April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[kn]

Originally Posted by Slava

I am so bored and tired of arguing these religious/pseudo-religious things though.

Me too, to be honest, considering I'm not Christian or religious. But I'll defend the right of conservative religions to be able to express views that are fundamental to their faith without fear of persecution, as repugnant as they may be to most. Really, there's no point in continuing any more as I think everyone knows neither of these candidates will get elected.

[Senator Clay Davis]

http://daveberta.ca/alberta-election...ard-education/

An interesting look at Danielle's time on the CBE. Dysfunctional really does seem to be the right word to describe it.

[Kybosh]

I'm really torn with this election. I was liking the Wildrose platform in the early days, but certain new developments from candidates and "danibucks" have kind of turned me off. Also, the wildrose candidate in my riding is an engineer and I'm not sure I'd want an engineer representing me .

If Raj Sherman wasn't falling off the rails so much lately, I'd consider throwing the liberals a vote. I feel like it's time for a change from PC rule, but I don't know what I'll do yet.

Honestly, I've never in my voting life had a candidate/party that I've felt represented me or my views. Maybe I'm just apathetic, I don't know.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by redforever

That determines how much revenue per capita each province is able to raise. That number varies by province...some have higher fiscal capacities than others.

If Quebec intentionally keeps their tax rate lower than what it should be compare to their social programs, that would keep their tax revenue low. Therefore, they would in return get more transfer payments. So Smith is right in this regard.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Dysfunctional really does seem to be the right word to describe it.

Dysfunctional is the exact word I would use to describe Redford's leadership for the past six months. How else do you explain a drop of 20 points in the poll in such a short time frame?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Dysfunctional is the exact word I would use to describe Redford's leadership for the past six months. How else do you explain a drop of 20 points in the poll in such a short time frame?

Opportunism and vote buying?

[redforever]

Originally Posted by darklord700

If Quebec intentionally keeps their tax rate lower than what it should be compare to their social programs, that would keep their tax revenue low. Therefore, they would in return get more transfer payments. So Smith is right in this regard.

Yes it does, but it is also not correct to say that equalization payments are included in revenue.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Except Quebec, having lived there, has pretty high tax rates. People complain about taxes here, can't imagine what they'd think of this

0-40,000 = 16%
40,001-80,200 = 20%
80,201+ = 24%

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Slava

Opportunism and vote buying?

From whom, the teachers union?

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Except Quebec, having lived there, has pretty high tax rates. People complain about taxes here, can't imagine what they'd think of this

I'm not saying the QC tax rates are low just lower than what they should be to provide the social program they ask for.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I stated that Quebec's expenditures have nothing to do with the amount of equalization payments it recieves.

You said their spending is based on revenues.

They count transfers as revenues.

So which is it?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Remember when you factor in Federal Tax, you're talking about 31% for those under $40,000. If you had higher taxes no one could realistically afford to live there. I suspect those numbers are about right, not over or under inflated.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Remember when you factor in Federal Tax, you're talking about 31% for those under $40,000. If you had higher taxes no one could realistically afford to live there. I suspect those numbers are about right, not over or under inflated.

Add in the QST of 14.5%, it's 45.5% for those under $40K. You're pretty much working for the government for the privilege of living in the great state of QC.

If you don't want AB to be like that, vote WR!

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by redforever

They measure provincial fiscal capacity by using five tax bases: personal income tax, business income tax, consumption tax, property tax and natural resources. 50% of natural resource revenues are excluded in determining each province’s fiscal capacity.

That determines how much revenue per capita each province is able to raise. That number varies by province...some have higher fiscal capacities than others.

Those per capita revenue figures are then compared to the national standard which is now based on the average incomes of all 10 provinces. The Atlantic provinces fall under the Atlantic Accord.

Whether a province receives equalization, and how much it receives, is based on its comparison to the national standard. If you are below the national standard, you receive equalization payments. If you are above the national standard, you do not receive equalization payments.

Thanks, it always disheartening to see how few people actually understand what equalization is and how it works.

The concept is so amendable to distortion and illusion by talk radio "the federal government is forcing us to pay money to Quebec!!!"

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

You said their spending is based on revenues.

They count transfers as revenues.

So which is it?

I did? This was my post:

Originally Posted by Makarov

Smith clearly has no clue how equalization payments work. Quebec's expenditures have absolutely nothing to do with how much it recieves in equalization transfers. It is entirely based on revenues.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in the above quoted post. I meant that equalization transfers are based entirely on (potential) provincial revenues. If a province would obtain below average revenue by using a calculated average Canadian tax rate, it recieves transfer payments. Therefore, how it spends its money, or indeed, what its actual tax rates are, are irrelevant.

[Tinordi]

If you're going to criticize equalization please do everyone a favour and at least understand how it works. Criticisms leveled on this page are not valid.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Add in the QST of 14.5%, it's 45.5% for those under $40K. You're pretty much working for the government for the privilege of living in the great state of QC.

If you don't want AB to be like that, vote WR!

My 31% considers that (16% Quebec + 15% lowest bracket level, though it can actually be more than 31% because the Federal brackets change at 38,000 if I remember). And if you want to have your own provinicial police force here in AB like there is in Quebec, and your own pension plan like there is in Quebec, that money has to come from somewhere....like tax increases?

[kn]

I think it was Robert Mansell at the University of Calgary who did a study showing that Alberta has been the biggest net contributor to the federation while Quebec was the biggest debtor.

I don't have the study in front of me, just going by memory.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Just for clarity ~~ since you both quoted me....

I have not claimed it was an honor killing, nor have I denied there was outrage. I simply posted a link in response to someone asking what the other poster was referring to.

Just to be clear, I didn't mean to imply that you had characterized this offence as an "honour killing". I know that you just provided the link to the article (thanks again, btw.) Sorry for any confusion.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by kn

I think it was Robert Mansell at the University of Calgary who did a study showing that Alberta has been the biggest net contributor to the federation while Quebec was the biggest debtor.

I don't have the study in front of me, just going by memory.

Just going from my memory, Alberta is sitting on top of an (albeit sandy) ocean of petroleum, and Quebec is not.