The Alison Redford transgressions thread. Update- Redford quits.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Categorizing taxes in Alberta as the boogeyman is a big exaggeration and shows an ignorance and out of touchness with the average Alberta voter.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

To me increased taxes isn't as much a boogey man as its become a platform of lazy government.

Who are these mysterious lazy governments in Alberta who are always raising taxes? I can't even remember the last big provincial tax hike that affected the average voter, and I remember a long long way back.

They can raise taxes *and* look for ways to save at the same time. Otherwise you eventually end up like California, where an extremely rich jurisdiction is run into the ground and broke because all the voters were and are more interested in the magic waste-cutting fairy than in realistic solutions to real problems.

[CaptainCrunch]

I was talking more in generalities Jammies

[nik-]

All I care about is that any tax increases come in the form of a consumption tax and not higher income taxes.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think Alberta should tax its corporate membership significantly higher. I think personal income taxes should be raised. I think the royalty percentage generated by oil and gas development needs to be significantly raised. I think oilsands development should be slowed and staggered significantly. I think election reform should be the top priority for any incoming premier. I think public infrastructure spending should be made the second priority of any incoming premier. I think the premier's office should strongly advocate to albertans the need a staggering increase in education investment. As part of that educational investment, I think the Alberta government should prioritize sustainable energy growth and invest in the technical expertise to bring that growth to Alberta.

Your turn.

Edit: And you can't say the words "waste" or "entitlement".

I think policies you have listed above would have devastating effects upon the economy in this province and turn us into a have-not state nearly overnight.

I feel reducing spending is the most significant issue facing the province. I think a great start to reducing spending would be instituting the 25 cost saving measures proposed by the Wildrose Party. I think recognizing that almost all of the increased spending over the past 10 years has gone towards public salaries instead of improvements to the system is critical to realizing why our budget is so out of balance.

I also think we need some real leadership in changing the health care system which is clearly unsustainable in it's current form. Moving towards cheaper and much more successful systems involving parallel delivery such as in Germany and Switzerland would get my vote overnight. Unfortunately no party advocates this stance right now.

[nik-]

haha

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Can someone link the thread that lead to First Lady's exit again? I know I saw it somewhere but I can't find it...

She and her husband give Wildrose a bad name. They're truly embarrassing. What they did was pathetic.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I was talking more in generalities Jammies

Generalities are generally (hah!) based on specifics. So, specifically, where does this fear of unnecessary and exorbitant taxation arise? It must come from somewhere, because it's brought up in every single discussion of the provincial deficit, and possible solutions, that I've ever seen on CP, by a wide variety of posters. and not just you.

I think that if a possible solution is dismissed without discussion, there are only two likely reasons: one, the solution is obviously impractical after even cursory review (although this didn't stop the Socreds back in the day from implementing all kinds of loony economic policies); or two, the dismissal is on the basis of reflexive ideology and not reason.

There is an optimal level of taxation which maximizes government revenue while minimizing the negative effects on the economy. The idea that this optimal level is always below the current level is an ideological touchstone of "fiscally responsible" people, but that doesn't make it true. Nor is the idea that giving the government more money automatically equates to it being exclusively spent on waste any more rational, nor true. When I see people making either of those arguments, I have trouble taking their further arguments seriously, because they aren't really arguments so much as axioms: either believe, or disbelieve, but either way discussion is likely to be pointless.

[Acey]

@NewsTalk770: .@Dfildebrandt says severance package for @Premier_Redford's chief of staff = $316,274. $103,914 for @sbaranski [Stefan Baranski].

[crazy_eoj]

Alison Redford was elected in 2012, promising to "balance the budget by 2012-13 without raising taxes." She inherited a 200 million dollar deficit from Steady Eddie.

She resigns today having accumulated over 8.3 BILLION dollars in debt for all Albertans, with a plan to run that to 21 Billion by 2016.

It's somewhat amazing that she was ousted on a 45k expense.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Acey

@NewsTalk770: .@Dfildebrandt says severance package for @Premier_Redford's chief of staff = $316,274. $103,914 for @sbaranski [Stefan Baranski].

Nice work if you can get it.

That's a gift for the opposition parties.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Alison Redford was elected in 2012, promising to "balance the budget by 2012-13 without raising taxes." She inherited a 200 million dollar deficit from Steady Eddie.

She resigns today having accumulated over 8.3 BILLION dollars in debt for all Albertans, with a plan to run that to 21 Billion by 2016.

It's somewhat amazing that she was ousted on a 45k expense.

Danielle Smith was also elected in 2012 and promised they could balance the budget. You recognize that with their budget document this year it was a deficit as well, right? I know you're going to say "well they don't have power, so it doesn't count" (or something like that). To me that only makes it worse. Here the opposition doesn't even have to deliver, and they can't get the books to balance. That doesn't fill me with confidence that were they in power they could somehow make it work out.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I think policies you have listed above would have devastating effects upon the economy in this province and turn us into a have-not state nearly overnight.

