Alberta Politics Thread

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by polak

Having kids sounds like a nightmare. Seriously.

I don't think I could have kids unless I was making double what I'm making now. I stress enough over my own finances let alone having to take care of someone else.

Screw the money. They can really try you patience at times. That said I wouldn't change a thing.

[polak]

Yeah don't get me wrong, I like the idea of having a kid and that whole romanticized idea of being a parent but when I actually sit and think about all of the consequences, well, I can't see it being the cards any time soon.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by WCan_Kid

I think the problem Ironhorse is alluding to is that the current "tax the rich" attitude is hitting a lot of people who aren't necessarily rich, just finally in a position to actually enjoy the fruits of their labor. The truly rich, those who can actually afford these changes without noticing a drop in their lifestyles, just leave or find new tax shelters.

I agree with all of this, but at the same time, I'm also finally at a position after years of school with no breaks inbetween, working underpaid, volunteering, etc... that I can (or could) afford nice vacations for myself. Join those Yatch Week trips and what not. But I can't because I made the choice to invest my money in a home, so saving up to go on vacations with my buddys who take at least one a year is very very difficult. But it was my choice to get the house, just like it was Ironhorse's choice to have kids. He earned his way tonthe point that havinkids is a viable option and chose that route. I don't think having kids is a viable option for me at this point even if I wanted to.

[WCan_Kid]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I agree with all of this, but at the same time, I'm also finally at a position after years of school with no breaks inbetween, working underpaid, volunteering, etc... that I can (or could) afford nice vacations for myself. Join those Yatch Week trips and what not. But I can't because I made the choice to invest my money in a home, so saving up to go on vacations with my buddys who take at least one a year is very very difficult. But it was my choice to get the house, just like it was Ironhorse's choice to have kids.

Sure, but who's to say Ironhorse didn't go through that same thing before deciding to sacrifice for a few more years in order to have kids?
Work through school to keep student loans in line, live frugally in your 20's so you can buy a house, now you're in a position to have children so you spend your 30's putting money into your kids and saving for their future, then when you finally get to a place where you can maybe take them on a trip or buy a new motorcycle someone decides that they aren't getting their "fair share" and boom, you're back to having limited disposable income.

Most of us did those things

[heep223]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

$2000/m for 2 kids is about standard without going all fancy pants.

As someone with their first kid en route:

Spoiler!

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Interesting pickup today in the legislature and reported by Don Braid.

NDP environment talk about Alberta facing catastrophic weather because of climate change.

NDP goes on to cut forest fire budget to $86 million. Last two years it was $500 million, and the year before that it was $200 million.

Easy way to cut $400 million from the projected deficeit. Problem is risk that equipment and resources move out of province where there are more guaranteed contracts and require a premium to come back on short notice.

The thing that's really perplexing in all the NDP hate is that very little backlash was ever heard every time the conservatives took out the axe.....which was pretty frequent and to things that really mattered.

If you have to pay a premium to bring in extra fire equipment so be it. I guarantee you that there were some conservative sweetheart contracts in there that had to go anyway. People should be angry that we were not put in a better position for times like these by terrible PC leadership when they had a literal gravy train rolling in.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by WCan_Kid

Sure, but who's to say Ironhorse didn't go through that same thing before deciding to sacrifice for a few more years in order to have kids?
Work through school to keep student loans in line, live frugally in your 20's so you can buy a house, now you're in a position to have children so you spend your 30's putting money into your kids and saving for their future, then when you finally get to a place where you can maybe take them on a trip or buy a new motorcycle someone decides that they aren't getting their "fair share" and boom, you're back to having limited disposable income.

Most of us did those things

Exactly. Most of us have done those things. But some people made different choices along the way. Let me put it this way, if someone had done things all the exact same as Ironhorse, but didn't have kids, he could afford to do the things we're talking about. But it was his choice to gear his life towards setting himself up for raising a family, and good on him and his SO, but it means sacrificing these things. Just like someone that was in the same financial position, but didn't have kids, sacrificed all the benefits of having a family for more financial freedom.

But on the whole, I agree that its not the people like Ironhorse that should be getting hit with overbearing tax, it's the people at the very very top (like the one who just decided to take his funds and run) that should be getting hit up. But they have methods of avoiding it, unfortunately.

