Alberta budget news

[smoothpops]

Put your money where your mouth is; http://www.budgetchoice.ca
basically it's an online version of the Alberta budget, how would you balance the books?

With oil prices at $73, which was the average price in 2012, i'd run a deficit of .9 billion dollars without a 2% sales tax or a 1.1 billion dollar surplus with it and no health care premiums. personally i prefer to run the surplus and add it to the heritage fund.

[nik-]

2% sales tax and bring back premiums for health care. Done, budget balanced. I don't want to see more income or corporate tax, I would much prefer a consumption tax.

[GGG]

The first thing I would do is have a thourough review on what health care should cover. Health cste is an unending money pit and as you spend more you less and less of a return on the investment. We need to take a heartless look at the system and decide what we wont and will cover. The focus needs to be value per dollar spent. Its political suicide.

Step 2 on health care is to charge for it based on income. People need to realize that it costs money. So charging up to say $100 per visit based on income should help. Also people need to see the true cost of their treatment and should reviebe copies of their invoices.

I would also implement a processed food sintax of about 10% and cut doctors Salaries.

After that I would raise income tax as required to put all resource revenue in a heritage account.

The big point is that current health expenses are rising faster than revenues so until you get that under control taxes will have to increase indefinately

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Azure

The problem is the feds introduced the GST to 'fix' the budget deficit, and it is still there. Most people don't understand just how effective of a tax it is, and how efficiently it can be dealt with by the business side of things.

In fact, the budget deficit was fixed (and I think its fair to say that GST revenues contributed to this) until the financial crisis five years ago.

[yads]

Originally Posted by GGG

Step 2 on health care is to charge for it based on income. People need to realize that it costs money. So charging up to say $100 per visit based on income should help. Also people need to see the true cost of their treatment and should reviebe copies of their invoices.

Higher income people already pay more income tax, from which health care is funded and you want to make them pay even more? I agree with co-pays for doctor visits with a low income exception, but not one based on income. Do you want people to bring in their T4s when they go see their doctor?

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by GGG

Step 2 on health care is to charge for it based on income. People need to realize that it costs money. So charging up to say $100 per visit based on income should help. Also people need to see the true cost of their treatment and should reviebe copies of their invoices.

I agree with user fee. I know people go to see a GP for some skin rash due to itcheness. If you only introduce like a $10 or $20 per visit fee to the GP, you'll save a lot on unneccessary health care cost.

Free for all of anything, health care included, should be a thing of the past.

[chemgear]

Looks like their website is live - come on CP! Cut! Cut! Cut! Seriously though, lots of options to pick.

http://www.budgetchoice.ca/

[The Big Thirsty]

I can get to .7 Surplus without cuts to the essential services at all (no cuts to health care or education), modest cuts to other programs, and without having to pay a Provincial sales tax.

Funny, rolling back the MLA wage increase was not an option.

[Azure]

I was looking for the rollback of the MLA wage increase as well.

In the real world, I would start with a 2% sales tax, and no change to the income tax rate or the corporate tax rate.

Make groceries and children clothing exempt from the PST.

$10 user free for every clinic/hospital visit for anyone making more than $40,000/year.

I would say that would go a long way to balancing the budget. Still doesn't solve the problem with high and lows of the oil price.

[darklord700]

I don't see what the big deal is. With $71 oil which is the lowest on the website, the deficit of 2.6B is only about 6% of the total budget. Many people have cut more than that on their household budget when they lose their jobs. I don't see why the Redford can't.

[Tinordi]

Just to be clear darklord, you have no problem spending resource royalties in the form of low taxes?

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by GGG

The first thing I would do is have a thourough review on what health care should cover. Health cste is an unending money pit and as you spend more you less and less of a return on the investment. We need to take a heartless look at the system and decide what we wont and will cover. The focus needs to be value per dollar spent. Its political suicide.

Step 2 on health care is to charge for it based on income. People need to realize that it costs money. So charging up to say $100 per visit based on income should help. Also people need to see the true cost of their treatment and should reviebe copies of their invoices.

I would also implement a processed food sintax of about 10% and cut doctors Salaries.

After that I would raise income tax as required to put all resource revenue in a heritage account.

The big point is that current health expenses are rising faster than revenues so until you get that under control taxes will have to increase indefinately

Two thoughts:
1) most of the healthcare expense that any of us create is during the last seven years of life. A hospital stay is over $1600/night and that doesn't include any medical procedures. the cuts with the biggest financial impact will be from this part of health care expenses.

2) Charging patients for a visit might raise a few million ( after the admistration and program costs ) but it will also inhibit people from getting various aliments treated at the early stage. That could increase costs in the long run.

A bit of an idealized example: A senior with diabetes cuts her foot. When the foot doesn't heal quickly she thinks about seeing a dr but doesn't think it's important enough for the $100 expense. Weeks later the cut has ulcerated-- she sees the doctor who now has her doing hdrotherapy and wound care three times a week. She can't afford the per visit charges so she goes only once a week. With her incomplete care schedule the wound isnt healing, it becomes infect, then gangranous... then there is a decision to amputate.

In this example, the health care system is going to spend about $100 thousand dollars to care for a decision not to see the doctor because a financial implication. That $100,000 could instead be used to cover the cost of over 1000 initial assessments to determine there is no problem of fix a problem before it becomes a bit problem.


(thought experiement: If charging for a doctor visit will reduce healthcare costs, will charging for a police response reduce policing costs?)

[Tinordi]

Health care fees are also highly regressive if they're flat fees.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Just to be clear darklord, you have no problem spending resource royalties in the form of low taxes?

No, I have no problem with that. You can raise taxes or introduce a PST now but Redford will just find another way to spend those extra monies. A government with better fiscal constrain is the answer. Giving monies to the government is a bottomless pit.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

(thought experiement: If charging for a doctor visit will reduce healthcare costs, will charging for a police response reduce policing costs?)

We are doing that now already. Don't we charge for non emergency ambulance trip? Also the insurance industry is doing that now. They are not thinking if because of deductible you don't get your car fixed, you could end up killing people and costing more.

[Red]

That budget website is useless.

It's a collection of mysterious budgets with 0 detail.

Taxes are an easy way out for these crooks.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Red

That budget website is useless.

It's a collection of mysterious budgets with 0 detail.

Taxes are an easy way out for these crooks.

Exactly, the whole site is designed so that jacking up taxes at the end solves the problems.

[Tinordi]

Cognitive dissonance displayed in full effect.

[Jacks]

Is there an option for freezing or rolling back union wages/benefits?
I see there is an option to cut pay for non union employees.
How about an option to not raise MLA pay during a recession?
Is there an option to not build new facilities for MLA's with roof top gardens and fountains for 100's of millions of dollars?
How about an option to change the way government is run and give people incentive to find efficient ways to get things done rather that the easiest way?

I see lots of options to victimize old people, students and sick people. I'm surprised they don't have a picture of a lovely grandmother holding a baby with a caption "Should we throw them in the street?".

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Red

That budget website is useless.

It's a collection of mysterious budgets with 0 detail.

Taxes are an easy way out for these crooks.

Well beside every option there is a "click here to learn more" option. There are also options for other ideas at the bottom of every page. I think that regardless of what you choose for the budget its a cool site because they've tried to make it user friendly while at the same time trying to get a workable amount of detail.