Alberta budget news

[yads]

Originally Posted by woob

Re-instate health care premiums, put in a 4-5% sales tax, and create a more progressive income tax structure. On the government side, cut the fat in staffing, claw back some of the salary hikes which have been noted in earlier posts, and look at spending reform.

I feel like we're the people who win the lotto and then spend recklessly and wonder what happened to all our money. And this happens every few years but we don't learn any lessons. Instead of sending cheques to every Albertan, invest in new major infrastructure projects or put it in the heritage fund.

Note: This opinion is based on my limited knowledge of the issues at hand and the fact that I don't mind paying more taxes in attempt to flatten the roller-coaster budgets we have.

I think this is a good starting point, although I would be wary of a sales tax. When things are rosy again, I can see the government keeping it around and just ratcheting spending up again.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Clearly the Wild Rose had some form of advance knowledge and projected that the WCS and Edmonton par differentials would be horrificly horrific come December 2012. Oh wait, nope, no they didn't.
Being optimistic on projections is one thing, but having gas at a buck fifty all summer and liquids differentials slaughtered in a matter of months isn't something anyone saw coming.

Could you elaborate on what the differentials are and were? I'm being serious here because I have read that the difference between now and the election is about $1/barrel.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Carbon tax would be the best. Would provide Alberta cover for the storm of crap that is coming down on it from the oil sands, and would actually help to extract value from the costs of pollution.

As a carbon tax, are you proposing a tax directly on the end purchase of carbon based fuels?
Has anyone looked at how much money can be raised without destroying several sectors of the economy?
What happens if a carbon tax works? Everyone cuts back on their consumption and the revenue dries up or does the tax go up to collect the same amount of money?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Rathji

If the majority would prefer no tax increases, as you claim, does it remain a majority if no new taxes is also coupled with substantial cuts to programs?

No one wants to pay taxes, but I have a feeling that more taxes are a lot more palatable when you compare it against cutting the services that people want.

How about we demand getting reasonable results for what we spend on services instead of imagining that cutting spending = reduced results?

As we have seen, massive increasing in spending over the past years has really had no measurable effect on outcomes whatsoever. Most provinces in Canada spend considerably less than Alberta does, but yet they have comparable, or even better outcomes for that spending.

Alberta is like the lottery winner who buys custom Ford GT but doesn't get to work any faster than his neighbor driving a civic but thinks downgrading to a Subaru is going to really impact his commute time.

Spending does not guarantee outcomes.

[Jason14h]

The reason people are always so opposed to taxes (Other then the obvious less money for them) is the government has shown since the creation of taxes, that the more they get, the more they will spend. Do you really think a 5% sales tax won't just mean they will pay themselves 5% more!

Look at health care. How much money was injected..... And how little the quality of service has actually improved.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

How about we demand getting reasonable results for what we spend on services instead of imagining that cutting spending = reduced results?

As we have seen, massive increasing in spending over the past years has really had no measurable effect on outcomes whatsoever. Most provinces in Canada spend considerably less than Alberta does, but yet they have comparable, or even better outcomes for that spending.

Alberta is like the lottery winner who buys custom Ford GT but doesn't get to work any faster than his neighbor driving a civic but thinks downgrading to a Subaru is going to really impact his commute time.

Spending does not guarantee outcomes.

I have no problems with this, where possible, however Azure was assuming that the majority of Albertans would rather have cuts than pay any tax increase.

There is a point in the spending/tax equilibrium where this is almost certainly true, but assuming it is true at all points is foolish.

For example: I think it would be safe to assume that the majority of the population would support freezing MLA wages before increasing taxes to pay allow the wage increases. On the other hand, the support numbers would be quite obviously different if we were talking about increasing taxes to pay for current levels of Health Care or Education funding.

This also doesn't take into account that half the people in the province are likely comparable to a turnip when talking about their economic 'smarts', which really makes you wonder why would you (as a random person - not an elected official) would advocate for something that is popular instead of something that would be the best for the province.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Carbon tax would be the best. Would provide Alberta cover for the storm of crap that is coming down on it from the oil sands, and would actually help to extract value from the costs of pollution.

Hmmm, what's the carbon footprint of living inner city versus the far outlying communities?

Tax all those parasite communities hard!

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Do you really think a 5% sales tax won't just mean they will pay themselves 5% more!

Yes, I really, really, really do think that. Perhaps you can provide some evidence of a causal link between the imposition of sales taxes in other provinces and increases in MLA salaries?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Yes, I really, really, really do think that. Perhaps you can provide some evidence of a causal link between the imposition of sales taxes in other provinces and increases in MLA salaries?

Was Jason referring to themselves as politicians or more generally as public servants.
With salaries being the single biggest expense I am sure there is a link between government revenue and the salaries of people employed in the public sector.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

The reason people are always so opposed to taxes (Other then the obvious less money for them) is the government has shown since the creation of taxes, that the more they get, the more they will spend. Do you really think a 5% sales tax won't just mean they will pay themselves 5% more!

