Alberta PC's way out front

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Slava

Point is that the simplistic "spend what you have and no more" is not appropriate. It doesn't make sense in your house and doesn't make sense for our government. That doesn't mean that you have to make it rain.

The difference is I trust myself to manage my own money because I have motivation to stay out of debt. I don't trust this Redford government who started giving out money like they grow on trees before their seats were even warm yet.

[Slava]

I might not trust the government to be as fiscally prudent as I might be, but that doesn't mean I want them to make terrible decisions in the meantime either. Its not an all or nothing scenario.

[GP_Matt]

The other thing that I don't do is go into debt for recurring expenses. Road work has to be done every year, it isn't like they can borrow a bunch of money this year to build the roads and then sit back and pay it off over the next 25 years. They would just build more roads next year and add to the debt. I don't know why they can't have a steady budget and determine which project go ahead based on merit.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

True. So why would we now elect a group of people who have migrated from that same party?

Because of why they migrated away.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Not just you, none of the centre-left folks on here seem to have any serious criticism of Redford.

You could probably put me in that category, and I signed up with the PCs to vote her in. But my criticism is that we're increasing spending right when the economy is starting to get hot again, and that she hasn't shown what we're gonna get out of it.

But what Wildrose proposes is awful too. I don't want balanced budgets, I want deficit when things are bad and surplus when they are good.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by SebC

But what Wildrose proposes is awful too. I don't want balanced budgets, I want deficit when things are bad and surplus when they are good.

If you can stand deficit than deficit is all you are going to get when things are good and bad. How many people that go into credit card debt can dig themselves out when things are "good"? Almost none.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by darklord700

If you can stand deficit than deficit is all you are going to get when things are good and bad. How many people that go into credit card debt can dig themselves out when things are "good"? Almost none.

Are you actually trying to say that no one should go into debt for anything ever? Because if that's your position its a terrible idea. Lots of people use credit responsibly and there is no reason that a government can't as well.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Has Redford said anything about reviving the Heritage Fund and how it is used?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Because of why they migrated away.

Because they didn't like Ed Stelmach and thought that they could win under a new name?

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Slava

Are you actually trying to say that no one should go into debt for anything ever? Because if that's your position its a terrible idea. Lots of people use credit responsibly and there is no reason that a government can't as well.

Borrowing to fund capital programs is one thing. Borrowing to pay for social program you cannot afford today is not wise. If you can't pay for it today, you can't pay for it tomorrow, then who's going to pay for it? Generations down the road are the one paying for it until the bottom falls out, just ask the Greeks.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Has Redford said anything about reviving the Heritage Fund and how it is used?

Redford's buzzword after the budget is we'll review everything or look at all the options. That's pretty much her answer to every question nowadays but meanwhile, we're going to spend like a drunken sailor and give money away to the senior and the poor to buy votes.

[Azure]

They have no intention of even attempting to stop using the money Alberta saved over the years. Its spend, spend, spend because they can, and because its a good way to buy votes.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Because they didn't like Ed Stelmach and thought that they could win under a new name?

Because they are conservative and the PC's are not.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Borrowing to fund capital programs is one thing. Borrowing to pay for social program you cannot afford today is not wise. If you can't pay for it today, you can't pay for it tomorrow, then who's going to pay for it? Generations down the road are the one paying for it until the bottom falls out, just ask the Greeks.

Sure, which again is why the Liberal platform is the only one taking this into account! Someone (ahem, baby boomers) has to start paying for all of these services. You guys don't have to believe me (you likely won't), but the Wildrose hasn't produced anything to show that they'd be able to provide these services and actually balance the budget. Their alternative "budget" isn't a budget at all. As voters we're left to trust that they would do so because they say that they would.

The Liberals and PCs on the other hand have actually released how they would do this. The Liberals balance the budget and show how they would pay for this. I believe that they would do this and the numbers work for a few reasons:

A) There are no pie in the sky projections.

B) They show that to pay for this they would raise taxes on higher income earners. Frankly speaking, this must be the right thing to do because no political party would recommend increasing taxes as a ploy to be elected!

