Alberta budget news

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

What you have shown is that sales taxes raise somewhere around $1200-1700 annually on a per capita basis. With Alberta's much superior tax base and no sales tax we still are only barely behind Ontario and BC in terms of revenues and exactly on par with Quebec.

Unfortunately, all of these provinces have significantly cheaper labour costs than Alberta. Also, all of these provinces have multi-billion dollar deficits with these revenue amounts. So Alberta has a long way to go in order to reach a sustainable revenue amount.

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

And, of course, the real kicker is that all these numbers do not include resource revenues. If Alberta had stayed the course on saving non-renewable resource revenues we could easily fund this small difference simply off of the interest of the savings.

Yes, but we haven't so, its sort of a moot observation.

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

It seems Danielle Smith was correct in showing that the Alberta Tax Advantage suggests there is no revenue shortfall at all in this province.

No, she was not (please see above.)

[nik-]

ugh, I just got a Danielle Smith robocall. I wish there was a way to block that garbage.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Unfortunately, all of these provinces have significantly cheaper labour costs than Alberta. Also, all of these provinces have multi-billion dollar deficits with these revenue amounts. So Alberta has a long way to go in order to reach a sustainable revenue amount.



Yes, but we haven't so, its sort of a moot observation.



No, she was not (please see above.)

Isnt it possible that all provinces are currently spending too much money right now. In fact given the other provinces are in multi billion dollar deficets it would appear that they have spending problems as well.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by GGG

Isnt it possible that all provinces are currently spending too much money right now. In fact given the other provinces are in multi billion dollar deficets it would appear that they have spending problems as well.

I suppose that depends on one's definition of "enough spending". I know that Ontario has alreadg passed several "austerity budgets" that included measures like public sector pay and hiring freezes. What else are Canadians willing to cut? Again, if Alberta wanted to balance its budget and also not rely on resource revenues, and wanted to achieve this without raising revenue at all, it would have to cut its spending by 30%. No matter how optimistic one might be about WRP's nebulous claims about "finding efficiencies" etc, there is no way that that number could be realized without dramatic and painful service reductions. For example, the government's two largest expenses are health and education. Are Albertans prepared to slash 30% of those budgets?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I suppose that depends on one's definition of "enough spending". I know that Ontario has alreadg passed several "austerity budgets" that included measures like public sector pay and hiring freezes. What else are Canadians willing to cut? Again, if Alberta wanted to balance its budget and also not rely on resource revenues, and wanted to achieve this without raising revenue at all, it would have to cut its spending by 30%. No matter how optimistic one might be about WRP's nebulous claims about "finding efficiencies" etc, there is no way that that number could be realized without dramatic and painful service reductions. For example, the government's two largest expenses are health and education. Are Albertans prepared to slash 30% of those budgets?

I don't think I have ever heard the WRP say that they want to balance the budget while saving every dollar gained from resource revenue? Can you provide a link for that?

On a side note, I can't foresee any situation where the province reports a $12 billion surplus and tells Edmonton that they can't get $100 million for an arena and Calgary can't get a billion for an LRT extension and the doctors can't get a raise and the million other requests for funding that come in.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I suppose that depends on one's definition of "enough spending". I know that Ontario has alreadg passed several "austerity budgets" that included measures like public sector pay and hiring freezes. What else are Canadians willing to cut? Again, if Alberta wanted to balance its budget and also not rely on resource revenues, and wanted to achieve this without raising revenue at all, it would have to cut its spending by 30%. No matter how optimistic one might be about WRP's nebulous claims about "finding efficiencies" etc, there is no way that that number could be realized without dramatic and painful service reductions. For example, the government's two largest expenses are health and education. Are Albertans prepared to slash 30% of those budgets?

While most of what you have written is purely your speculation and should be acknowledged as such, it is important to note that we have seen both of those budgets grow by leaps and bounds with no real change in outcomes. Health Care spending has grown over 100% since 1997, with very little change in measurable outcomes. Alberta spends far more than other provinces on health care and yet ranks far below other provinces. Thus, the argument that 'dramatic and painful' service reductions seems to be disingenuous at best, as with increased spending we see no change in service outcomes there is clearly no direct link between spending and outcomes.

Sadly throwing money at problems does not fix them. And cutting spending does not automatically cause problems either.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by GGG

Isnt it possible that all provinces are currently spending too much money right now. In fact given the other provinces are in multi billion dollar deficets it would appear that they have spending problems as well.

Many left wing supporters believe we should leave a deficit for our children so that they have less choices for the future than we do. It's really a sad state of mind, IMHO.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I don't think I have ever heard the WRP say that they want to balance the budget while saving every dollar gained from resource revenue? Can you provide a link for that?

On a side note, I can't foresee any situation where the province reports a $12 billion surplus and tells Edmonton that they can't get $100 million for an arena and Calgary can't get a billion for an LRT extension and the doctors can't get a raise and the million other requests for funding that come in.

