Alberta Politics Thread

[IliketoPuck]

Again, not disagreeing that we've benefited from resource exploitation. Nor, was I opining on our current fiscal state of affairs. I've made my position on both quite clear in the past.

My comment was simply one of musing on the "hens have come home to roost" tone of Makarov's post.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Albertans have been unsustainably subsidized by energy revenues for a long time.

We are behind on either spending reductions or on taxes (or some combo of both). $11 billion a year to make up.

[Flash Walken]

[nik-]

Are we pretending that the entire country hasn't massively benefited from our resource exploitation now?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by nik-

Are we pretending that the entire country hasn't massively benefited from our resource exploitation now?

A lot of the rest of the country sure is.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by nik-

Are we pretending that the entire country hasn't massively benefited from our resource exploitation now?

No, we're not. But this is the Alberta politics thread so we're discussing how energy revenues have impacted Alberta (and what the path forward ought to look like).

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

From about 2002 to 2014, Albertans' sense of a normal lifestyle was dramatically out of whack with the rest of the developed world. Incomes were way higher and taxes were way lower. The new reality is we're going to be like everyone else now. People expecting to have the same income and pay the same extremely low taxes they paid five years ago are in for a rude awakening. Politicians will try to cover up the shortfall by running massive deficits, but eventually we'll have to get spending and taxes in line with our new reality.

I don't think their sense of a normal lifestyle was out of whack, so much as they were living within an unsustainable economic system. It was much like a workeR who spends their entire paycheque without putting anything away for savings. They will own a lot of stuff and have a fun lifestyle but eventually something will come up where they need extra money and they will be in a tough spot. Basically our government has been living paycheque to paycheque for a long time and now the extras they had to use a credit card to cover until the next expected oil boom have to be paid for but the boom funds aren't coming in. So we have to look at how we can prevent this from happening again, while at the same time paying off that credit card. It wouldn't be easy for an individual and it's certainly not going to be easy for the province, but if we keep doing business as usual it's only a matter of time before we find ourselves back where we currently are at.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I don't think their sense of a normal lifestyle was out of whack, so much as they were living within an unsustainable economic system. It was much like a workeR who spends their entire paycheque without putting anything away for savings. They will own a lot of stuff and have a fun lifestyle but eventually something will come up where they need extra money and they will be in a tough spot. Basically our government has been living paycheque to paycheque for a long time and now the extras they had to use a credit card to cover until the next expected oil boom have to be paid for but the boom funds aren't coming in. So we have to look at how we can prevent this from happening again, while at the same time paying off that credit card. It wouldn't be easy for an individual and it's certainly not going to be easy for the province, but if we keep doing business as usual it's only a matter of time before we find ourselves back where we currently are at.

Like a family or person living paycheck to paycheck, I assume you are all for making drastic provincial spending reductions immediately? And of course for taking quick action to increase investment and business development in the province by doing things like lowering taxes, lowering the cost of doing business, easing regulations and burdens to build up a strong tax resilient base?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Hes

I would much rather have a small fee attached on a per-use basis over a certain income. It would go directly to health care. If you are constantly taxing the health care system with trips to the clinic with every sniffle, then you would pay extra. I would make routine physicals exempt and also exempt certain chronic conditions.

The issue I have in that approach is that it creates an environment where those who need treatment can't afford it.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Like a family or person living paycheck to paycheck, I assume you are all for making drastic provincial spending reductions immediately? And of course for taking quick action to increase investment and business development in the province by doing things like lowering taxes, lowering the cost of doing business, easing regulations and burdens to build up a strong tax resilient base?

Those solutions don't always work in that they can add to the problem. The easiest way for a government to get rid of a deficit would be to cut all programs while still taxing people, if even at a reduced rate. But then you will eventually need to not only reimplement those systems at some point, but also pay for the problems that were created in their absence. Cut all road work funding for a year, yeah you'll save a lot of money but the roads will be a mess and more costly to fix at that time then if you'd just done regular maintenance. Cuts need to be done in the right area and funds need to come from the right sources. It's all about balance. Some things may need to be cut or put on hold, but front loading another area does not help long term. We could give oil and gas companies all the breaks in the world right now and it might help in the short term, but if the price of oil dips again and they stop production, we won't have gained anything from it and we'd be right back where we started.

