April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Fire]

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...

The WRA has already stated they will put 50% of any surplus into the Heritage Fund. Has any other party committed more? Who cares if people would buy iPads or other crap with the $300/year. What gives you the right to tell other people what they can spend their money on?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

Aside from the funding, why is free post-secondary a bad idea? We need more skilled workers here and removing the financial barriers seems like a good way to encourage students. No one would suggest that every student be allowed in; there would still be academic requirements and prerequisites so it might even make things more competitive.

Why should only the really smart kids benefit from free education?

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by Fire

The WRA has already stated they will put 50% of any surplus into the Heritage Fund. Has any other party committed more? Who cares if people would buy iPads or other crap with the $300/year. What gives you the right to tell other people what they can spend their money on?

It's not "other people's" money anymore, its the governments since its a tax rebate. The government, in theory, is there to handle the affairs of state such as building infrastructure, providing education + health, improving quality of life, etc. This is a communal decision (which will be voted on). Obviously no one is saying they can only spend there $300 on certain things.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Fire

The WRA has already stated they will put 50% of any surplus into the Heritage Fund. Has any other party committed more? Who cares if people would buy iPads or other crap with the $300/year. What gives you the right to tell other people what they can spend their money on?

It's also an empty promise anyway. Promise a little free money to keep the population happy, but if you know you'll probably run a large surplus in the next fiscal year, you can ramp up one-time spending on major infrastructure projects. People view all of these things without considering the other aspects. Really, this promise is an attempt at being all things to all people - which rarely works out well - but still leaves lots of room to focus on immediate needs.

One last thing on the free schooling. With promises like that, I think we are seeing the Liberals make the same mistake their federal cousins did. Trying to become the NDP will only cause their voters to move to the NDP. Many of us have said the Liberals need a new identity, but I'm not sure this is it. I really don't like the idea of a Liberal-NDP merger federally, as I think a three party system is superior to the two party. But provincially, I think we could see the Liberals and NDP merge on the left (maybe absorb the Alberta party and take over that name?), the PCs in the centre and Wildrose on the right.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Fire

The WRA has already stated they will put 50% of any surplus into the Heritage Fund. Has any other party committed more? Who cares if people would buy iPads or other crap with the $300/year. What gives you the right to tell other people what they can spend their money on?

That's been the Liberal mantra for decades now...at every level of government.

It's mind bottling to me that anyone would be opposed to getting their own money returned to them, regardless of if they think there are better uses for it or not.

Hell if nothing else, take the money and invest it in bonds for a child year after year it matures, and when they reach majority give it to them towards....oh i dont know....tuition or some such wasteful idea like that?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why should only the really smart kids benefit from free education?

Its not only really smart kids. It means that some kids who want to go into the trades would have proper prerequisites for that route, and yes the best would get in. We already have this; coupled with the financial barriers for some to go with it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

That's been the Liberal mantra for decades now...at every level of government.

It's mind bottling to me that anyone would be opposed to getting their own money returned to them, regardless of if they think there are better uses for it or not.

Hell if nothing else, take the money and invest it in bonds for a child year after year it matures, and when they reach majority give it to them towards....oh i dont know....tuition or some such wasteful idea like that?

I'm not opposed to getting the money, like I said earlier, I'll cash the cheques. Its still a dumb policy though and we would be better served as a province to use the one-time resource revenue more effectively.

I'm surprised that some of the fiscal conservatives are onboard with this actually. It strikes me as a pure vote buying policy that is basically wasting money from a public policy perspective.

As I recall there were a lot of issues with the prosperity bonus, just from a logistics side of things. Money was sent to people who didn't live in Alberta, money was sent to people who moved here after and things like that. I'm sure there are articles floating around that talked about it, but it just seemed so wasteful in general.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Fire

The WRA has already stated they will put 50% of any surplus into the Heritage Fund. Has any other party committed more? Who cares if people would buy iPads or other crap with the $300/year. What gives you the right to tell other people what they can spend their money on?

It really isn't your money through, it isn't as though you are getting a tax refund. It is Alberta's money, if it was really your money they would calculate your income tax relative to all funds coming into the government coffers over the course of the year and anything that was extra they would send you back that percentage that you contributed... which would likely be closer to 3 dollars than 300.

Fact is it isn't your money, it is the Alberta Government's money which has mostly been collected from Oil Revenues.

[Slava]

A little off topic today, and maybe more appropriate over the weekend. Its a little bit of a long read, but somewhat interesting. Its a blog post from a Danielle Smith admirer that was making the rounds today, and goes on to get into conscience rights as well.
http://www.kikkiplanet.com/pruned-bu...ted-wild-rose/

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

One reason has already been mentioned, that being that a person without a financial stake in their education is less likely to take it seriously. There is also no guarantee that a graduating student would remain in Alberta post-graduation. In fact, some industries almost require that a graduate move elsewhere. So why would we pay for someone else to benefit?

