Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois
Not to let facts get in the way of your fun but I believe it was Getty who reduced the royalties not Klein, and the $2 billion figure comes not from the reductions, but from what royalties would have been if we had other jurisdictions royalty regimes. (Usually Alaska or Norway, which would be fine if we had Alaskan or Norweigan oil)
So if what you're saying is if a tax changed almost 15 years ago were not reduced at that time but instead increased to match some other country we'd have an additional $2 billion this year in revenues, then its possible you might be right.
If you take stats not filtered through the unions you might also find that employment has grown significant ly in Alberta - so much so that we can't fine enough workers. The latest stascan employment bulletin I've seen the said:
Alberta's red hot economy also spurred hourly wage growth of 6.1% over the past 12 months.
|
The royalties were reduced by Klein. Charging royalties at the same rate that Getty did, Alberta would have an extra 2 billion per year. This is on Alberta's oil, not foreign oil where these corporations pay no royalties to Albertans. I thought that was pretty straight forward.
Additionally, a 6 cent per hour increase over the LAST YEAR does not equal a REAL rise in wages WHEN COMPARED AGAINST INFLATION over the last decade of Klein rule.
And for whoever it was that said that I haven't provided evidence... i just listed the organizations that published the studies. I didn't want to include a large bibliography in my post... but I can if you really need it.
Also, a quick note on the way the Alberta government reports employment numbers: People that are chronically unemployed, or those without work for a period of five years or more are ommited from the numbers. This means that numbers at the bottom end, the numbers that truly represent those people most affected by economic policy, are either shrinking, or remaining constant on the books, when this in not in fact the case.