[chemgear]

No one is suggesting to cut ALL programs nor easing economic burdens into perpetuity in your extreme case. Pushing something to an extreme that is unrealistic is not a good complaint against doing it in moderation. As mentioned before, increase taxes or minimum wage, or the cost of doing business when it make sense. Not when the economy is already in difficulty. By doing so, you're just creating the extreme case you are claiming on the other side of the spectrum.

There is little to no plan for material reductions or controlling spending now or in the future. Nevermind the significant additional tax and economic burdens that are being placed on the economy by the government that is pushing additional layoffs going forward, reduction of hours, and increased cost of living.

I would suggest that the government has gone from living from paycheck to paycheck (as you described) to proudly denying reality and now grabbing several dozen credit cards, buying gift cards for their friends and merely just desperately hoping for one single thing make things right.

The very thing that you want to get away from (likely a good idea btw) - a bounce back and continued (further?) reliance on higher oil and gas prices and royalty revenue.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by chemgear

No one is suggesting to cut ALL programs nor easing economic burdens into perpetuity in your extreme case. Pushing something to an extreme that is unrealistic is not a good complaint against doing it in moderation. As mentioned before, increase taxes or minimum wage, or the cost of doing business when it make sense. Not when the economy is already in difficulty. By doing so, you're just creating the extreme case you are claiming on the other side of the spectrum.

There is little to no plan for material reductions or controlling spending now or in the future. Nevermind the significant additional tax and economic burdens that are being placed on the economy by the government that is pushing additional layoffs going forward, reduction of hours, and increased cost of living.

I would suggest that the government has gone from living from paycheck to paycheck (as you described) to proudly denying reality and now grabbing several dozen credit cards, buying gift cards for their friends and merely just desperately hoping for one single thing make things right.

The very thing that you want to get away from (likely a good idea btw) - a bounce back and continued (further?) reliance on higher oil and gas prices and royalty revenue.

Has spending increased at all? Or is it just a total lack of income?

[Fuzz]

Just a quick check, but in 2014-15 expenses were 48.4 Billion, 2015-16 49.9B, 2016-2017 51.1B (forecast). So population growth +inflation?

Revenues went from 49.5B to 41.4 B. So it's really a revenue story, not a drunken spending spree.

A sobering look is in the 2014 budget...Oil forecasted to be about $95, the Dollar around 0.91. Woops!

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Just a quick check, but in 2014-15 expenses were 48.4 Billion, 2015-16 49.9B, 2016-2017 51.1B (forecast). So population growth +inflation?

Revenues went from 49.5B to 41.4 B. So it's really a revenue story, not a drunken spending spree.

A sobering look is in the 2014 budget...Oil forecasted to be about $95, the Dollar around 0.91. Woops!

Thanks Notley.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Just a quick check, but in 2014-15 expenses were 48.4 Billion, 2015-16 49.9B, 2016-2017 51.1B (forecast). So population growth +inflation?

Revenues went from 49.5B to 41.4 B. So it's really a revenue story, not a drunken spending spree.

A sobering look is in the 2014 budget...Oil forecasted to be about $95, the Dollar around 0.91. Woops!

Thanks for the numbers.

I guess if you are just comparing from year to year, that would indeed be the "story". Like a dual income family that's just had a husband or wife laid off with little prospects for future employment.

If they were previously "going paycheck to paycheck" living lavishly and in dire financial straights now with the reduction in revenue, getting their spending under control and reduced would be the logical and prudent thing most financial planners would at least consider, if not force. Continued expenditures at the same pace wouldn't exactly help the situation.

EDIT: And by keeping the spending the same in the situation, you're basically just pinning a singular hope on the fact that the laid off individual with little prospects in going to find a job that pays the same to bail you out while you continue to pile on more debt and more debt (servicing costs). Pardon my poor analogy to the "pinning your hopes on continued dependency on oil and gas revenues".

