Alberta PC's way out front

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Slava

We could increase taxes, just a small amount, and actually save money. We could still be the lowest taxed regime in the country by a lot. We'd just be paying a little more to make sure that our competitive advantages are actually used to some real benefit.

The fallacy in your argument is that you think the more we pay, the more we'll receive from the public sector. This hardly ever in the political world. Most likely what will happen is more waste will be created and the standing no-meeting committee would probably have gotten $2K a month instead of $1K.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I see a major flaw in your logic. You acknowledge that we pay far more for our services, and have for a long time, in Alberta. You agree that we really don't see any advantage to this huge discrepancy in spending, but yet you support continuing down this path of overpayment and underdelivery of services but instead pay for it through tax increases instead of total reliance on resource revenues.

I guess it is a slight step in the right direction, because maybe people will start to realize that for the most part, services in Alberta are some of the least efficient in all of Canada.

My perspective is that we need to make it illegal to include resource income in general revenues and we should rely entirely upon 'traditional' sources of revenues (mainly taxes) to fund our expensive social programs, and to save resource revenues to supply a perpetual income stream from the investment interest. I don't share the concern of others that this fund would become a raid target for the rest of Canada, that's already been tried once and would likely lead to Western Seperation.

But the bottom line is we need to cut spending significantly and compete at a level of the rest of the provinces providing services to our populace at a reasonable cost. This whole 'spend it because it's there' approach has been lunacy and has not resulted in any measurable gains in service delivery.

So, let's spend a reasonable amount. Get reasonable outcomes. Stop letting our public service workers hold taxpayers hostage. And save for future generations.

Ie: Vote Wildrose...

Originally Posted by darklord700

The fallacy in your argument is that you think the more we pay, the more we'll receive from the public sector. This hardly ever in the political world. Most likely what will happen is more waste will be created and the standing no-meeting committee would probably have gotten $2K a month instead of $1K.

no, I never said that I think the more we spend the more we receive. I think that you need to re-read what I wrote. The two statments I highlighted in the other post are basically polar opposites.

My thinking is that while we need to look at how services are delivered, this is a separate discussion. I don't want to see the discussion on "should we cut services" tied to a discussion on the revenue side of things; we know that we can have enough revenue and its really a matter of how that is collected.

The terrifying thing about the Wildrose Alliance (or one of the terrifying things) is that they have a silver bullet here if you believe them. They somehow have a mystical solution for every potential issue that isn't costed out and we don't really know what the plan would entail. They are going to balance the budget annually, increase services and reduce health waiting times, not increase taxes and save money for the future at the same time. When I hear statements about how they can magically right every thing thats wrong with no laid out plan of how this is proposed, I get suspicious.

I also standby my thought that it is quite likely that a true fiscal conservative would be advocating for a tax hike. People should pay their fair share for the services that they want. I don't think that the appetite is there to cut services, so quite clearly the real discussion is how to pay for this.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Slava

The terrifying thing about the Wildrose Alliance (or one of the terrifying things) is that they have a silver bullet here if you believe them.

And the PC's plan on counting on oil sand revenue to pay for everything doesn't terrify you? I don't think any party has any silver bullet to solve all our problems. What I know is I don't want to pay more taxes, especially to further fatten the wallets of a bunch of entitled PC bureaucrats, to a conservative party who is anything but conservative by going to bed with the unions.

If you want solution to everything, vote for GOD. Otherwise, just pick the party that's less evil.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

no, I never said that I think the more we spend the more we receive. I think that you need to re-read what I wrote. The two statments I highlighted in the other post are basically polar opposites.

My thinking is that while we need to look at how services are delivered, this is a separate discussion. I don't want to see the discussion on "should we cut services" tied to a discussion on the revenue side of things; we know that we can have enough revenue and its really a matter of how that is collected.

Cutting spending does not equal cutting services. You need to realize that the assumption of the left that spending = services just isnt true. If it was, Alberta would have the very best social programs in Canada because we already have spent much more than anyone else and have done it for over a decade.

Cutting spending does not equal cutting services.

The terrifying thing about the Wildrose Alliance (or one of the terrifying things) is that they have a silver bullet here if you believe them. They somehow have a mystical solution for every potential issue that isn't costed out and we don't really know what the plan would entail. They are going to balance the budget annually, increase services and reduce health waiting times, not increase taxes and save money for the future at the same time. When I hear statements about how they can magically right every thing thats wrong with no laid out plan of how this is proposed, I get suspicious.

They have costed everything and even though you don't agree with what they wrote you can't pretend it wasn't done.

The magic bullet of the left - INCREASE SPENDING - has been tried for over a decade with basically no results to speak of. It's time to try something else and the Wildrose offers the only different perspective than the other four leftwing parties.

