trade situation. With olil and gas moving to the forefront, we have become a petro dollar nation.

But, the industrial sector taken together is still stronger

1. Automotive
2. machinery & equipment
3. electronics
4. wood products
5. plastics
6. paper
7. aluminum
8. aircraft

On the other hand, that is also the area where we import most of our products. But then, that is probably the way it should be to become efficient. I believe that is the concept of trade.

The Country is going to hell in a handbasket, when we have to rely on Gambling, Traffic Tickets, Fines, etc; to finiance our Government. How did we ever get to this level of mediocrity???

We are supposed to be a Proud Nation, member of the G8, respected through out the world, etc; etc; etc;, and we have to rely on a criminal activity such as Gambling, to run our Government.

We have truly lost our way. Government workers, including Politicians, Health Care Workers, (Especially those who run the system) Teachers, etc; all cost us Billions of dollars to run the system. We do not get enough in return for what we pay. Bona Fide workers, who pay taxes to hire Government workers to provide services are running out of money.

If the Government runs out of money then they cant pay for Government programs, and downsizing becomes the order of the day. Tax payers then have to make do with less, however it will also cost us less.

This is what is facing us in the forseeable future. The system is not only disfunctional, but it is bankrupt.

Huge dollars paid to Government entities such as BC Hydro, BCTC, Powerex, BC Ferries, BC Transit, WCB (Worksafe BC) for those who go along with Orwells double speak. ICBC. etc; etc;etc;

We need all these entities to be reviewed and downsized so that the money paid to keep them running can be returned to the people who earn the money, and they can spend it as they please which should stimulate the economy.

Why does ICBC have a surplus of 7 or 9 billion dollars in investments???? If they have this kind of money, why couldnt it be transferred to the Provincial Government to help balance the budget, and therefore eliminate the need for the HST.

I suggest the reason why is because most of the money is invested in Government Bonds, and therefore has already been spent by the Government. In other words the Shell Game continues.

It would take someone with the tenacity of a pitbull, and the longevity of Methuselah to investigate the Provincial Government and follow the money, and get us some sort of accounting of the total waste that has been taking place over the years.

Its time for some mature politicians to come into Government, and straighten things out. Whats the chance of that happening.????

"We have truly lost our way. Government workers, including Politicians, Health Care Workers, (Especially those who run the system) Teachers, etc; all cost us Billions of dollars to run the system. WE DO NOT GET ENOUGH IN RETURN FOR WHAT WE PAY."

How do you know that? Have you done the calculation? If so, show us, or point us to it. If you can't, then let's call it nonesense until you do.

Why do you think that the money that goes to agriculture is any different than money that goes to teachers? Or how about construction?

Agriculture produces food, then we eat it, and it is gone. We live for another day.

Construction builds buildings, transportation systems, etc. It allows us to maintain what we have and increase capacity to live somewhere, to move from A to B better, etc. What else does it do? Does not sell anything to anyone that brings in foreign dollars to prime the pump.

How about lumber? We cut down trees. We replant trees. Same as agriculture. Instead of processing the vegetation as food, we process it as stuff to be used by the construction industry. I heave already written about the useless function of that industry. We can sellthe product internally or externally. Where does the money go? To the government? Other than taxes on labour and company profits, it all goes to the companies.

Remember, whether you work for the feds, the province, the municipality, a crown corporation or private enterprise, everyone pays income tax. As far as I know, income tax is the largest single source of income for the feds and the provinces.

Run through a scenario if you will. Lets privatize the entire education system. Think of the money that will "save" the government. But will it? As with everything else, people will only be able to buy what they can afford. So the rich will get educated and the poor won't. Institutions will close. There will be massive unemployemnt and commensurate loss to the government coffers. Those in the middle income group will move their expenditures from goods to education services to provide their kids with an education. Some people will have less children as a result or no children. A two child family will have to spend in the order of $6,000 after tax earnings to send children to school for at least 12 to 13 years. Kindergartens may disappear and additional money will go to private day care services. Retailers and good producing industries will see a major downturn.

