April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Slava]

And more than that they've planned for increasing growth to 7.5% and fixed operating costs at 2.5% as far as I can see.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

This thread and the media seem to be focused on the PC and Wildrose perspective exclusively. There seems to be crickets chirping about the Liberal's policies. I was wondering what poster thought of their plan to incerase taxes on people who make over $100,000/year.


My thoughts:

• Is someone making $100,000/year really 'rich' and deserving of punitive taxation in a province where an average single family home costs 4 times that amount? Is $100,000 / year the right bar to set that at (And also would this be linked to inflation?)

Politicians seem to be attracted to the whole goofy Occupyer if you make over a $100,000 your rich and should be punished for it. $100,000 per year doesn't make you rich anywhere, it makes you well off but your not rolling in money. Its the biggest piece of vote pandering to the lower income people out there because the unspoken thing is that your porttraying yourself as Robin Hood, you're going to take from the rich and shower the poor with social programs.

I would have far more respect for someone that came out and says everyone pays a minimum of X dollars in taxes with a more fair division of tax revenue.

I already pay a ton in taxes because of my income level, sometimes I think it would be smarter to go and work in a lower paying less stressful job in a lower tax bracket because my tax home would probably be the same.

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

• Raj Sherman has tried to link the higher income taxes to eliminating tuition fees by 2025. Is making the marginal cost of a post secondary education zero really good public policy? I can see more people taking advantage of going to school but not being really serious about their studies if it costs them nothing in tuition.

There is such a thing as over subsidization of tuition. Quebec has over subsidized their tuition to a point that its not sustainable and either the services offered goes in the toilet, or they increase tuition and have their students rioting in the streets. I believe in free education up until university or college but your making an investment in your future and better future earnings so you should be willing to pay a price.

There are student loans out there and I believe that there are write downs on Student Loans, I got 20% of my student loan written off when I graduated because of my GPA and the fact that I had found a job in my chosen field. I don't know how it works nowdays. The bottom line is that you have to be willing to pay something for your education, and you have to be willing to compromise your education a little bit. If you want to go into some weirdo field that has 3 jobs in North America or into jobs that are poorly paid, that's your choice, but don't expect the government to subsidize your whole education if its merely built on a whim and nothing else.

I don't think that I would be in favor of reduced tuition increased subsidizations, I might be interested in voting for a party that funds some writeoff of student loan debt if you go into a in demand field, or for example if you graduate med school and go practice in some isolated spot in need of medical help.

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

• Is this really just a ploy to try and hold onto their seats in ridings that have major universities in them, knowing that ultimately they won't win the election and have to actually answer to or implement the policies?

That's the big political theory for fringe parties, promise things that you'll never ever have to deliver and then b$tch about it when the government doesn't implement your brilliant idea. The NDP has been doing that for years federally.

PS if it wasn't so expensive I would love to run as the Wild Boar Candidae for Calgary South.

I'm sure all of you would vote for me so I could get my pension right.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

Again, this is more about long term holistic thinking vs. short term individual gain. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a low income families or people in need get a nice check to help pay for books or relieve some of the stress of living. But when you look at the whole picture, the 300 dollar one time shot in the arm has a far lesser impact on society as a whole than an additional investment in Public transit, improving post secondary education or improving health care. I think most people feel there is still a dramatic infrastructure and services deficit that is still lingering from Ralph's time as premier.

I remember Ralph Bucks when they came in. I was an undergrad living on my own and value of the Ralph bucks was so insignificant that I hated the idea. I ended up putting it towards replacing a broken down monitor I was using for school. It's ten years later and I no longer have the computer or monitor. Ralph bucks wasn't enough to make a real impact in the costs of tuition or books at the time. I know many of my friends at university thought it was an awful idea and it still is today.

It's what a decade or so later and I'd rather have those original Ralph Bucks reinvested in to Public Transit or Health care than the monitor that I used for a year and a half.

But that's really just a pipe dream unrelated to reality.