I also standby my thought that it is quite likely that a true fiscal conservative would be advocating for a tax hike. People should pay their fair share for the services that they want. I don't think that the appetite is there to cut services, so quite clearly the real discussion is how to pay for this.

Once again, cutting spending does not equal cutting services. Increasing taxes only deals with one side of an equation where the problem is not, and never has been revenue, but SPENDING.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by darklord700

And the PC's plan on counting on oil sand revenue to pay for everything doesn't terrify you? I don't think any party has any silver bullet to solve all our problems. What I know is I don't want to pay more taxes, especially to further fatten the wallets of a bunch of entitled PC bureaucrats, to a conservative party who is anything but conservative by going to bed with the unions.

If you want solution to everything, vote for GOD. Otherwise, just pick the party that's less evil.

Well that was only the point of my post above. Glad you took the time to read through it and catch that.

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Cutting spending does not equal cutting services. You need to realize that the assumption of the left that spending = services just isnt true. If it was, Alberta would have the very best social programs in Canada because we already have spent much more than anyone else and have done it for over a decade.

Cutting spending does not equal cutting services.



They have costed everything and even though you don't agree with what they wrote you can't pretend it wasn't done.

The magic bullet of the left - INCREASE SPENDING - has been tried for over a decade with basically no results to speak of. It's time to try something else and the Wildrose offers the only different perspective than the other four leftwing parties.



Once again, cutting spending does not equal cutting services. Increasing taxes only deals with one side of an equation where the problem is not, and never has been revenue, but SPENDING.

Perfect, got a link to back that up? I read through the "budget" and nothing was costed there. In fact it was no better than the just released Alberta Party platform that is also not costed and I have no idea how it would be funded.

You're right that cutting spending doesn't always equal cutting services, and I'm not arguing that. Just explain where all the money will come from to do this though. Remember that I'm not in favour of using one time revenues from resources to fund tax breaks for this generation at the expense of those to come. That's a huge problem with the allegedly fiscal conservative Wildrose Alliance platform IMO.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Slava

no, I never said that I think the more we spend the more we receive. I think that you need to re-read what I wrote. The two statments I highlighted in the other post are basically polar opposites.

My thinking is that while we need to look at how services are delivered, this is a separate discussion. I don't want to see the discussion on "should we cut services" tied to a discussion on the revenue side of things; we know that we can have enough revenue and its really a matter of how that is collected.

The terrifying thing about the Wildrose Alliance (or one of the terrifying things) is that they have a silver bullet here if you believe them. They somehow have a mystical solution for every potential issue that isn't costed out and we don't really know what the plan would entail. They are going to balance the budget annually, increase services and reduce health waiting times, not increase taxes and save money for the future at the same time. When I hear statements about how they can magically right every thing thats wrong with no laid out plan of how this is proposed, I get suspicious.

I also standby my thought that it is quite likely that a true fiscal conservative would be advocating for a tax hike. People should pay their fair share for the services that they want. I don't think that the appetite is there to cut services, so quite clearly the real discussion is how to pay for this.

I'd like to pay for health care, but I'm not allowed. If I want enhanced health care, I have to wait for everybody to pay for it in the form of increased taxes. This paradigm has to shift! Establish a standard basis of services, pay for it via government funded by tax dollars, and then allow enhanced services to be delivered through other means, including (but not limited) to the private sector. If this cannot be achieved, we will always have that one uncontrolled line item in every budget regardless of the party in power that disables any hope for a balanced budget without ongoing, year-after-year tax increases or tapping into the resource dollars.

Sorry to keep harping on health care, but it really is the fly in the ointment of all these discussions, especially in regards to the first bolded statement above. We only have enough revenue when commodity prices are high and that has proven to be cyclical.

If the government wants to be everything to everyone, no party will be able to create and balance a coherent budget.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

And that is where you lose all credibility.

Wanna back that up? I've seen nothing from either the PC's or the Wild Rose about moving Alberta into the 21th Century.

What I want to see is a solid plan to diversify Alberta's economy into something more secure then hoping people wanna buy our oil sands or natural gas. We're a first world province operating off a third world economy - that has to change.

I will even vote for a crazy religious demagogue if they have a solid plan to enhance Alberta's economy over the next 20-50 years.

[Tinordi]

A key policy issue that should be on the table is implementing a sales tax is AB and stop relying on non-renewable resource revenues for general revenue. That money should be put away and developed into a wealth fund not paying for services that the people are too ignorant and short sighted to pay for the way the rest of the world does.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

A key policy issue that should be on the table is implementing a sales tax is AB and stop relying on non-renewable resource revenues for general revenue. That money should be put away and developed into a wealth fund not paying for services that the people are too ignorant and short sighted to pay for the way the rest of the world does.

