2015 Alberta Budget Discussion

[Hanni]

nm

[GP_Matt]

I just want to see a budget where everyone has to struggle a bit. Aside from the working poor/low income people. Raise taxes in some way and reduce spending at the same time. I know we have had an easy ride for a long time and am willing to pay higher taxes to maintain services but I don't think the whole issue is a revenue problem.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Whatever number it is, it's meaningless.

Alberta has higher wage standards due to the energy sector, that's a fact of life.

You can either reduce production to reduce labour costs, or you can collect more taxes to offset those labour costs, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

This is basic economics.

This is totally untrue. You can increase productivity and ensure you are getting value for your dollars.

Unit labour costs are not a fixed variable. Saskatchewan and BC, our closest neighbors with very similar wage standards to Alberta, seem to have much higher productivity on these metrics.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by peter12

An extremely tenuously protected right, and one that could easily be overturned by section 33.

Fingers Crossed, eh?

I wouldn't call the supreme court re-affirming the rights of collective bargaining and affirming the right to strike as recently as 3 months ago to be 'tenuous', but I guess that's just me.

[Harry Lime]

This electorate is very poor at deciding what the relative importance of various issues are.

The American model of class warfare is to control the media, and bury embarrassing or high effect policy choices under a mountain of manufactured secondary issues. Canadians are getting better at this themselves, with Alberta leading the way.

Alberta sits upon one of the worlds most valuable resources, and we are running a deficit, with poorly maintained infrastructure. It would take some 'hard' policy decisions to be rolling in money by the end of the year. Instead we tax the population and manufacture talking points to move us away from reaping the rewards of our resources, or revisiting policy and taxation which has not developed as was intended.

It would be easy to just say that Alberta voters are dumb as all hell.

But what is the alternative to the perennially corrupt PCs? A couple of cartoon figures, in a far right Wildrose and a cardboard tax and spend Liberal. There is no one to vote for. It's Brewster's Millions.

What Alberta needs is a party that is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and not afraid of corporate Alberta doomsaying. That the Liberals refuse to take up this mantel is almost bizarre in its stubborn adherence to what it means to be 'Liberal'.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

This is totally untrue. You can increase productivity and ensure you are getting value for your dollars.

Unit labour costs are not a fixed variable. Saskatchewan and BC, our closest neighbors with very similar wage standards to Alberta, seem to have much higher productivity on these metrics.

Saskatchewan nurses make nearly identical to what Alberta Nurses make, an in many cases actually make more in comparison to Alberta nurses. Even then it isn't the salaries themselves that are causing the higher numbers it is the overtime associated with being continually short staffed, high sick time, the filling of lines with part time employees rather than full time lines and just the stresses of the job (and it is a stressful job)... all of which leads to the requirement for overtime, which is of course, quite expensive. The healthcare system is an area that has to operate 365 days a year, days and nights, which need to be staffed. I know that I don't make a low salary by any stretch, but I also know that at the end of a 12 hour shift, in which I have seen patient's die, cleaned up more human excrement (and other bodily fluids), been punched and yelled/sworn at, continually monitored the patients while dealing with difficult family members, performed all the daily tasks for a number of patient's from bathing and hygiene to mobilization, and safely administered medications to patient's according to their clinical status - in general keeping your loved ones alive and caring for them to the best of my abilities, I feel as though I am entitled to an above average salary.

I understand that everyone has difficult jobs, but at the same time, I don't feel as though my salary is unreasonable and it isn't what is putting this province into the poor house. A history of poor taxation policy from an electorate that is so adverse to any form taxation due to ideological beliefs.

[calf]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I just want to see a budget where everyone has to struggle a bit. Aside from the working poor/low income people. Raise taxes in some way and reduce spending at the same time. I know we have had an easy ride for a long time and am willing to pay higher taxes to maintain services but I don't think the whole issue is a revenue problem.

The impression I got from Prentice's address was that the spending cuts are coming with getting a handle on salaries and benefits leading the way, but a few years from now when the CBAs are up for re-negotiation.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

What Alberta needs is a party that is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and not afraid of corporate Alberta doomsaying. That the Liberals refuse to take up this mantel is almost bizarre in its stubborn adherence to what it means to be 'Liberal'.

It has been argued here if not in this thread, that "fiscal conservative - social liberal" is a unicorn. That you can't be both.

Ex. how can you be all for lower taxes/smaller government and social welfare?

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-be...nable-position

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by calf

The impression I got from Prentice's address was that the spending cuts are coming with getting a handle on salaries and benefits leading the way, but a few years from now when the CBAs are up for re-negotiation.

That's what he said but I don't think he has the guts to face a showdown with the unions. This budget, for example, he targeted the hapless middle class while the low and extreme high income earners relatively came out unscathed.