Ralph's "huge" cuts never cut us below a provincial average in spending. Since then, Alberta has outspent every other province considerably, and in some years spent as much as several provinces combined. And yet, people still see a lack of results on the front line.

We spend 25% MORE per person than Ontario. That's EVERY person. Why do we spend double what saskatchewan does on Agriculture, when they have more farmland than us? Why do we spend twice as much than BC every year on transportation when they have more population and mountainous terrain? Why do we have twice as many public employees per person than every other province?

This bloated spending has led to increased public salaries, and waste. The answer isn't to spend more on these things, but to fix the spending we have and eliminate waste. And to stop our bloated bureaucracy from expecting billion dollar shots in the arm year after year.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2333090/

[MarchHare]

Ralph's "huge" cuts never cut us below a provincial average in spending. Since then, Alberta has outspent every other province considerably, and in some years spent as much as several provinces combined. And yet, people still see a lack of results on the front line.

We spend 25% MORE per person than Ontario. That's EVERY person. Why do we spend double what saskatchewan does on Agriculture, when they have more farmland than us? Why do we spend twice as much than BC every year on transportation when they have more population and mountainous terrain? Why do we have twice as many public employees per person than every other province?

This bloated spending has led to increased public salaries, and waste. The answer isn't to spend more on these things, but to fix the spending we have and eliminate waste. And to stop our bloated bureaucracy from expecting billion dollar shots in the arm year after year.

How do you reconcile your support for reduced government spending with your seemingly favourable opinion of RalphBucks/DanielleDividends? If you want to reduce inefficient government spending and waste, shouldn't you be opposed to this if your position is to be logically consistent?

[Slava]

http://beaconnews.ca/blog/2012/04/nu...ergy-dividend/

Duane Bratt on the Wildrose dividend plan in this article.

As far as the post from crazy joe above, do you have anything to show that we were never below the provincial average in spending? I seem to recall an alternative budget graph produced by the WRA that showed that we were below the other provinces in the early 2000's (the graph didn't go further back than that). While we increased after, I think that most Albertans agree that was for the specific reason that we needed to try to keep pace with the enormous population influx the province was seeing.

We still face a fairly well documented infrastructure deficit in terms of education in particular where numerous articles have been written about the state of our schools. We basically have to spend money to fix that kind of thing, unless we press everyone into home-schooling I suppose.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I already pay a ton in taxes because of my income level, sometimes I think it would be smarter to go and work in a lower paying less stressful job in a lower tax bracket because my tax home would probably be the same.

Just a good time to remind people that we have a progressive tax system.

• 15% on the first $42,707 of taxable income, +
• 22% on the next $42,707 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $42,707 up to $85,414), +
• 26% on the next $46,992 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $85,414 up to $132,406), +
• 29% of taxable income over $132,406.

+ flat 10% of provincial tax.

Your take home will always be higher the more money you make, but the percentage of what you pay federally as tax increases only on that extra income in the next bracket as you go up. I know everyone here knows this, but it's come up a few times the last few days so bears repeating. You pay the same percentage as the 99% on everything up to $100,000 (creative accounting and tax sheltering aside).

[CaptainCrunch]

Yeah, I kinda beat myself up after I posted that, when we talk taxes, sometimes I just bundle the whole tax thing together and go Motherf%%ker, I pay a lot of taxes and don't seperate provincial and federal.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

http://beaconnews.ca/blog/2012/04/nu...ergy-dividend/

Duane Bratt on the Wildrose dividend plan in this article.

I'd take that guy a lot more seriously if he left out the Sarah Palin and US Republican references.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

"Danielle's Dividends" are just as dumb as Ralphs Bucks. I'm sure EVERYONE here likes driving on decent roads, having reliable and high quality healthcare, a better education, and saving for the future. This moronic idea cost them ANY chance at my vote. It is nothing more than pandering to sheeple in this province.