How about no sales tax and decrease spending on services and introduce/increase user fees for all government run programs (including health care).

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

A key policy issue that should be on the table is implementing a sales tax is AB and stop relying on non-renewable resource revenues for general revenue. That money should be put away and developed into a wealth fund not paying for services that the people are too ignorant and short sighted to pay for the way the rest of the world does.

Oh no. Your notion maybe well intended but I trust not the government to do with more of my money. It'll translate into more union vote buying power to the Redford government.

[GP_Matt]

I like the idea of the government always having less available than they want. It forces them to make decisions and evaluate priorities the same way most families do.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Oh no. Your notion maybe well intended but I trust not the government to do with more of my money. It'll translate into more union vote buying power to the Redford government.

Explain.

[llama64]

Huh... never really looked at the Alberta Party - apparently they think along the same lines I do: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1332400396

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Fire

How about no sales tax and decrease spending on services and introduce/increase user fees for all government run programs (including health care).

So reduce one tax for essentially what will work out to be a higher tax (especially health care). Seams like a brilliant idea.

The one thing I've learned from living in the US for the past 2.5 years, is that in the long run individual user fees tend to work out far worse in the long run than having a small group tax.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by llama64

Wanna back that up? I've seen nothing from either the PC's or the Wild Rose about moving Alberta into the 21th Century.

What I want to see is a solid plan to diversify Alberta's economy into something more secure then hoping people wanna buy our oil sands or natural gas. We're a first world province operating off a third world economy - that has to change.

I will even vote for a crazy religious demagogue if they have a solid plan to enhance Alberta's economy over the next 20-50 years.

What exactly do you mean by that? Most of the diversification in our economy (high tech, manufacturing, processing technology) has been a result of the huge investment in the oil and gas sector. We are world leaders in that area.

Examples abound in the government hugely wasting resources when trying to steer the economy itself. Spain's floundering solar industry, or Obama's many failed green job investments are prime examples.

Why not let people grow the economy themselves?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by troutman

I want a fair tax, and good government.

I'm with you here in theory. I just think what some people think is fair is highly subjective. I know a lot of high income earners who look at the actual dollar figure they pay out in taxes as opposed to the percentage and feel that they already carry their weight and then some (and when viewed at on that basis they do have a point). Conversely lower income earners who might demand more government services at the expense of increased taxes on higher earners might feel 'fair tax' should be simply defined as 'capacity to pay.'

As for the good government point I wonder if organizationally the Alberta government can actually improve their efficiency and effectiveness with the human capital they can attract on a backbench MLA salary that needs 'do nothing pay' to get to 100K/year. Not to mention I don't exactly see many 'high flyers' lining up to fill the ranks of the civil service bureaucracy when Alberta already has such well paid private sector employment relative to other jurisdictions. That said I no doubt believe that many good people have and will have a calling to serve the public in roles in politics and the civil service, but are there enough of these people to achieve the standard of 'good government'?

Call me cynical, but I personally have my doubts, which is why I'm reluctant to vote for anyone that proposes or even entertains the idea to take more from me in taxes. When I think about how a 'higher taxes = bigger Heritage Fund' plan would work out in reality I just look at the last decade of PC rule and envision: Higher taxes = more bloated government and no real measurable difference in quality or breadth of services provided, and still no added savings to the Heritage Fund

[Slava]

Thats funny Cowboy. You look at the more taxes and savings route with the same cynicism that I see the no new taxes and more efficiency idea. I just have a hard time thinking that everything magically balances out here.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I like the idea of the government always having less available than they want. It forces them to make decisions and evaluate priorities the same way most families do.

Perfect, so if we're using that as a model it must also be fine for governments to borrow money?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

Thats funny Cowboy. You look at the more taxes and savings route with the same cynicism that I see the no new taxes and more efficiency idea. I just have a hard time thinking that everything magically balances out here.

No I don't believe everything magically balances out. I actually believe both of our cynicisms are correct. It's just that one of the alternatives ends up with more money in my pocket, the other with a class of people who work a union mandated 37.5 hours a week living off of the incermental taxes taken from me with very little marginal benefit.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

No I don't believe everything magically balances out. I actually believe both of our cynicisms are correct. It's just that as one of people who will get progressively taxed higher one the alternatives ends up with more money in my pocket, the other with a class of people who work a union mandated 37.5 hours a week living off of the incermental taxes taken from me with very little marginal benefit.

Well eventually we all end up taxed higher, really. One the US starts relying on their supply of gas and our oil is not as necessary (or a number of other reasons), taxes will either go up or services will go down.

I've re-read your third sentence and I just can't understand it. Either its above me or there are words missing? I don't know.