C) The Liberals aren't going to form government as they aren't running enough candidates to do so. For them to come out and say directly that this is what needs to happen, even though people don't want to hear it, makes sense.

I have no idea whether the Wildrose can do what they say; frankly unless you have access to some documents that I haven't seen, neither do you. They say that they can balance the budget and not impact services at all, and in many cases improve services.

Tell me again which seems more conservative in terms of their projections and being fiscally responsible, taking that into account? One party sounds like they are trying to get elected and the other is the Alberta Liberal Party.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Slava

B) They show that to pay for this they would raise taxes on higher income earners. Frankly speaking, this must be the right thing to do because no political party would recommend increasing taxes as a ploy to be elected!

Are you suggesting that no party has ever played one group of people against another to gain votes? Raising the tax burden on the rich to gain the support of the rest is a common solution from the left.
Below is a breakdown of taxes paid to the provincial government at the 2011 level and ignores all deductions. I am curious how much more you feel the rich should be paying? Right now, someone who makes $100000 pays 8 times as much tax as someone who makes $30000 and pays at double the effective rate. Should the rate be tripled or the total amount be raised to 15 times as much? What is fair?
Provincial taxes payable vs salary earned vs. effective rate
$10000 - $0 - 0%
$20000 - $185 - 0.9%
$30000 - $1118 - 3.7%
$50000 - $3002 - 6%
$70000 - $5002 - 7.2%
$100000 - $8002 - 8%
$200000 - $18002 - 9%
$1000000 - $98002 - 9.8%

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Are you suggesting that no party has ever played one group of people against another to gain votes? Raising the tax burden on the rich to gain the support of the rest is a common solution from the left.
Below is a breakdown of taxes paid to the provincial government at the 2011 level and ignores all deductions. I am curious how much more you feel the rich should be paying? Right now, someone who makes $100000 pays 8 times as much tax as someone who makes $30000 and pays at double the effective rate. Should the rate be tripled or the total amount be raised to 15 times as much? What is fair?
Provincial taxes payable vs salary earned vs. effective rate
$10000 - $0 - 0%
$20000 - $185 - 0.9%
$30000 - $1118 - 3.7%
$50000 - $3002 - 6%
$70000 - $5002 - 7.2%
$100000 - $8002 - 8%
$200000 - $18002 - 9%
$1000000 - $98002 - 9.8%

Ya, well first I should come out and say that I have personal misgivings about that plan (because I would pay more taxes and selfishly that is really hard to vote for!).

Second though, my point isn't that this is perfect. My point is that they're at least being realistic with how they're going to do this.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Slava

Second though, my point isn't that this is perfect. My point is that they're at least being realistic with how they're going to do this.

You are assuming that they, (Lib and PC), are doing the right thing (spending more money) to begin with. I certainly don't agree with more spending.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by darklord700

You are assuming that they, (Lib and PC), are doing the right thing (spending more money) to begin with. I certainly don't agree with more spending.

Well can you explain how exactly the Wildrose is going to keep taxes where they are, payoff the debt/deficit and not slash services? Don't give some BS about "finding efficiencies" or anything either; where does the money come from?

[GP_Matt]

I won't hold that against you. I have no desire to pay more taxes either.
I haven't gone through the WAP budget too closely yet so I can't defend it very well. I am sure it isn't the same level of detail as the actual budget though. I am sure the budget is the result of millions of dollars worth of work and don't think it is fair to expect a party to have those funds available to match it.
One of their platforms that I do like is the guarantee of steady and stable funding to municipalities which I see the PC's are trying to mimic with their funding announcements yesterday. That has to be better than the past method of promising money and changing or the terms several times before it is delivered. Our new hospital in GP has been promised and canceled at least 4 times going back to when Klien was in power.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Slava

payoff the debt/deficit and not slash services? Don't give some BS about "finding efficiencies" or anything either; where does the money come from?

Cut services/spending and finding expediencies are exact what a family needs to do no matter what their income is. It's call "make do". Why this doesn't apply to a government?