Talk:Ontario government debt

Title
Not sure about the most appropriate title. --Natkeeran (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ontario debt
 * Ontario's debt
 * Ontario government debt
 * Ontario government's debt
 * Ontario public debt

History
Section on debt until 2014 makes no mention of Kathleen Wynne, and makes it sound like Dalton was in charge until 2014. In Feb of 2013, Kathleen Wynne took over. - A newb editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.192.233.145 (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is extremely Liberal biased.

1) No mention of Chretien’s and Martin’s Federal Liberal government cutting and offloading (downloading) onto the province.

But the article is sure to note the Conservative that offloaded onto municipalities.

“even while drastically cutting services and downloading formerly provincially…”

2) And note how they point out:

so-called "eHealth scandal", the power plant cancellation scandal, and the so-called "Ornge scandal"

So-called? Making it sound like it is questionable? They are true Liberal scandals! No mention of the X President (Mike Crawley) of the Ontario Liberals owning a Wind Mill Energy Company. not even after the auditor general of Ontario has pointed out the people of Ontario are being screwed by the energy blunders of Ontario Liberals. Their X President capitalizing on green energy his party implemented, huge conflict of interest! The CEO of Chrysler came out about the high cost of electricity in Ontario killing jobs.

3) Is noted in the article: The Great Recession from 2007 onwards has impacted Ontario very hard, especially the manufacturing sector

No mention of former premiers also struggling with decline of Ontario’s manufacturing. Manufacturing in Ontario has been in decline since the 1980s! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.174.66 (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The amount of debt allocated to each premier is off by a year. For example, Mike Harris was elected on June 26, 1995. This would be after the Ontario budget was passed. Effectively, the 1995-96 budget was an NDP budget. The correct starting point for Mr. Harris is therefore a debt of $101.9, not 90.7.

As previously pointed out, the article is extremely biased. For example, the characterization that the Harris government paid down debt in 1999-2000 by selling off the 407 is a blatant attempt to highlight an unpopular decision. A surplus is calculated by deducting all expenses from all revenue. You can't attribute a surplus or deficit to one item in particular unless all other items remained exactly the same (which is certainly not the case here).

The source for the statement "Tax cuts and incentives to high income earners during the 1990s reduced government revenues, thus increasing debt" is the Ontario Federation of Labour. This is not an unbiased source and this statement is far from being established fact. It also fails to connect the fact that Mr. McGuinty increased taxes in his first budget (despite signing a pledge he would not 2 months earlier) and yet continued to run deficits even though he had inherited a balanced budget from Mr. Harris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.177.214 (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The statement "selling the rights to the government-owned Highway 407/ETR in the form of 99-year lease to a private consortium." is not strictly accurate. The (concession) rights for the highway were leased for $1 to the 407 ETR Concession Company Limited which was at the time a wholly government-owned business corporation and was the continuation of the former Ontario Transportation Capital Corporation [OTCC] which had operated as a not-for-profit Provincial Crown Corporation. The Province *subsequently* sold the 407 ETR Concession Company to 407 International Incorporated, the joint venture of the private consortium.--64.231.22.90 (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

"Causes of debt"?
Spending that exceeds revenues is what causes debt. I'm not sure how one could single out specific budget items or scandals as "causes of debt." If I earn $100 and then spend $100 on clothes and $20 on food, is food spending the cause of my deficit? Or is it that I spent $100 rather than $80 on clothes? Or is my debt 83% attributable to clothes spending and 17% attributable to food spending?

On the other hand, there are clearly historical events (e.g. great recession) that did cause increases in debt, in the sense that the debt likely would not have gone up by as much in their absence. But these belong in the history section. I think the Causes of Debt section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ise kin (talk • contribs) 18:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)