Alberta budget news

[Tinordi]

Ideal new tax would be a carbon tax.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Ideal new tax would be a carbon tax.

The fact that you even entertain the cooncept of a new tax is remarkable (in a bad way).

Before taking more of my money, id like the government to spend what they already take more wisely.


The question i have is whether the pc's vote to replace redford in november.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Ideal new tax would be a carbon tax.

I don't like the idea of a carbon tax as a way to raise new revenue. The issue with it is that as society becomes more energy efficient the tax has to increase to make up for the lost revenue thus negating any benefit derived from money spent to lower their tax.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

The fact that you even entertain the cooncept of a new tax is remarkable (in a bad way).

Before taking more of my money, id like the government to spend what they already take more wisely.


The question i have is whether the pc's vote to replace redford in november.

"Cut Waste."

"End entitlements."

"Tighten the safety net."

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

The fact that you even entertain the cooncept of a new tax is remarkable (in a bad way).

Before taking more of my money, id like the government to spend what they already take more wisely.


The question i have is whether the pc's vote to replace redford in november.

Have you even read any of this thread? I've made a well formed argument that Alberta's tax rates are way too low thanks to non renewable resource rents. Your argument is just selfishly myopic and not rooted in reality.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

The fact that you even entertain the cooncept of a new tax is remarkable (in a bad way).

Before taking more of my money, id like the government to spend what they already take more wisely.

I'm sure you've tried it already, but Fotze has a very good spreadsheet that shows that it's not a spending problem, but a revenue problem that Alberta has. There's little to strip without putting certain programs into major disaster. Even if you do a hack and slash 10% off everything, it's very hard to get a neutral set up.

Efficiency may be another issue, but exactly how much MORE efficient can you get? 5%? 10%? There's a lot of disparity between income and spending here and I think merely getting "more efficient" isn't going to solve it.

Alberta's economy is so heavily tied to the oil and gas industry that, because of the way they tax companies and the slumping GHG emissions sector, had land sales not been as ridiculous as they were last year, there was no way there'd be a balanced system as companies keep delaying paying real royalty rates (1% during construction as opposed to 25% and up after, held off by continually stating that they're "upgrading").

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Have you even read any of this thread? I've made a well formed argument that Alberta's tax rates are way too low thanks to non renewable resource rents. Your argument is just selfishly myopic and not rooted in reality.

Yes i have read the thread. Your argument boils down to using
Resource revenue as a crutch to justify everything except fiscal accountability and fiscal common sense.

The issue is a spending issue. Redford is spending her way to a legacy of increased bureaucracy and government guaranteed pensions.

I do not believe the majority of Albertans disagree that Redford is teetering out of control with her spending.

As i said above, im curious if the PCs will abandon ship and move to other parties, or if they will jettison Redford.

[Tinordi]

Sigh. Ok then.

Where is the spending problem?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by kirant

I'm sure you've tried it already, but Fotze has a very good spreadsheet that shows that it's not a spending problem, but a revenue problem that Alberta has. There's little to strip without putting certain programs into major disaster. Even if you do a hack and slash 10% off everything, it's very hard to get a neutral set up.

I don't think you can generalize that there is no spending problem because a tweak here and there won't fix the issue. We spend like everyone else. But everyone else spends in an unsustainable way.

What the spreadsheet shows is how deep the issue is.

The government banked on gazillions coming from the oils sands starting next year so has been binging for a decade.

Now they are re-writing the budget for as much as $30B coming out of the growth in the next 12-36 months,, and the gold at the end of the rainbow ain't there.

It will be really interesting to see if Albertans are more wedded to balanced budgets, higher spending, or lower taxes.

We won't be able to keep all 3 I don't think.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

It will be really interesting to see if Albertans are more wedded to balanced budgets, higher spending, or lower taxes.

We won't be able to keep all 3 I don't think.

I would love to see a proper poll that determines what Albertans actually want.
I don't know how that would work though. Maybe set it up like a preschool class. Give them a bunch of baskets with marbles in each one representing the currently spending allocation, then two bigger baskets representing higher taxes and debt.

They would have to move the marbles around until something balanced and we could see if they are willing to pull money from core programs, borrow money to maintain spending or raise taxes.