The Alberta government is already spending too much money on healthcare compared to other provinces. Why should they spend more? I didn't realize the roads were in such terrible conditions, do you want them paved in gold? I always hear about the "huge infrastructure deficit" that Alberta has, but most of this is about wasting money on expensive projects that are not necessary (like a high-speed train between Calgary and Edmonton). The WRA has already stated they would put 50% of any surplus in the Heritage Fund so saving for the future is not the problem. From hearing from the likes of Slava and others you would think Alberta is a 3rd world country.

The fact is that some people rather have the government babysit them and make their money decisions for them. I would love them to give me part of the surplus so I can decide what to do with the money. The government already has a lot of my money, why is everyone so eager to give them more of it? Maybe the government needs to start up a paypal account so people who don't feel they are paying enough taxes can donate more to the government. Though I doubt any of the higher spending and higher taxes supporters would donate, because it's only a good idea if they are spending other people's money.

[CaptainCrunch]

I would like to have a real frank discussion between the parties about Healthcare that doesn't involve throwing money at it.

The Liberal leader wants to get rid of the superboard and go back to the system of individual regional boards that was such a terrible failure before.

But nothing from WRA and PC indicates that they want any part of what needs to happen. The Healthcare system needs to stop being an employment factory, we need to get more funds to the sharp end of the stick and less money of the too heavy administrative side of things.

We can't keep throwing money at it, it just doesn't work.

In terms of infrastructure I think that the province is ok along the main routes, but outside of the main routes the road ways are crumbling pretty hard.

I actually think that we're spending plenty but we get a very poor return on each dollar spent and that's what the campaign should be all about.

[Cscutch]

After having a quick discussion with a few nurse friends of mine, one way we could look at saving some money in health care is make all nurses full time.

There are many nurses out there that are considered part-time but consistently work full time hours. I think if any hour over there normal work time is paid out double time... But also in certain situations it can be triple time.

Chris

[MarchHare]

Maybe the government needs to start up a paypal account so people who don't feel they are paying enough taxes can donate more to the government. Though I doubt any of the higher spending and higher taxes supporters would donate, because it's only a good idea if they are spending other people's money.

Sigh, this tired argument again. It was already debunked earlier in this thread: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=640

Anyway, I'm interested to hear from so-called fiscal conservatives how giving $300 cheques to every citizen is a good use of taxpayer funds. That's roughly $1B each year that could be going into the Heritage Fund, but instead you'd rather we collectively squander it on instant gratification like buying new iPads or other consumer goods? That kind of short sightedness is anathema to fiscal conservatism as far as I'm concerned.

Let's face it, $300/year is not going to make a lick of difference to most of us. Do you even remember what you spent your RalphBucks on? When pooled collectively, however, that money could be put to much greater use over the long term. It sure would be nice to have a wealth fund the size of Norway's one day...

[MarchHare]

But nothing from WRA and PC indicates that they want any part of what needs to happen. The Healthcare system needs to stop being an employment factory, we need to get more funds to the sharp end of the stick and less money of the too heavy administrative side of things.

Isn't our healthcare system actually very efficient in terms of administration costs?

Also, when you say "throwing money at it", what precisely do you mean by that? You're not the first person I've heard use that phrase, but I've never heard anyone define it. Is hiring more healthcare professionals, renovating hospitals (or building new ones) to increase the number of available beds, or buying more equipment like additional MRI scanners "throwing money at the problem"?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Cscutch

There are many nurses out there that are considered part-time but consistently work full time hours. I think if any hour over there normal work time is paid out double time... But also in certain situations it can be triple time.

Are you serious? that's nuts.

[Jacks]

Gotta give the WR credit for one thing, nobody is discussing any of the other parties ideas today. They just did a call in show on the radio, 3 of the first 4 people liked the idea of the resource dividends, I missed the last 1-2 callers.

