"Calgary taxpayers pay about 4 billion dollars a year more to the province than we receive back in all provincial services" - Nenshi
Ouch.
Actually, if you connect the dots between that and the editorial in the Sun today about remaking the transfer system, the province Nenshi is actually refering to is Quebec!
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
Actually, if you connect the dots between that and the editorial in the Sun today about remaking the transfer system, the province Nenshi is actually refering to is Quebec!
Well, there is a real fiscal imbalance - yes somewhat by region, but moreso between cities and provinces/federal government.
The figure for Calgary and Alberta is $4 billion, but even more startling is that Calgarians send $10 billion more to the Federal Government than we get back in all services and transfers.
What Calgary is asking for is not more taxes, but simply a rebalancing of the taxes we already pay as Calgarians. Only 8 cents of each of your tax dollar goes to the municipality. Municipalities are responsible for a pretty wide array of services, but don't have the fiscal capacity to actually deliver those services. For instance, we couldn't even dream of building an LRT line on our own, we must rely on the political whims of other levels of government, yet municipalities are responsible for delivering transit service? How can we possibly plan for this kind of infrastructure when we never know when or how much money will be given.
__________________
Trust the snake.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
What Calgary is asking for is not more taxes, but simply a rebalancing of the taxes we already pay as Calgarians. Only 8 cents of each of your tax dollar goes to the municipality. Municipalities are responsible for a pretty wide array of services, but don't have the fiscal capacity to actually deliver those services. For instance, we couldn't even dream of building an LRT line on our own, we must rely on the political whims of other levels of government, yet municipalities are responsible for delivering transit service? How can we possibly plan for this kind of infrastructure when we never know when or how much money will be given.
Thanks to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation announcement yesterday, the PCs have clarified that the funding for all those new schools and school renovations, along with some of the post-secondary promises, are NOW contingent on a surplus.
Of course, none of this was mentioned when these promises were announced or mentioned in the official press releases.
Edit: It turns out that Redford did say that the schools would be payed for by surpluses in next year's budget not during the announcement, but when pressed by reporters after the announcement.
Last edited by kn; 04-12-2012 at 11:40 AM.
Reason: clarification to be fair
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to kn For This Useful Post:
That is par for the course with the PCs. They have been doing a lot of backtracking lately.
So does that mean that we won't get any new schools until they hit a surplus or that once we hit a surplus they will immediately fund 70 new schools ignoring anything that they have built during the deficit years. What if it takes them 5 years to get out of the deficit They could have the 70 schools built through normal funding and the new schools would no longer be required.
One thing I will give the Wild Rose credit for, even if I disagree strongly with a significant aspect of their proposed implementation, is that they don't intend to allocate any surplus funds to repeating operational expenses.
With the PC proposal, if we have a big surplus one year, they'll use it to build a bunch of new schools. Ok, but now they need to maintain, staff, and operate those schools once they're built, meaning a non-budgeted excess of revenue one year results in greater government operating expenses every year thereafter.
A much better approach is to build schools when and where they're needed and plan and budget for them accordingly. Schools are an essential government service; we shouldn't be building more of them when we have a surprise surplus when times are good.
Last edited by MarchHare; 04-12-2012 at 10:42 AM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
That is par for the course with the PCs. They have been doing a lot of backtracking lately.
So does that mean that we won't get any new schools until they hit a surplus or that once we hit a surplus they will immediately fund 70 new schools ignoring anything that they have built during the deficit years. What if it takes them 5 years to get out of the deficit They could have the 70 schools built through normal funding and the new schools would no longer be required.
That seems to be the general consensus among the left leaning voters on this thread anyways. Surplus' should be used only for infrastructure/general funding so one would expect you wouldn't budget those items within expected revenues.
Surpluses should be spent only on infrastructure, otherwise invest in the Heritage Fund. But that doesn't mean infrastructure should only be built with a surplus. We need more infrastructure regardless of a surplus or not.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
That seems to be the general consensus among the left leaning voters on this thread anyways. Surplus' should be used only for infrastructure/general funding so one would expect you wouldn't budget those items within expected revenues.
The "left leaning voters on this thread" have been saying that surpluses should be used for non-operational spending like investing in the Heritage Fund, paying down the province's debt, or saving money in a good year so we don't need to go into deficit spending in a bad year (e.g. rainy day fund). Can you link a single post from anyone saying surpluses should be treated like general funding? That's what I thought.
Keep fighting the good fight against the elitist liberal strawman of your own creation, though!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
Surpluses should be spent only on infrastructure, otherwise invest in the Heritage Fund. But that doesn't mean infrastructure should only be built with a surplus. We need more infrastructure regardless of a surplus or not.
So you are suggesting we continually budget less than we need for infrastructure?
Why don't we just budget for the infrastructure we need like other provinces? We've been budgeting 200-300% more than most provinces for quite awhile now.
But see we have to spend more than other provinces to make up for the infrastructure shortfalls in the mid-late 90s and of course we are a rapidly expanding province that only figures to grow in population especially as money begins to dry up more and more in the eastern provinces. We need to spend more than others because we have and will have a larger burden than other provinces. Whether we pay for the infrastructure in the present (at a fairly known cost) or in the future (at a very unpredictable cost), we're going to pay for it one way or another. I just want the more responsible approach.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The "left leaning voters on this thread" have been saying that surpluses should be used for non-operational spending like investing in the Heritage Fund, paying down the province's debt, or saving money in a good year so we don't need to go into deficit spending in a bad year (e.g. rainy day fund). Can you link a single post from anyone saying surpluses should be treated like general funding? That's what I thought.
Keep fighting the good fight against the elitist liberal strawman of your own creation, though!
Sorry I don't have time to go back through 100 pages, but to deny the general consensus among the lefties that Alberta has a huge infrastructure deficit, thus resisting the Danielle Dollars in favor of infrastructure spending, is to ignore the clear implication they believe we have underfunded infrastructure.
If you believe we don't budget for needed infrastrucure/spending, and haven't for awhile, we must assume you believe surplus money must be used for the 'common good' that can't be normally accounted for.