[shermanator]

Currently my wife and I are currently trying to figure out whether we want to have one kid or two (trying to get another year of being DINK's in). The perceived financial burden of two kids seems a little higher than we can manage, specifically daycare for two kids costing as much as our mortgage is the big shocker. So, one kid will probably win out.

And this is with two incomes in the 70k range, and a house price about 5% above the median price in Calgary. Not living large by any means but comfortable. We aren't hurting at all without kids but with one kid, money will definitely be tight.

I think that the perceived wealth of those making 70k in this city is overstated. I would be shocked if anyone couldn't comfortably live on that amount, but factor in kids and it's not as much as people think. I'm convinced kids are simply financial death traps waiting to happen. My parents say that you're never really financially ready to have kids, you just do it.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If you say so. I know plenty of people who have started to budge into the $100k+ territory that still maintain the "I would pay more taxes if it meant better services for those who need it" mantra.

What kind of fool wants to pay more taxes?

If I had the choice of paying $5000 more in taxes or $5000 more to my accountant to do some fancy work to avoid paying the taxes, the money is going to my accountant.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

What kind of fool wants to pay more taxes?

If I had the choice of paying $5000 more in taxes or $5000 more to my accountant to do some fancy work to avoid paying the taxes, the money is going to my accountant.

People who give a crap about society as a collective? Unselfish people do exist in the world.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by rubecube

People who give a crap about society as a collective? Unselfish people do exist in the world.

It's not selfish to want to pay the minimum possible taxes. This isn't donating to a charity.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

It's not selfish to want to pay the minimum possible taxes. This isn't donating to a charity.

Maybe not selfish, but definitely self-interested if it comes at the expense of society as a whole.

[username]

Originally Posted by rubecube

People who give a crap about society as a collective? Unselfish people do exist in the world.

There's also the thought that you could use that money to help out family and friends in need. The money wouldn't be wasted by some useless government programs and goes directly to helping them where they need it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by username

There's also the thought that you could use that money to help out family and friends in need. The money wouldn't be wasted by some useless government programs and goes directly to helping them where they need it.

Sure, I just think it's hilarious that dude's mind is completely blown by someone thinking "Yeah, I don't really care about driving an older car and skipping a few vacations if it means free post-secondary for everyone."

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Sure, I just think it's hilarious that dude's mind is completely blown by someone thinking "Yeah, I don't really care about driving an older car and skipping a few vacations if it means free post-secondary for everyone."

Oh, come on now, thats more than a little over simplistic and idealistic, even by your normal standards.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

Oh, come on now, thats more than a little over simplistic and idealistic, even by your normal standards.

I was going for the sentiment, not nuance. Thought that was pretty obvious even by your standards

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Maybe not selfish, but definitely self-interested if it comes at the expense of society as a whole.

If you actually think your taxes are being used efficiently and appropriately to benefit society as a whole, more power to you.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Sure, I just think it's hilarious that dude's mind is completely blown by someone thinking "Yeah, I don't really care about driving an older car and skipping a few vacations if it means free post-secondary for everyone."

Just because a few people think that way doesn't mean that way of thinking should be forced onto everyone.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by shermanator

My parents say that you're never really financially ready to have kids, you just do it.

Back in the day, people got married at 22, bought their first house at 23 and started having kids. I know houses are much more expensive today and all that jazz, but my parents and their generation expected to be poor when they started a family. You never saw young kids on planes because people with young families couldn't afford to fly. The difference is that today people have usually experienced 10 or more years of not being poor as adults before they have kids. So it feels like a huge step back.

[woob]

Originally Posted by rubecube

People who give a crap about society as a collective? Unselfish people do exist in the world.

In an ideal world, the amount of taxes you pay would be in sync with how well your government is run and how well they're managing finances, supplying services, and running the province/state/country you're in. In that ideal world, if they're a good government and not crooked, then I'd happily pay the level of taxes set and wouldn't think twice about it.

But unfortunately in our reality, many think that the government of their province/state/country is not running things as best it can and so feel like taxes just go to fund corruption/unions/over-spending/etc. and do what they can to pay as little taxes as possible.

I don't think Alberta is or has been run well for a long time so I don't really blame people for trying to get as creative as possible with their tax burden. There's a lot of fat that could be trimmed in this province that would likely result in less taxation.

Anyways, just rambling.