Alberta Politics Thread

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Hes

I think for most the issue is everything being implemented at once during horrible economic times.

Fair enough. I certainly don't mean to suggest that there is not plenty of room to criticize various governments in Canada (it's a national pastime after all). But the hyperbole and hysteria can be tiring.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Depends on how you define "the little guy", CC.

Low income earners will certainly get all kinds of rebates. High income earners will pay a ton, but can absorb it. The group that is going to be taking this up the ass with no recourse is the middle class. We don't make enough to easily off-set the hit, and we make too much to qualify for much, if any, rebates.

True, but don't forget that it was the middle earners who got all of the benefit from the recent federal tax cuts. Someone earning $75K is saving about $5-600 in federal income tax for 2016 compared to 2015. And if that earner has children, they're saving far more than that compared to years past.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But the middle class and the lower class, they'll get completely screwed because as much as Notley screams rebate, it won't cover, and as much as Trudeau preens about how this is revenue neutral because the dough will go to the provinces, we know that Wynne and Notley and Clarke will grab that money like a vacuum powered eating machine and it will get lost in general revenue.

In the case of Wynne, and possibly Notley (it remains to be seen), it will go towards buying off public sector unions to guarantee their support in getting her re-elected.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

True, but they have to file an income tax return to get the rebate.

I wonder how many low income workers actually bother to file their taxes, and take advantage of all the rebates/credits available from the government.

Maybe most of them do, but if people are struggling to pay rent, buy food/ clothing, pay for school, etc. on low wages, can they afford to pay an accountant to file their taxes?

And I should clarify, this is exactly why I do it and why I advocate smaller minimum wage increases in exchange for more targeted Government social programs.

Immigrants and low income families cant qualify for Government grants or subsidies without a completed tax return and up to date tax return histories.

Getting subsidized rent or lower cost groceries outweighs increasing their wages by a huge margin.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

And I should clarify, this is exactly why I do it and why I advocate smaller minimum wage increases in exchange for more targeted Government social programs.

Immigrants and low income families cant qualify for Government grants or subsidies without a completed tax return and up to date tax return histories.

Getting subsidized rent or lower cost groceries outweighs increasing their wages by a huge margin.

Couldn't they do both if they are generating more tax revenue?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

In the case of Wynne, and possibly Notley (it remains to be seen), it will go towards buying off public sector unions to guarantee their support in getting her re-elected.

The unions aren't nearly strong enough in Alberta to elect anyone, so that is a risky play.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There it is, folks! We've got the NDP campaign slogan for 2019!

Actually that was the PCs last campaign slogan.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Locke

Completely agree, and many of us have been screaming about it since Day 1 and we're told that its all on the name of the 'Greater Good.'

We're helping the poor, and we're helping the environment and we're helping....

Have you noticed any positive effects? I havent.

Maybe you are in a position that is well off enough not to feel them but they are certainly there. The child car benefit increase has helped thousands of families that need it most. The lack of a health care fee has ensured less burden on people. Tuition freezes and increases in minimum wage have helped post secondary students try to get ahead without drowning them in debt.

If you always focus on the negatives of course you are never going to see the positives.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There it is, folks! We've got the NDP campaign slogan for 2019!

It's not a very catchy campaign slogan but it doesn't mean that it isn't true. Albertans have been unsustainably subsidized by energy revenues for a long time.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Maybe you are in a position that is well off enough not to feel them but they are certainly there. The child car benefit increase has helped thousands of families that need it most. The lack of a health care fee has ensured less burden on people. Tuition freezes and increases in minimum wage have helped post secondary students try to get ahead without drowning them in debt.

If you always focus on the negatives of course you are never going to see the positives.

It does help people, but given the state of our health care system I've always maintained there should be a cut off and some people should pay a premium. The cutoff line is debatable but I don't see why a millionaire can't be expected to pay $44/month or whatever it used to be.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

It does help people, but given the state of our health care system I've always maintained there should be a cut off and some people should pay a premium. The cutoff line is debatable but I don't see why a millionaire can't be expected to pay $44/month or whatever it used to be.

I disagree. Millionaires already pay more into the system based on their tax bracket (ignoring tax shelters and other mitigations) and health care should be a system that doesn't discriminate. By trying to charge a fee to Millionaires I think you open up the idea of a two-tiered system.. if they have to pay fees others don't then shouldn't they be allowed to pay a lot more and get preferential treatment? Fundamentally I disagree with the concept of two-tiers and by charging extra fees based on income I think it opens that box.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I disagree. Millionaires already pay more into the system based on their tax bracket (ignoring tax shelters and other mitigations) and health care should be a system that doesn't discriminate. By trying to charge a fee to Millionaires I think you open up the idea of a two-tiered system.. if they have to pay fees others don't then shouldn't they be allowed to pay a lot more and get preferential treatment? Fundamentally I disagree with the concept of two-tiers and by charging extra fees based on income I think it opens that box.