I don't think he has a clue of what to do or what's going on, let alone taking on the unions. So procrastination is the best political move for him right now.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

The absolute irony of your comment pretending to be concerned about the middle class is that any significant cuts to public spending will undoubtedly harm the middle class (of which all public sector employees are), to a much greater degree than spending an extra four cents a liter on petrol or health care premiums.

Also low income earners came out unscathed.... and you are complaining about that?

[nik-]

It's pretty crazy how many people apparently still buy into Reaganomics.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by troutman

It has been argued here if not in this thread, that "fiscal conservative - social liberal" is a unicorn. That you can't be both.
Ex. how can you be all for lower taxes/smaller government and social welfare?
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-be...nable-position

I should probably qualify my statements. I typed out the words as a string of thought without thinking about the meaning already associated with the words themselves. I've fallen into this hole before, writing on the internet, as it is easy to just fire off a thought and carry on.

Instead of 'fiscally conservative' I would probably construct meaning around the words themselves as opposed to their usage. I should have said something along the lines of fiscally logical and a sense of fairness, working within the means provided by reasonable demands on income. Liberals with a capital 'L' tend to spend money that they don't have, and have a rather myopic view of the future. I would argue that our Conservatives in Alberta arn't conservative thinking in their fiscal agenda, in that they also spend money, and create revenue, without thought to the future. All platforms lack a sense of fairness as presented currently.

As for 'social liberal', it has always bothered me that Liberals cannot reconcile a strong economic policy with a social platform that can be paid for within their means. For example, dealing with a large commitment issue like welfare, when there is no financial basis for supporting it, always seems crazy, but they never fail to put actions like this front and centre in their agenda. This is most likely due to the media attention that these policies cause. It is more about election than governance. Liberal social policy, paid for within the budget using money that is present and sustainable would be the ideal. If that means putting $1M against an environmental fund instead of $4B into welfare reform, when only $1M is available, that is what should occur. I would rather support a sustainable liberal platform than a sustainable conservative platform, as the conservative platform has proven itself to be a waste of time and money.

So, in a short form, what I would like to see is a government that optimizes the available income from all sources, eases the burden on the poorest citizens, saves money, collects interest, and doesn't spend outside of their means. (Fiscally Conservative is taken as a description, so perhaps Uncorrupted Conservative)

Socially I would like to see programs that support infrastructure, education, culture and the arts and the environment as opposed to the past 4 decades of failed initiatives, corporate barbeques and general asskissing to anyone in a nice suit. I would like these programs paid for with money and not credit. I would like the Heritage Fund to be unavailable as a funding source. (Social Liberal being taken, lets name these policies Social Majority, in that it helps build a community for all voters.)

And so, I would like the Liberal Party to become Uncorrupted Conservative economically, and Social Majority socially. Please. I just want someone to vote for.

[Regorium]

My only issue reading this thread and following the discussion is why people are always so focused on corporate taxes. Raising corporate taxes have been shown to reduce total tax receipts in almost every single study that has been performed on it.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/gro...orate-tax-rate
http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/201...orporation.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13756.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/41000592.pdf

It's always a catch 22 with corporate taxes. The burden placed upon companies will always trickle down to people. If we raise corporate tax, Suncor lays off 1200 people instead of 1000. Suncor isn't "hurt" by it, they grow a bit slower, pay the same amount of tax to the government. But now, the government loses out on 200 people worth of income tax and consumption tax (if there was one).

I get the feeling that the decision not to raise corporate tax rustled a lot of jimmies, but frankly it is sound economic policy in our current environment.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Regorium

My only issue reading this thread and following the discussion is why people are always so focused on corporate taxes. Raising corporate taxes have been shown to reduce total tax receipts in almost every single study that has been performed on it.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/gro...orate-tax-rate
http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/201...orporation.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13756.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/41000592.pdf

It's always a catch 22 with corporate taxes. The burden placed upon companies will always trickle down to people. If we raise corporate tax, Suncor lays off 1200 people instead of 1000. Suncor isn't "hurt" by it, they grow a bit slower, pay the same amount of tax to the government. But now, the government loses out on 200 people worth of income tax and consumption tax (if there was one).

I get the feeling that the decision not to raise corporate tax rustled a lot of jimmies, but frankly it is sound economic policy in our current environment.

That's why a PST would have been better than the smattering of consumer taxes and user fees. It taxes everyone. What are these corporations going to do, go to another province without PST?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by calf

The impression I got from Prentice's address was that the spending cuts are coming with getting a handle on salaries and benefits leading the way, but a few years from now when the CBAs are up for re-negotiation.

That's their plan. The government is already starting to brace people for labor unrest like we aren't used to. Alberta has bought or legislated their way out of labour issues in the past, and they can't do either anymore. Will albertans have an appetite for extended strikes? That'll be a major battleground for the next 12-24 months.

I think the unions will spend the election and after swinging at corporate taxes and royalties to try and get the bullseye off their back.