Look at health care. How much money was injected..... And how little the quality of service has actually improved.

I honestly don't know, is there some sort of metric for measuring the quality of service for health care in a province that you are basing this statement on?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Was Jason referring to themselves as politicians or more generally as public servants.
With salaries being the single biggest expense I am sure there is a link between government revenue and the salaries of people employed in the public sector.

I'm not sure what else he could have meant by "pay themselves more"? Civil servants do not have the authority to raise taxes in order to raise their salaries. Incidentally, collective bargaining between government employers and civil servant unions is often the most acrimonious.

In any event, I would love to see some data supporting even the hypothesis that a rise in government revenue causes a rise in civil servant salaries. Off the top of my head, austerity measures currently being taken in Europe clearly disprove such a theory.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Rathji

If the majority would prefer no tax increases, as you claim, does it remain a majority if no new taxes is also coupled with substantial cuts to programs?

No one wants to pay taxes, but I have a feeling that more taxes are a lot more palatable when you compare it against cutting the services that people want.

The problem is that Albertans have a natural distrust for the government, and the way the PCs have been handling everything isn't going to work well for them if they come out and say 'if you want to keep your services, you have to pay more taxes'....when spending has shot through the roof, and services are...okay?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

The reason people are always so opposed to taxes (Other then the obvious less money for them) is the government has shown since the creation of taxes, that the more they get, the more they will spend. Do you really think a 5% sales tax won't just mean they will pay themselves 5% more!

Look at health care. How much money was injected..... And how little the quality of service has actually improved.

Which just goes to show how inefficient the public sector is at getting results.

Makes you wonder if you could get the same services with less spending, why not....spend less? Shocking, I know, but hey...if you can't afford it....

Of course, the PCs love spending, and Alberta has, and still has to a point(savings)...money to blow, so instead of fixing the inefficiencies and getting more bang for you buck, just throw more money at it.

Most people that have relocated from Alberta to other provinces will come back and tell you how good Albertans have it. Obviously the oil money has a lot to do with that, but other provinces are spending considerably less, and are trying and at times succeeding at making the most of it.

[chemgear]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...n-redford.html

The head of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees says cutting jobs while the province is growing, is not the best solution to the province's financial troubles.

"The front lines are already drowned in workload and the stress levels of front line workers has been increasing over time as the population increases, and the demand on services increases," said Smith.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I honestly don't know, is there some sort of metric for measuring the quality of service for health care in a province that you are basing this statement on?

Calgary Sun link, but hey.

In eight years the amount of dough spent per person on health care in Alberta has gone from $3,994 to a forecast $6,570, a whopping 64% increase.

“We’re actually spending more money on more people,” says Dr. John Cowell, the quality council’s main man.

“This is a true increase in spending regardless of the population increase.”

Alberta spends, baby. Another recent survey ranks big-spending Alberta seven out of ten provinces when it comes to how much value comes from the dollars going into health care.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/01/22...h-care-quality

Goes on to say that the system has to be a lot better to provide Albertans appropriate value for the amount of money that is being put into healthcare.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by chemgear

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...n-redford.html

The head of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees says cutting jobs while the province is growing, is not the best solution to the province's financial troubles.

"The front lines are already drowned in workload and the stress levels of front line workers has been increasing over time as the population increases, and the demand on services increases," said Smith.

Granted, that is exactly what you would expect them to say when their jobs are on the line.

Alberta needs an outside 'audit' of the complete system, similar to what Ontario did.

Every single public union is going to claim spending cuts are bad. They're like leeches when it comes to this stuff.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Azure

Calgary Sun link, but hey.



http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/01/22...h-care-quality

Goes on to say that the system has to be a lot better to provide Albertans appropriate value for the amount of money that is being put into healthcare.

Ok, but what part of health care system obtained with that money didn't improve enough?

That is, how is the 'little improvement' measured?

[Sylvanfan]

This is always an issue. Governments committ more funding for healthy and education.....but do they do a good enough job of setting targets, and ensuring that these targets are met?

I mean when they committ 480 million to an arena with 100 million from the province...they expect a bloody arena to be built that operates. They get a measured result out of it. But with health or education funding...I'm not so sure they are doing a good enough job of it. Personally I think elected health boards, and trying to get the public to take a greater interest in this is the best solution. That way if a certain health board has a poor track record of spending and results, they can be removed in 5 years time.

[afc wimbledon]

Just so were clear Keynsian theory posits that goverments should cut back in good times and run a surplus, holding back money and jobs for the inevitable down turn in the private sector.

Idealy they would save all of their capital investments for recessions in order to stimulate the economy when times are bad.

[para transit fellow]

I was looking for some history on Energy royalty revenues and I found this chart in a twitter post.

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/Org/pdf...enuesGraph.pdf

Does anyone know why Alberta no longer collects royalties on conventional oil?