Seniors were exempt before it was eliminated all together. This two tier aspect already exists when you consider the fact that out of work people get the same benefits as taxpayers do.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Seniors were exempt before it was eliminated all together. This two tier aspect already exists when you consider the fact that out of work people get the same benefits as taxpayers do.

Are you really using the fact that we subsidized seniors as a justification for forcing two-tier fees onto those evil rich people who make more than you?

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Seniors were exempt before it was eliminated all together. This two tier aspect already exists when you consider the fact that out of work people get the same benefits as taxpayers do.

I see your point, but the fact that regardless of how much income tax you contribute you get the same services. The millionaire contributes more than the average taxpayer who contributes more than the unemployed, but they all receive the same service. The second tier problem I think would become apparent when there is a visible direct fee added to the rich. I am not claiming it creates two tier, and yes the aspect already exists based solely on the fact the discussion has been around Alberta for years, but that the fee would amplify it more and give strength to the two-tier side of the debate.

All of that said we need to find a solution for health care and unfortunately it has been left behind for so many years it is going to take a lot of money to get it back on track.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

It does help people, but given the state of our health care system I've always maintained there should be a cut off and some people should pay a premium. The cutoff line is debatable but I don't see why a millionaire can't be expected to pay $44/month or whatever it used to be.

I'd pay the $44 again, just make sure its going directly to healthcare instead of general revenue. Same with the carbon tax, and a lot of other things. That is the aspect that makes it a pure tax as opposed to anything funding these other programs that might be useful.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Are you really using the fact that we subsidized seniors as a justification for forcing two-tier fees onto those evil rich people who make more than you?

At what point did I say I should be exempt? I think anyone making over $50k can afford to pay. What I was referring to was the fact that he said it would create an argument for having different levels of service for those who pay and those who don't. My point is that the scenario of some people paying and some people not existed when there was a premium and it continues now without one. With or without a premium we are funding health care through our taxes, so if you are unemployed you aren't paying for it but still receive the service.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Makarov

It's not a very catchy campaign slogan but it doesn't mean that it isn't true. Albertans have been unsustainably subsidized by energy revenues for a long time.

Albertans have been the sole beneficiary of energy revenues? Or, perhaps, Canadians on aggregate is a more accurate statement. Albertans have certainly benefited more, no argument, but we've also contributed proportionately more as well.

Why bother to exploit a resource unique to your country if you can't benefit from it?

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Albertans have been the sole beneficiary of energy revenues? Or, perhaps, Canadians on aggregate is a more accurate statement. Albertans have certainly benefited more, no argument, but we've also contributed proportionately more as well.

Why bother to exploit a resource unique to your country if you can't benefit from it?

I think his point was more that Alberta's revenues have been subsidized by the energy prices and spending wasn't contained in any sustainable number. If you look back to the late 90's and early 2000s Alberta's financials show huge boosts from energy revenues and expenses followed along. It's not that Alberta was the sole beneficiary, but that our expenses were subsidized by the boom and spent instead of saved.

You could argue that the increase in transfer payments also subsidized other parts of the country, but the fact remains that if the Alberta government had kept it's expenditures within a sustainable number instead of relying on $100 oil we would be in a much better position today.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Albertans have been the sole beneficiary of energy revenues? Or, perhaps, Canadians on aggregate is a more accurate statement. Albertans have certainly benefited more, no argument, but we've also contributed proportionately more as well.

From about 2002 to 2014, Albertans' sense of a normal lifestyle was dramatically out of whack with the rest of the developed world. Incomes were way higher and taxes were way lower. The new reality is we're going to be like everyone else now. People expecting to have the same income and pay the same extremely low taxes they paid five years ago are in for a rude awakening. Politicians will try to cover up the shortfall by running massive deficits, but eventually we'll have to get spending and taxes in line with our new reality.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

At what point did I say I should be exempt? I think anyone making over $50k can afford to pay. What I was referring to was the fact that he said it would create an argument for having different levels of service for those who pay and those who don't. My point is that the scenario of some people paying and some people not existed when there was a premium and it continues now without one. With or without a premium we are funding health care through our taxes, so if you are unemployed you aren't paying for it but still receive the service.

I would much rather have a small fee attached on a per-use basis over a certain income. It would go directly to health care. If you are constantly taxing the health care system with trips to the clinic with every sniffle, then you would pay extra. I would make routine physicals exempt and also exempt certain chronic conditions.