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Those solutions don't always work in that they can add to the problem. The easiest way for a government to get rid of a deficit would be to cut all programs while still taxing people, if even at a reduced rate. But then you will eventually need to not only reimplement those systems at some point, but also pay for the problems that were created in their absence. Cut all road work funding for a year, yeah you'll save a lot of money but the roads will be a mess and more costly to fix at that time then if you'd just done regular maintenance. Cuts need to be done in the right area and funds need to come from the right sources. It's all about balance. Some things may need to be cut or put on hold, but front loading another area does not help long term. We could give oil and gas companies all the breaks in the world right now and it might help in the short term, but if the price of oil dips again and they stop production, we won't have gained anything from it and we'd be right back where we started.

So what your suggesting then if we still need to do the work a 10% wage cut for all government workers would be a good way to maintain services while cutting costs substantially.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Just a quick check, but in 2014-15 expenses were 48.4 Billion, 2015-16 49.9B, 2016-2017 51.1B (forecast). So population growth +inflation?

Revenues went from 49.5B to 41.4 B. So it's really a revenue story, not a drunken spending spree.

A sobering look is in the 2014 budget...Oil forecasted to be about $95, the Dollar around 0.91. Woops!

Sure but what the numbers point to to is a government that has made no cuts anywhere and just increased taxes. So it's one thing to say people have to get used to a higher tax regime to replace the oil revenues, and honestly I think most Albertans grudgingly accept this. What's hard to accept is that the government isn't cutting spending anywhere.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Has spending increased at all? Or is it just a total lack of income?

We already knew we were overspending before Notley came in. The fact that the Redford/Prentice Tories did it first in no way mitigates the fact that Notley continues to overspend.

So, yeah. When speaking of "rude awakenings" that the population needs to face, I would suggest the cradle to grave supporters might consider the fact that services spending needs to be cut too.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

So what your suggesting then if we still need to do the work a 10% wage cut for all government workers would be a good way to maintain services while cutting costs substantially.

It would really depend on a lot of factors, obviously more efficient operations would be the first place to start. Wage cuts can happen and are an option if a situation warrants it. Wage freezes are typically the first and better option in that direction. With the higher taxes, a wage freeze would have more of a positive impact IMO than reducing wages. Reducing wages would reduce both tax revenue as well as economic consumer spending revenue, whereas freezing wages would increase revenue while only reducing economic consumer spending revenue.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure but what the numbers point to to is a government that has made no cuts anywhere and just increased taxes. So it's one thing to say people have to get used to a higher tax regime to replace the oil revenues, and honestly I think most Albertans grudgingly accept this. What's hard to accept is that the government isn't cutting spending anywhere.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

We already knew we were overspending before Notley came in. The fact that the Redford/Prentice Tories did it first in no way mitigates the fact that Notley continues to overspend.

So, yeah. When speaking of "rude awakenings" that the population needs to face, I would suggest the cradle to grave supporters might consider the fact that services spending needs to be cut too.

I understand where you are both coming from, but there are some facts that support this action. Please try to read this without your anti NDP hats on, I'm not trying to justify their actions based on the party. We will have more tax revenue coming in, this will potentially help stop the bleeding. They will also maintain the services we currently have which people would not like to see go(nobody likes to downsize), this will also avoid paying ballooning catch up costs if they did reduce services and spending(ie road work). There have also been reports of oil bouncing back next year, that also potentially adds a boost. They are also trying to get pipelines approved(whether you agree or not with their way of doing it) which will also potentially provide a boost.

Now you probably noticed I said these thing could potentially help in most cases, what they are basically doing right now is waiting to see, sure is it us as taxpayers who could potentially end up with a bigger deficit to pay off if a year goes by and there are no improvements or not enough? Yes, but there is a potential that the problem could start showing signs of improvement as well, and we could get ourselves out of the situation we're in without cutting funding or programs unnecessarily.

Cutting programs now, as I've said before, can be potentially more expensive than maintaining programs in the long run. If we want something eventually we will pay for it one way or another. I'm not saying it should not be considered on a case by case basis, but if there is an opportunity to fix the problem without reducing our services I think that option needs to be explored first. It's a gamble either way, and this is the more sensible option to take first in my opinion. If this way doesn't work, you can turn to cuts. But if you start with cuts and that doesn't work, do you really think taxpayers are going to want to have taxes raised after you've already cut programs?