Run the scenario through for health, transportation and some similar things will happen.

Once the initial 10 years of the resulting chaos is over, will there be a better Canada? If you believe so, tell me why. Don't forget to tell me how Canada will fare with respect to having an educated workforce that can do more than grunt labour of the 19th century economy. Tell me which enterpises will move from Canada and go elsewhere to do business, or which will move into Canada to do business in a place where there are lots of grunts.

Come on, get off your anti government worker rant, palopu, and tell us how your system will improve the state of Canada that is sitting here as one of the best countries to live in in the world.

I relize you may feel that the following is propaganda, palopu, but thouoght I would give you the benefit of the article anyway so you have something to shoot down.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/issues/issues33/index.htm

Here are the powerhouses of the world countries and their literacy rates. 20 have a rate of less than 50% of the population.

# 205 Burkina Faso: 21.8% 2003
# 204 Afghanistan: 28.1% 2000
# 203 Niger: 28.7% 2005
# 202 Guinea: 29.5% 2003
# 201 Benin: 34.7% 2002
# 200 Sierra Leone: 35.1% 2004
# 199 Somalia: 37.8% 2001
# 198 Gambia, The: 40.1% 2003
# 197 Senegal: 40.2% 2003
# 196 Iraq: 40.4% 2003
# 195 Mauritania: 41.7% 2003
# 194 Guinea-Bissau: 42.4% 2003
# 193 Ethiopia: 42.7% 2003
# 192 Bangladesh: 43.1% 2003
# 191 Nepal: 45.2% 2003
# 190 Mali: 46.4% 2003
# 189 Bhutan: 47% 2003
# 188 Chad: 47.5% 2003
# 187 Mozambique: 47.8% 2003
# 186 Pakistan: 49.9% 2005
# 185 Yemen: 50.2% 2003

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_lit_tot_pop-education-literacy-total-population

Things will never be "straightened out" until we have proper accounting at the "macro-economic" level, Palopu.

To try to make cuts in the excesses that have now pervaded the whole governmental system simply won't "cut it".

We've already seen that when Gordon Campbell tried it early on in his term in office, and the overall effects weren't beneficial to the public at large.

The same thing has been tried by other regimes, here, and abroad, and there has been no overall benefit anywhere that I'm aware from such moves.

It simply perpetuates the "shell game" you refer to above, and adds to the confusion of "where all the money goes". Without in any way stopping it from "going".

We need a proper set of National Accounts, arranged in the manner of standard business accounts. With a National "Balance Sheet" showing a financial value on ALL the country's physical ASSETS, regardless of who "owns" them, (since "ownership" fundamentally only confers upon the "owner" the rights of administration over whatever is said to be owned), the financial LIABILITIES held as claims against them (primarily by the banking system, as the originators of all "money"), and CAPITAL, or citizen's equity, (which is our collective 'beneficial' interest in those ASSETS ~ what they can actually provide for us in real goods and services).

In the case of private business accounting, the "profits" so many so often rail against are NOT equivalent to "cash" received over "cash" disbursed in any fiscal period, but rather a set of accounting figures accruing to a Profit and Loss Account which are utterly meaningless outside the entire bookkeeping system.

In that bookkeeping system, "profit" is always finalized as an increase in ASSETS over LIABILITIES, and recorded as a corresponding increase to CAPITAL, or shareholder's equity, on the other side, to keep the Balance Sheet in balance. It is an increase to "net worth" of the shareholder's investment, from which dividends, a "dividing" of the increase to net worth, might be periodically paid out to the shareholders as a return on their investment

The government, of course, is not in business to make a "profit". However, in each normal fiscal period, barring natural disasters, or war, or some other calamity that actually destroys real wealth, there is an INCREASE in the value of the overall ASSETS of the country over and above the LIABILITIES held against them.