The PC's better get with the program and start offering ponies if they want to keep up.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Gotta give the WR credit for one thing, nobody is discussing any of the other parties ideas today. They just did a call in show on the radio, 3 of the first 4 people liked the idea of the resource dividends, I missed the last 1-2 callers.

The PC's better get with the program and start offering ponies if they want to keep up.

This is Alberta, we have our fill of ponies, they're gonna have to put unicorns on the table if they really want to gain some ground.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

But that's really just a pipe dream unrelated to reality.

Ralph's "huge" cuts never cut us below a provincial average in spending. Since then, Alberta has outspent every other province considerably, and in some years spent as much as several provinces combined. And yet, people still see a lack of results on the front line.

We spend 25% MORE per person than Ontario. That's EVERY person. Why do we spend double what saskatchewan does on Agriculture, when they have more farmland than us? Why do we spend twice as much than BC every year on transportation when they have more population and mountainous terrain? Why do we have twice as many public employees per person than every other province?

This bloated spending has led to increased public salaries, and waste. The answer isn't to spend more on these things, but to fix the spending we have and eliminate waste. And to stop our bloated bureaucracy from expecting billion dollar shots in the arm year after year.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2333090/

As I wasn't arguing about waste in government, but rather wholistic vs. individual perspective on government decisions, I did a simple search on Alberta's infrastructure deficit and came across this report.

http://parklandinstitute.ca/research...ture_spending/

As the Klein era came to a close in 2006, the infrastructure deficit for the Department of Infrastructure and Transportation was estimated at over seven billion dollars. According to the Department, “Although a significant increase in capital funding has been provided to build necessary highways, schools and health facilities related to new capital projects, infrastructure deficiencies will take time.”

Alberta's population has also grown by almost a third since 1993, adding more than a million new Albertans. Alberta’s economy has also grown significantly. Not surprisingly, this growth has led to significant demands for new and expanded infrastructure, from the twinning of the highway to Fort McMurray to new hospitals and schools. Also, with inflation and construction cost escalation, the province has been buying considerably less infrastructure than it seems

Ralph buck came in 2005 (which is a bit off of my almost a decade quote), but considering the population boom from his time as Premier to today and the fact that the costs of living (construction, wages, etc.,) went through the roof in Alberta around the same time, it's not too shocking to see why we've been spending more than other provinces.

Back to my original point. Ralph left us in a hole and we're still working to catch-up. The Ralph bucks were a poor decision at the time and if that infrastructure deficit hasn't caught up to the rate of growth of the province by 2015, then I think the proposed WRP dividend cheques will be an even worse idea.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Sigh, this tired argument again. It was already debunked earlier in this thread: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=640

Anyway, I'm interested to hear from so-called fiscal conservatives how giving $300 cheques to every citizen is a good use of taxpayer funds. That's roughly $1B each year that could be going into the Heritage Fund, but instead you'd rather we collectively squander it on instant gratification like buying new iPads or other consumer goods? That kind of short sightedness is anathema to fiscal conservatism as far as I'm concerned.

Let's face it, $300/year is not going to make a lick of difference to most of us. Do you even remember what you spent your RalphBucks on? When pooled collectively, however, that money could be put to much greater use over the long term. It sure would be nice to have a wealth fund the size of Norway's one day...

I appreciate that the WRP is pandering to everyone as opposed to special interest groups with taxpayer largesse. Personally I think it's a workable way of increasing spending during good years without committing to any program costs - a key risk for a government with highly volatile revenues. If you just dump it all in the Heritage Fund you'll get screaming from the left for more program spending that does not go away when oil revenue falls.

[MarchHare]

If you just dump it all in the Heritage Fund you'll get screaming from the left for more program spending that does not go away when oil revenue falls.

You're so sure about that? All the posters in this thread who could be considered as representatives of "the left" are saying that surpluses should be 100% invested into the Heritage Fund!

[SebC]

If Alberta gets an energy dividend, then Quebec will want one too.

(Seriously, is there a better way to signal to the rest of the country that we can afford larger equalization payments?)