I feel reducing spending is the most significant issue facing the province. I think a great start to reducing spending would be instituting the 25 cost saving measures proposed by the Wildrose Party. I think recognizing that almost all of the increased spending over the past 10 years has gone towards public salaries instead of improvements to the system is critical to realizing why our budget is so out of balance.

I also think we need some real leadership in changing the health care system which is clearly unsustainable in it's current form. Moving towards cheaper and much more successful systems involving parallel delivery such as in Germany and Switzerland would get my vote overnight. Unfortunately no party advocates this stance right now.

Those aren't solutions, those are ideas. You basically just said this:

The best way to be successful is to reduce spending because all of the bad things that happened in the province happened because we increased spending.

Also, I think we should fix healthcare so it is better.

Do you hear how ridiculous that sounds?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Slava

Danielle Smith was also elected in 2012 and promised they could balance the budget. You recognize that with their budget document this year it was a deficit as well, right? I know you're going to say "well they don't have power, so it doesn't count" (or something like that). To me that only makes it worse. Here the opposition doesn't even have to deliver, and they can't get the books to balance. That doesn't fill me with confidence that were they in power they could somehow make it work out.

It will take more than a single budget to fill in the hole that the PC party dug under Redford.
And besides, if they presented a budget that said they could eliminate 8 billion dollars in spending this year there is not a chance that you would believe it.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

It will take more than a single budget to fill in the hole that the PC party dug under Redford.
And besides, if they presented a budget that said they could eliminate 8 billion dollars in spending this year there is not a chance that you would believe it.

Oh I'd believe it for sure, so long as they point out such cuts are likely to cripple service offerings or create a massive infrastructure deficit, which of course they wouldn't do because they would lose voters hand over first. Much easier and more conveninent from a political standpoint to keep it to "Cutting waste, increased efficiencies, cutback politicians salaries and benefits" and other vague, barely defined terms.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Those aren't solutions, those are ideas. You basically just said this:

The best way to be successful is to reduce spending because all of the bad things that happened in the province happened because we increased spending.

Also, I think we should fix healthcare so it is better.

Do you hear how ridiculous that sounds?

Actually not at all. Without having to put words in your mouth to create some straw man to argue againsts, the point remains: if we had kept spending in line with the rest of Canada over the past decade we would currently be sitting on a massive savings account and could be arguing over how best to spend to dividends. Is that ridiculous?

Also, fixing healthcare means mimicking parallel private/public delivery systems as modeled by the jurisdictions doing a much better job delivering outcomes.

As opposed to the past 10 years of "increasing spending" to solve the problems. Do you think pouring billions of dollars into our social programs, by far the most in Canada, has yielded superior results?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Danielle Smith was also elected in 2012 and promised they could balance the budget. You recognize that with their budget document this year it was a deficit as well, right? I know you're going to say "well they don't have power, so it doesn't count" (or something like that). To me that only makes it worse. Here the opposition doesn't even have to deliver, and they can't get the books to balance. That doesn't fill me with confidence that were they in power they could somehow make it work out.

Huh? That doesn't make any sense at all. How could Danielle Smith balance the budget in 2012 when she wasn't premier? If she WAS premier, then we could talk about the results of her plan.

So you are basically saying it's impossible to balance the budget and we should just stop trying? Because it's impossible. And no one did it. So it can't be done?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Oh I'd believe it for sure, so long as they point out such cuts are likely to cripple service offerings or create a massive infrastructure deficit, which of course they wouldn't do because they would lose voters hand over first. Much easier and more conveninent from a political standpoint to keep it to "Cutting waste, increased efficiencies, cutback politicians salaries and benefits" and other vague, barely defined terms.

If cutting spending = massive infrastructure deficits/cripples services

Then how come hugely increasing spending didn't equal massive infrastructure surplus/best services in Canada? That's exactly what we've done by piling on all this debt, and yet there doesn't seem to be any correlation...

Something doesn't add up here.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

If cutting spending = massive infrastructure deficits/cripples services

Then how come hugely increasing spending didn't equal massive infrastructure surplus/best services in Canada? That's exactly what we've done by piling on all this debt, and yet there doesn't seem to be any correlation...

Something doesn't add up here.

GP_Matt's point is that if the Wildrose could produce $8 billion in cuts, we wouldn't believe it. My point was that $8 billion in cuts would be astronomical, and there's literally no way, no matter how hard you tried, you could just get there by "cutting waste, efficiency, insert lame ass catchphrase here". In fact the Wildrose can't balance the budget in their own budget. So to get to the hypothetical $8 billion, you'd need some big time cuts, likely to places that hurt.

That the results aren't great isn't relevant because again, no way in hell do you find $8 billion in "insert lame ass catchphrase here". It just cannot be done. So even if you get maximum efficiency and minimum waste, you are not saving $8 billion. The rest of that comes from somewhere.

[GP_Matt]

I don't think the deficit can be eliminated with cuts now, it is simply too large.
Instead, to get rid of the deficit you have to grow into it while holding (slowing) the line on spending.

Or find a new source of revenue. Like taxing cargo shipments from BC.