Alberta PST discussion

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Major Major

What does this even mean?

It means he can spend his money better to educate our children and take care of our sick.

[Bunk]

The "I don't trust the government to spend the money" crowd is interesting.

What you you have us do? Slash $7 billion from the budget? Not build any schools? Run deficits and pray oil goes back up?

Just empty rhetoric. There's not a single person in Alberta that doesn't want as efficient and effective a government as possible, but if people think there's $7 billion in fat just waiting to be trimmed and everything will be ok, they're fooling themselves. A realistic cost cutting measure would be targeted salary rollbacks, some wage freezes for a while, and let attrition shrink the public service a bit, but that won't come even close to closing a $7 billion budget gap.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The "I don't trust the government to spend the money" crowd is interesting.

What you you have us do? Slash $7 billion from the budget? Not build any schools? Run deficits and pray oil goes back up?

Just empty rhetoric. There's not a single person in Alberta that doesn't want as efficient and effective a government as possible, but if people think there's $7 billion in fat just waiting to be trimmed and everything will be ok, they're fooling themselves. A realistic cost cutting measure would be targeted salary rollbacks, some wage freezes for a while, and let attrition shrink the public service a bit, but that won't come even close to closing a $7 billion budget gap.

Where does the 7B amount come from? Why so much? How are we to justify it, we don't know where this cash is going.

The government is wasting money, that's not a revelation to anyone, I get that and I get that some is unavoidable. But when does it end? All we hear is let's pay up this time and we will be smarter next time, We never get smarter, we keep doing the same silly stuff. Same government, same mistakes.

And we also get that we have more people here to support, more roads etc, but does anyone ask where the revenues coming from all these new homes, new residents/taxpayers go? Each person moving here pays taxes. That is supposed to be a good thing. This is what every city wants, people moving in. Why is it that all we hear is how bad it is etc and how it has to cost everyone else more money? And we just blindly accept it. Time to start asking tough questions.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by darklord700

To me, I'm always better at spending my money than the government.

You are not better than the government at spending money necessary to build and operate schools and hospitals. You are not better than the government at spending money necessary to construct and maintain public infrastructure. You are not better than the government at spending money necessary to manage the justice system.

You might be on par with the government when it comes to making trite platitudes, but that doesn't cost anything.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by darklord700

I am amazed by the number of people who trusted the PC government with their money. To me, I'm always better at spending my money than the government. This PC government has no accountability at all.

Can you build a road for me please?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Major Major

What does this even mean?

It's basically the neo-libertarian "I don't need anything from anyone" rabble.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Dan02

How so? they spend by far the most money per capita on healthcare yet have the worst system in the developed world.

And i would love to be North Korea, dibs on being Kim Jung Un.

You've creating a strawman that any privatization or supplemental fee's is only moving towards the US, when in reality it's also moving towards Germany or Sweden, who have many more similarities to the US healthcare system than we do if your statement is true.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Red

Where does the 7B amount come from? Why so much? How are we to justify it, we don't know where this cash is going.

The government is wasting money, that's not a revelation to anyone, I get that and I get that some is unavoidable. But when does it end? All we hear is let's pay up this time and we will be smarter next time, We never get smarter, we keep doing the same silly stuff. Same government, same mistakes.

And we also get that we have more people here to support, more roads etc, but does anyone ask where the revenues coming from all these new homes, new residents/taxpayers go? Each person moving here pays taxes. That is supposed to be a good thing. This is what every city wants, people moving in. Why is it that all we hear is how bad it is etc and how it has to cost everyone else more money? And we just blindly accept it. Time to start asking tough questions.

The mistake they have made is a lot less what they're spending on, than how we're dependent on a volatile resource for base operating revenue - enabling artificially low tax rates. Again, yeah let's look for more efficiency, let's look at reasonably reining in salaries through a variety of ways. But none of that closes that $7 billion deficit.

Why $7 billion? Where does that come from? Simply reading the budget. There aren't that many sources of revenue. Corporate taxes, personal income taxes, education property tax, investments, transfers, various user fees and....non renewable resource revenue, especially royalties.

In other provinces, they simply don't have that last revenue line item (or at least have a lot less), so they use taxes and user fees to gain the revenue they require to run the province (some rely more on transfers). Here, we have lower corporate, personal and property taxes because our budget is propped up by royalties. When they largely disappear as they have this year, suddenly those low taxes aren't enough to pay for services.

In 2012 this was the Province's Revenue Mix:



Every $1 drop in oil over a year costs the treasury $215 million. We're at $45 now, versus a forecasted $95. Drop in the dollar somewhat offsets this loss.

http://www.alberta.ca/budget101.cfm


The premier in his words this morning on the matter:

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/popupau...Ids=2648060765

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

You've creating a strawman that any privatization or supplemental fee's is only moving towards the US, when in reality it's also moving towards Germany or Sweden, who have many more similarities to the US healthcare system than we do if your statement is true.

Fair enough i guess my response was more taking into account the poster in particular who is obviously wants a more US system then taking on the concept of user fees.

However, I would disagree that Sweden for example is more similar to the US then we are. Yes they have small user fees which are capped at a significantly level lower then the old health care premiums we use to pay. But they also have a prescription drug coverage, ambulance coverage, partial dental coverage amoung other things that neither Canada or the US have.

I would argue that in the case of Sweden, Canadians already pay more in fees in terms of private insurance coverage then a Swedish person would for similar coverage.

[Frequitude]

I support the following:

1) A sales tax as high as 5% on non-essential items (the list of exempt or zero-rated goods for the GST is good start)
2) Maintaining the flat tax
3) Prentice and the PC's remaining in power to administer a PST

[Red]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The mistake they have made is a lot less what they're spending on, than how we're dependent on a volatile resource for base operating revenue - enabling artificially low tax rates. Again, yeah let's look for more efficiency, let's look at reasonably reining in salaries through a variety of ways. But none of that closes that $7 billion deficit.