Sorry, no, I'm not trying to imply that they have. That is just what I believe any government of Alberta should do. I think that it is selfish and irresponsible to use non-renewable resource revenues to keep taxes artificially low (I have no problem relying on investmen revenue from a giant Heritage Fund to keep taxes low or to fund infrastructure. ) I imagine that some people disagree with me (including the WRP).

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

While most of what you have written is purely your speculation and should be acknowledged as such, it is important to note that we have seen both of those budgets grow by leaps and bounds with no real change in outcomes. Health Care spending has grown over 100% since 1997, with very little change in measurable outcomes. Alberta spends far more than other provinces on health care and yet ranks far below other provinces. Thus, the argument that 'dramatic and painful' service reductions seems to be disingenuous at best, as with increased spending we see no change in service outcomes there is clearly no direct link between spending and outcomes.

Sadly throwing money at problems does not fix them. And cutting spending does not automatically cause problems either.

I anxiously await your substantive proposals to painlessly cut 30% (roughly 13 billion dollars) from the government of Alberta's budget. (Oh, and no speculation allowed apparently. )

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I anxiously await your substantive proposals to painlessly cut 30% (roughly 13 billion dollars) from the government of Alberta's budget. (Oh, and no speculation allowed apparently. )

Cutting spending, increasing efficiencies, lowering taxes I'd assume will all be involved in the answer. Whatever the hell all those incredibly general and vague things mean.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Many left wing supporters believe we should leave a deficit for our children so that they have less choices for the future than we do. It's really a sad state of mind, IMHO.

What about saving for them the money from all of that oil we're digging out of their future ground?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I anxiously await your substantive proposals to painlessly cut 30% (roughly 13 billion dollars) from the government of Alberta's budget. (Oh, and no speculation allowed apparently. )

Here's a plan I like. http://www.wildrosecaucus.ca/media/2...an-for-web.pdf

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

What about saving for them the money from all of that oil we're digging out of their future ground?

Totally agree with saving them and using the interest to fund general revenues, keeping the Alberta tax Advantage going. It's exactly what the CTF and Wildrose party supported.

Unfortunately, since our last debt was paid off, we've seen most of that money go directly towards public sector salaries.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Cutting spending, increasing efficiencies, lowering taxes I'd assume will all be involved in the answer. Whatever the hell all those incredibly general and vague things mean.

You'll want to focus on the last half of the Wildrose platform for all your details on cutting spending and increasing efficiencies Clay. I don't think anyone wants to lower taxes since we are now in a deficit position.

I'm sure you've already read it. Or maybe you just like to spew nonsense?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Or maybe you just like to spew nonsense?

Most ironic quote in the thread?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Here's a plan I like. http://www.wildrosecaucus.ca/media/2...an-for-web.pdf

Sorry, even if one accepts those vague numbers (I don't), you still have $11 billion to cut until you aren't relying on resource revenue to keep taxes artificially low.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Most ironic quote in the thread?

How about you bring some substance to this thread?

Which of the Wildrose cost cutting measures do you think would be the least effective?

Why do you think it's reasonable for every province in Canada to carry debt? How much debt would you like your children to inherit?

It only took about 7 times asking Makarov for some numbers to get an answer. I wonder how many times it will take for you to offer something of value.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

While most of what you have written is purely your speculation and should be acknowledged as such, it is important to note that we have seen both of those budgets grow by leaps and bounds with no real change in outcomes. Health Care spending has grown over 100% since 1997, with very little change in measurable outcomes. Alberta spends far more than other provinces on health care and yet ranks far below other provinces. Thus, the argument that 'dramatic and painful' service reductions seems to be disingenuous at best, as with increased spending we see no change in service outcomes there is clearly no direct link between spending and outcomes.

Sadly throwing money at problems does not fix them. And cutting spending does not automatically cause problems either.

So you are saying that more people, who are older and require the health care system more costs more money? Good observation... how you get from that to how we need to cut funding to the health care system is beyond me.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

So you are saying that more people, who are older and require the health care system more costs more money? Good observation... how you get from that to how we need to cut funding to the health care system is beyond me.

Because if you increase my taxes you're going to burn in hell. Only cutting spending is the answer, period.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Sorry, even if one accepts those vague numbers (I don't), you still have $11 billion to cut until you aren't relying on resource revenue to keep taxes artificially low.

Introduction of rational private health care reforms modeled after Switzerland, France, and Ontario could reduce costs drastically and is a necessary change needed for a sustainable system.

That would likely result in huge savings as well. Nobody is saying these changes happen overnight, but it's definitely time to return to fiscal conservatism in this province. We wasted a golden opportunity given to us by Ralph Klein.

Just because it's a large mountain doesn't mean you don't take the first step and stay in the swamp.