Playing devil's advocate here (I don't support 100% taxpayer-subsidized tuition): couldn't you say all of the above about elementary and secondary education as well? There's no guarantee that high school graduates will stay in Alberta, and what motivation do they have to take their studies seriously since 100% of their education is being paid for by the taxpayers? Why draw the line at what amount of education the government should fully fund at the post-secondary level?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

It really isn't your money through, it isn't as though you are getting a tax refund. It is Alberta's money, if it was really your money they would calculate your income tax relative to all funds coming into the government coffers over the course of the year and anything that was extra they would send you back that percentage that you contributed... which would likely be closer to 3 dollars than 300.

Fact is it isn't your money, it is the Alberta Government's money which has mostly been collected from Oil Revenues.

Im stunned.

Albertas money, regardless of where it comes from, most certainly is money that belongs to Albertans, the government exists solely to determine how to distribute it and in this case how to best return it.

Im not really a fan of the dividend system either, but your damn rights that money is mine and yours and anyone else who lives in this province and contributes taxes.

Someone accused anyone who favored the return as "sheeple"...anyone who believes what you just uttered is far beyond such a moniker IMO.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

couldn't you say all of the above about elementary and secondary education as well? There's no guarantee that high school graduates will stay in Alberta

Primary and secondary are subsidized across the country, not really the same thing.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Primary and secondary are subsidized across the country, not really the same thing.

Sure, but why stop there? If we agree that post-secondary education shouldn't be fully-subsidized (note: it already is heavily subsidized, just not 100%) for a variety of reasons, why doesn't that same rationale extend to primary and secondary education, too?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Im stunned.

Albertas money, regardless of where it comes from, most certainly is money that belongs to Albertans, the government exists solely to determine how to distribute it and in this case how to best return it.

Im not really a fan of the dividend system either, but your damn rights that money is mine and yours and anyone else who lives in this province and contributes taxes.

Someone accused anyone who favored the return as "sheeple"...anyone who believes what you just uttered is far beyond such a moniker IMO.

So if someone doesn't contribute taxes is that money theirs as well? What if they contribute very little in the way of taxes? Is that money less theirs than someone who contributes millions of dollars? I just think that blindly saying that the government should give back tax dollars to the public is ignoring the fact that not all revenue is generated through income tax and that people pay varying levels of taxes and thus logically the notion that the government should give you back your tax dollars ignores the obvious fact that the surplus isn't just made up of your tax dollars.

If it was done via some sort of taxation representation per dollar of surplus then I would agree that it would be your money, but just giving everyone X dollars isn't that at all.

Also the your isn't directed towards you it is just more of a general term.

[killer_carlson]

Is there going to be a leader's debate?

If so, when?

Can we ask mason, Taylor and Sherman to stand outside while we watch who will become our next leader emerge?

[jammies]

I would prefer a government that was smart enough to lower taxes to lessen their surplus rather than one that gives me back money it has collected, which necessarily is inefficient; first they have to collect the extra money, then they have to organize giving it back.

Let me put it this way: would you rather have an extra $350 in your pocket because the government lowered your taxes, or $300 in a "rebate" after you've already shelled out an extra $350 earlier in the year? I know what I'd rather have.

[Bunk]

Ugh, I really dislike the pandering of "we think you're better at spending money than the government". I should hope not - I squandered my Ralph bucks like there was no tomorrow.

The money for Ralph bucks would alone have paid for the entire capital cost of the West LRT. I'd rather focus windfalls on two things - infrastructure (particularly for cities) and savings/endowments.

[kn]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Is there going to be a leader's debate?

If so, when?

Can we ask mason, Taylor and Sherman to stand outside while we watch who will become our next leader emerge?

April 12th, 6:30pm, Global Edmonton.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Being conservative isn't always about cutting costs, it is about looking for ways to effectively spend money. Any idiot can randomly slash jobs, cut pay and the like but it takes foresight in order to spend money in a manner which benefits the citizens now and in the future.

That's not being conservative, that's being responsible - something most of the conservatives I've seen lately are actually pretty bad at.

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm surprised that some of the fiscal conservatives are onboard with this actually. It strikes me as a pure vote buying policy that is basically wasting money from a public policy perspective.

What's really funny is it's basically the polar opposite of a flat tax, which is usually what the right wants.

[kn]

Originally Posted by Slava

A little off topic today, and maybe more appropriate over the weekend. Its a little bit of a long read, but somewhat interesting. Its a blog post from a Danielle Smith admirer that was making the rounds today, and goes on to get into conscience rights as well.
http://www.kikkiplanet.com/pruned-bu...ted-wild-rose/

Thanks for the link. I think this could easily blow up into a 'hidden agenda' scare tactic in the hands of a skillful agitator. But as someone who is socially liberal, I often wonder why the concerns of conservative Christians are dismissed. Many in the "non-traditional" community fight for acceptance without returning it to those who do not share their beliefs.