If there wasn't, actual "progress" wouldn't be happening. And it IS happening, as any with eyes can easily see.

Currently this increase is not recorded ~ we have no proper National or Provincial Balance Sheet, and there is no National or Provincial CAPITAL ACCOUNT to which the corresponding annual increase could be credited.

So we are put in a position where the only thing that is recorded are the LIABILITIES ~ which takes the form of the National or Provincial Debt.

Supposedly we "owe" this debt to the banking system, from whence ALL "money" originates. But the banking system has done NOTHING to have such a priveledge conferred upon it, except a bit of "bookkeeping".

Yet it has been put in a position, through its monopoly over the administration of FINANCIAL credit, to claim "ownership" of REAL credit, the actual ASSETS it did not create, nor has any proper right to.

And by refusing to 'monetise' any further means of payment of those LIABILITIES, except on terms sufficiently favourable to itself, that very same banking system can exercise those claims. And, purposefully, or unconsciously, all too often does.

To change this, we need to do "Nationally" (preferably, though it could also be done with a bit more difficulty "Provincially" instead), what would be done in any successful, profit making business.

In essence, credit the "shareholders", each of us a citizens, with a properly accounted for periodic increase in National "net worth", and pay us an appropriate "dividend" on our equity.

Such a "dividend" could be paid as a rebate on ALL consumable products sold at the point of retail.

I continue to be with you socredible. However, I think you continually miss talking about the details of how to value "net worth".

In my view we need to use a common measuring tool to set that value. So far, the best measuring tool we have is money more because that is what the average person is used to and feels comfortable with than that is the only valuation tool we have.

We could use a "day's production" by the average worker using the average tools available to him or her used to doing the type of work required to create the "asset". Those who wish to convert that to "money" could do so. The problem, of course, is that while we may have easy access to the "money", we may not have easy access to those workers and those tools.

If we wish to have more free time for enjoyment in that greatest of all american endeavours, the pursuit of happiness, then we must become a society that is either more efficient and effective or a society that pursues happiness in much simpler ways than through the ever increasing creation of things and provision of services by others.

In either case, in my view our "assets" are:

1. the human resources which recognize assets, develop an appropriate system to evaluate those assets, create added value to assets and maintain or increase those assets.

2. the natural resources which sustain life on earth and are required to maintain that intrinsic asset without which their would be no life on earth or life on earth would degrade.

3. the man-made built infrastructure which is required to sustain our society at the level we wish to sustain it - the state of repair/frequency of renewal has to be included.

4. the man-made service infrastructure which is required to sustain our society at the level we wish to sustain it. Again, the frequency of continuing training/education required to maintain that system in operation at the expected level has to be included.

5. the man-made production capacity to feed, clothe, house, and keep us in other must needs and want needs

6. the man made surplus production capacity which will allow us to trade for some of those needs with others who are more efficient than we are or have other products and services we cannot provide on our own.

7. monetary assets or deficits.

Jeez. I thought I was long winded. You boys take the cake.

Ill try and keep this as simple as possible.

Firstly. Government workers pay income tax on paper only. In actual fact they pay no income tax. It is merely a shell game.

Suppose a Government worker gets a salary of $1000.00. the Government then taxes him 20% or $200.00 so in effect they are only paying him $800.00. He never received the $200.00 however they show it on the books as a tax. How is that possible???? Acutally in order to pay the Government worker the $800.00 they have to tax private workers to get the money.

That is why they are called public employees, or civil servants. They are working for and paid by the taxpayers. Government in and of themselves have no money.

Therefore if you reduce the size of Goverment (And God knows it needs to be reduced) you reduce the amount of money the Government needs to function, and in a perfect world you would reduce the taxes paid by private citizens.

Have a nice day.

Gus, I don't believe the ongoing measurement of "net worth" for the economy as a whole would be a particularly difficult exercise.

What we are looking for is the overall increase in "capital appreciation" over that of "capital depreciation" in any chosen fiscal period.