I would bet that most would end up taking a tiny amount of money out of a few areas with the rest to come from debt.
Of course as a childless couple I would pull all the money out of programs for seniors, children and health care and pass a tax cut.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I would love to see a proper poll that determines what Albertans actually want.
I don't know how that would work though. Maybe set it up like a preschool class. Give them a bunch of baskets with marbles in each one representing the currently spending allocation, then two bigger baskets representing higher taxes and debt.

They would have to move the marbles around until something balanced and we could see if they are willing to pull money from core programs, borrow money to maintain spending or raise taxes.

I would bet that most would end up taking a tiny amount of money out of a few areas with the rest to come from debt.
Of course as a childless couple I would pull all the money out of programs for seniors, children and health care and pass a tax cut.

The Globe and Mail had a web page setup a few years back where you could cut programs or increase taxes to balance the budget (federally). It was on CP here as well, and without a tax increase was nearly impossible.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

The Globe and Mail had a web page setup a few years back where you could cut programs or increase taxes to balance the budget (federally). It was on CP here as well, and without a tax increase was nearly impossible.

Looking at spending by department is, of course, advantageous for those advocating increases in spending.

If we look at things in another way, for example take Alberta; that in the period of 2000-2010 provincial revenues increased 8.5 billion dollars and public sector salaries increased by roughly 8.1 billion, or from 25% of our annual budget to nearly 50%, we can see things in a bit different light.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Looking at spending by department is, of course, advantageous for those advocating increases in spending.

If we look at things in another way, for example take Alberta; that in the period of 2000-2010 provincial revenues increased 8.5 billion dollars and public sector salaries increased by roughly 8.1 billion, or from 25% of our annual budget to nearly 50%, we can see things in a bit different light.

I'm not advocating anything here. I'm telling you what the webpage was and the outcomes I found (as did most others IIRC). I'm done arguing here, so it was for information only.

[Tinordi]

How much have public sector salaries increased relative to private sector salaries over the past ten years.

Because the public sector competes with the private sector for labour. Their salaries have to be competitive to attract and retain employees. Thanks to unions you have to raise the whole marina to increase salaries, you may have a point there that there's an argument to legislate out the unions, but still, with the nature of many public service jobs, salaries will still be high regardless of unions or not.

[RubberDuck]

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/01/14...alison-redford

We are being prepped...

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Because the public sector competes with the private sector for labour. Their salaries have to be competitive to attract and retain employees.

The public sector employees below to a different domain than the private sector. A lot of the public sector employees won't make a day in the private sector world.

You think anyone in private sector is going to pay Garry Mar his pay with housing allowance to do the job he does now in Hong Kong? Or Ex Alberta Health Executive Alludin Merali will be able to expense his car repair expenses in a private company?

[GP_Matt]

From RubberDuck's Sun link

Horner’s complaint of the differential between the price Alberta fetches and American crude gets?
Anderson’s not buying it.
“The oil differential that they’re complaining about was $1 worse in March before the election than it is today,” he said.

If correct this is a bit crazy. They have been blaming all their budget issues on the price differential changing since the budget. If it has really only changed by a dollar then they are pulling some serious spin.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

From RubberDuck's Sun link

If correct this is a bit crazy. They have been blaming all their budget issues on the price differential changing since the budget. If it has really only changed by a dollar then they are pulling some serious spin.

The price differential has always been there up to and including the time they did their budget last year. The scary part is that it is as if they just realized that now.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by darklord700

The public sector employees below to a different domain than the private sector. A lot of the public sector employees won't make a day in the private sector world.

You think anyone in private sector is going to pay Garry Mar his pay with housing allowance to do the job he does now in Hong Kong? Or Ex Alberta Health Executive Alludin Merali will be able to expense his car repair expenses in a private company?

Respectfully, this is just populist bilge.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by darklord700

You think anyone in private sector is going to pay Garry Mar his pay with housing allowance to do the job he does now in Hong Kong?

Assuming we can take the specific role of being a provincial government trade envoy and take it to mean a lobbyist for a private company in an an emerging foreign market, yes. The private sector would pay Garry Mar with a housing allowance to do that job.