Why $7 billion? Where does that come from? Simply reading the budget. There aren't that many sources of revenue. Corporate taxes, personal income taxes, education property tax, investments, transfers, various user fees and....non renewable resource revenue, especially royalties.

In other provinces, they simply don't have that last revenue line item (or at least have a lot less), so they use taxes and user fees to gain the revenue they require to run the province (some rely more on transfers). Here, we have lower corporate, personal and property taxes because our budget is propped up by royalties. When they largely disappear as they have this year, suddenly those low taxes aren't enough to pay for services.

In 2012 this was the Province's Revenue Mix:



Every $1 drop in oil over a year costs the treasury $215 million. We're at $45 now, versus a forecasted $95. Drop in the dollar somewhat offsets this loss.

http://www.alberta.ca/budget101.cfm


The premier in his words this morning on the matter:

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/popupau...Ids=2648060765

We don't. An average person in Ontario, BC etc. pays less in income tax than we do here. It's only the highest earners (138K+) that pay proportionally less.

I read the same argument about our property taxes. I can't verify, but a case was made that we only appear to pay less because of how we calculate them, Something to do with all the service fees we pay on our gas and utilities bills where others include them in the property tax.
And then there is utilities themselves.
We are not that privileged here. That myth must end, but I don't blame the PCs to never bring that up.

And the 7B is from their bloated budget. Cut the fat first and then let's look at what we really need.

Spending problems are bigger than revenue. Always been,

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Bunk

There's not a single person in Alberta that doesn't want as efficient and effective a government as possible.

Allison Redford.

Teacher's unions.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Allison Redford.

Teacher's unions.

I think she's off in Palm Springs now.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Dion

A sales tax will hurt the poor the most and then the middle class. For it to work it would have to be set up like the GST where you can get a quarterly rebate based on your income level.

Not if you don't apply the sales tax to stuff like groceries and baby clothes.

[nik-]

I will say though, if Calgarians got the type of property tax bills that my family in Ontario gets, they'd have a ####ing stroke.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The "I don't trust the government to spend the money" crowd is interesting.

What you you have us do? Slash $7 billion from the budget? Not build any schools? Run deficits and pray oil goes back up?

Just empty rhetoric. There's not a single person in Alberta that doesn't want as efficient and effective a government as possible, but if people think there's $7 billion in fat just waiting to be trimmed and everything will be ok, they're fooling themselves. A realistic cost cutting measure would be targeted salary rollbacks, some wage freezes for a while, and let attrition shrink the public service a bit, but that won't come even close to closing a $7 billion budget gap.

The PCs have been blindly throwing money at 'stuff' for decades now. I have no problem spending appropriate amounts of money on essential services and infrastructure, and I have no problem getting that money by imposing a consumption tax on non-essential items, but I do have a problem with a government being able to set budgets and spend money without any checks and balances. Healthcare spending for ones needs a huge audit. Considering the amount Alberta is spending, the system should be a lot better.

But as soon as you talk about health care reform, people go crazy.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Fair enough i guess my response was more taking into account the poster in particular who is obviously wants a more US system then taking on the concept of user fees.

However, I would disagree that Sweden for example is more similar to the US then we are. Yes they have small user fees which are capped at a significantly level lower then the old health care premiums we use to pay. But they also have a prescription drug coverage, ambulance coverage, partial dental coverage amoung other things that neither Canada or the US have.

I would argue that in the case of Sweden, Canadians already pay more in fees in terms of private insurance coverage then a Swedish person would for similar coverage.

The original poster only said he want's to see more "pay-per-use" and you seem to have made quite the leap that it means a US system only, which was the point of my post in the first place.

Furthermore, in terms of Sweden I think that's totally false. Sweden relies heavily on a co-pay (Pay-per-use?) system for almost all healthcare costs that finances approximately 20% of all expenses. They have access to private hospitals, physicians, and private health insurance to provide competitive pressure to the public system.

A move towards much higher proportion of individual patient payment and inclusion of private providers, like Sweden or the US, would undoubtedly improve Albertan Health Care and it's effect on provincial budgets.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by nik-

I will say though, if Calgarians got the type of property tax bills that my family in Ontario gets, they'd have a ####ing stroke.

Probably not the best example as Wynn has basically driven that province into the ground.

If we had to pay the utility rates, property taxes and now the carbon tax that's going to be pushed there which is a thinly disguised grab for general funds in Alberta we'd be storming the legislature.

there's no question that there are going to have to be some new tax options examined here due to the falling oil prices. But there is going to have to be some delay on new projects, there is going to have to be some big time axing on the civil service in this province.

you can't just throw out a new tax system increase without cuts, that's breaking the faith with the voters.

Especially since this government was put into place with one of their platforms being no new taxes.

Call an election, put a PST in the platform and let the people vote on it.

Personally I don't mind a PST as an emergency measure due to revenue shortfalls due to the Oil pricing crisis. But I would want to see it as an temporary emergency measure.

[GP_Matt]

To start with, if we are going the route of a sales tax everyone has missed the obvious route.

We need to propose a PST. Then the federal government will step in and offer us $500 million to implement HST instead. We argue for a bit and then reluctantly agree that the billion dollars they gave BC is more in line and we humbly agree to accept one billion dollars in exchange for creating HST instead of PST.

[GP_Matt]

I am in the camp of people who don't trust the PC government with extra money. I am also realistic though and know that the government needs a new source of revenue and can't rely on volatile royalties.

I am okay with a sales tax but really hope that the government starts diverting royalty revenue from the budget so that the next recession doesn't see us with a sales tax already in place and talking about a tax increase.