The valuation of the Assets of the Nation, or the Province, initially involves an assessment of what our resources, infrastructure, plant, and human resources might have as a capitalized value in "money".

We could be very conservative in estimating this, and even if we were excessively so I don't believe that anyone would ever argue that the total of ALL the physical ASSETS of Canada, or BC, far, far exceeds ALL the LIABILITIES, or "money claims" against them.

Once this figure has been arrived at, we would then periodically 'write-up' the value of all our Assets by each addition to them which increases the "real credit" of the community ~ "real credit" being a correct estimate of our increased ability to produce and deliver actual goods and services to all the members of the community as, when, and where required; ~ and 'write-down' these Assets as they are "consumed", depreciated, or become obsolescent.

This, in a sense, is somewhat analogous to what happens in private business in regards to its Profit and Loss Account. Normally, overall "capital appreciation" will always be greater than overall "capital depreciation". Our "wealth" is increasing more than it is decreasing, in actual, physical terms. What we want to do is to have a financial system which properly "reflects" this easily ascertainable fact, and allows the plant, resources, human potential, etc. all extent within our borders to be drawn upon fully to meet our needs and aspirations.

Palopu, no one that works for any organization ever sees their "gross pay" as a cheque in their hands or bank account. The income tax and other mandated deductions are removed at the source and remitted to the government by their employer.

Yet it is the "gross pay" plus the Employer's portion of the other deductions, (dollar for dollar in CPP, dollar forty for dollar in EI, and the full amount assessable by WCB) that are "costed" into the price of all goods and services coming onto the market for sale to the public.

So right away, just from what's taken in taxes and deductions alone, there is a disparity between collective "Incomes" distributed as "net pay" and collective "Prices" of goods and services which include all these "Costs".

It isn't any different for the government worker than it is for those of us in private enterprise. His "gross" is "costed" into the price of services, mostly, and some goods, provided to the public through the government and paid for through taxation.

He's being "robbed" the same as all the rest of us are, since the way the financial system works at present the overall rate of Price generation exceeds the rate that distributed Incomes are generated, yet those Incomes, collectively, are the only means by which Prices, collectively, can be met. And all the financial Costs that make up those Prices finally liquidated. Failure to be able to liquidate these Costs fully is what leads us to exponential growth of unrepayable debt. And a host of other problems.

Your bang on socredible. Ist paragraph.
**The income tax and other mandated deductions are removed at the source and remitted to the government by their employer.**

For the Government worker the source is the Government and the person it is remitted to is the Government. So in essence nothing has changed hands. The Government worker gets $800.00 paid for by taxpayers.

In the case of the private worker, the money is removed from his cheque by the Company and remitted to the Government, so the Government gains $200.00 in taxes. They gain nothing from the Government worker, because both the worker and the Government are one and the same. They are all paid for by private taxpayers.

Well, I suppose you could look at it that way, Palopu. I wouldn't argue that it's not so. I think the net effect for the private sector worker and the government one is pretty much the same, though.

They're both having money deducted from their pay before receiving it, and it's their "gross pay" that is "costed" into some good or service of which taxation, or price, is supposed to be able to liquidate fully. If it can't, the bank credit issued as "money" on loan from the banking system, cannot be fully repaid. And increasingly, in total, it can't.

I won't go into the reasons here and now, since to adequately even begin to explain this would give 'long-winded' a new dimension!

The 'problem' of itself won't really be solved by trying to cut the cost of 'government' as has often been attempted in the past. Even though I do agree that modern governments are far too large, and too costly, and too pervasive and invasive of our basic rights and freedoms, all too often such attempts have just led to a transfer of costs instead, and a net increase to the public who must still bear them.

We really have to restore to each of us, as individuals, debt-free access to enough "financial credit" to fully draw upon the the physical realities of our modern productive potential. That is the ONLY way to restore government to a manageable size that I'm aware of.