Prentice will use the (not entirely unconvenient) still enormous deficit to keep the public attention with threats of more service cuts job losses and tax hikes.

It'll be interesting to look for signs of whether either side feels like they are solidifying public backing, but the first agreement to come up is going to be bloody to start I think.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Regorium

My only issue reading this thread and following the discussion is why people are always so focused on corporate taxes. Raising corporate taxes have been shown to reduce total tax receipts in almost every single study that has been performed on it.

I didn't have time to read all the articles but if what we are talking about is 1% more in personal or corporate tax rate, I would argue that it's more harmful to the economy to levy it on personal.

For example, if I have to pay $1000 more in taxes, it's $1000 less I would spend on my consumption as my disposable income goes down by $1000.

Corporates are not the same, especialy big corporation. Right now the big discussion among OECD countries is base errosion, why big corporations like Starbucks and Apple only pay a few percentage points of income taxes in countries like UK and US where corporate tax rates are north of 30%.

As long as for corporations AB is the lowest or among the lowest provinces in Canada, and Canada is among the lowest taxed country in OECD, I would argue the impact of a 1% increase in corporate tax will not be felt by the economy. Certainly much less than similar increase in personal tax.

The studies you posted seem to compare corporate tax rates between 20% and 40% which is a much larger jumper than the 1% or so increase we are talking about here.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by darklord700

I didn't have time to read all the articles but if what we are talking about is 1% more in personal or corporate tax rate, I would argue that it's more harmful to the economy to levy it on personal.

For example, if I have to pay $1000 more in taxes, it's $1000 less I would spend on my consumption as my disposable income goes down by $1000.

Corporates are not the same, especialy big corporation. Right now the big discussion among OECD countries is base errosion, why big corporations like Starbucks and Apple only pay a few percentage points of income taxes in countries like UK and US where corporate tax rates are north of 30%.

As long as for corporations AB is the lowest or among the lowest provinces in Canada, and Canada is among the lowest taxed country in OECD, I would argue the impact of a 1% increase in corporate tax will not be felt by the economy. Certainly much less than similar increase in personal tax.

The studies you posted seem to compare corporate tax rates between 20% and 40% which is a much larger jumper than the 1% or so increase we are talking about here.

You should read the articles.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Saskatchewan nurses make nearly identical to what Alberta Nurses make, an in many cases actually make more in comparison to Alberta nurses. Even then it isn't the salaries themselves that are causing the higher numbers it is the overtime associated with being continually short staffed, high sick time, the filling of lines with part time employees rather than full time lines and just the stresses of the job (and it is a stressful job)... all of which leads to the requirement for overtime, which is of course, quite expensive. The healthcare system is an area that has to operate 365 days a year, days and nights, which need to be staffed. I know that I don't make a low salary by any stretch, but I also know that at the end of a 12 hour shift, in which I have seen patient's die, cleaned up more human excrement (and other bodily fluids), been punched and yelled/sworn at, continually monitored the patients while dealing with difficult family members, performed all the daily tasks for a number of patient's from bathing and hygiene to mobilization, and safely administered medications to patient's according to their clinical status - in general keeping your loved ones alive and caring for them to the best of my abilities, I feel as though I am entitled to an above average salary.

I understand that everyone has difficult jobs, but at the same time, I don't feel as though my salary is unreasonable and it isn't what is putting this province into the poor house. A history of poor taxation policy from an electorate that is so adverse to any form taxation due to ideological beliefs.

Healthcare spending in Alberta has grown at an ANNUAL rate of 10% in the perioud 2000-2010, or over 200% in that time-frame. In 2000, Alberta spent about the same as the rest of Canada on healthcare, and now we spend about 20% more on average. The single largest component of that increase is in salary costs.

Meanwhile health outcomes (waiting times, access to specialists, etc.) have not improved, mainly staying flat. As you have noted, it doesn't seem that these increases in spending have made a difference on the front line for workers.

This system is clearly broken. We cannot afford to increase public spending on health care 10% year over year forever without seeing any improvement in outcomes or working conditions. Simply assuming more taxes and more spending will solve the problem doesn't make any sense at all, as it hasn't made a difference over the past decade.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Healthcare spending in Alberta has grown at an ANNUAL rate of 10% in the perioud 2000-2010, or over 200% in that time-frame. In 2000, Alberta spent about the same as the rest of Canada on healthcare, and now we spend about 20% more on average. The single largest component of that increase is in salary costs.

Meanwhile health outcomes (waiting times, access to specialists, etc.) have not improved, mainly staying flat. As you have noted, it doesn't seem that these increases in spending have made a difference on the front line for workers.

This system is clearly broken. We cannot afford to increase public spending on health care 10% year over year forever without seeing any improvement in outcomes or working conditions. Simply assuming more taxes and more spending will solve the problem doesn't make any sense at all, as it hasn't made a difference over the past decade.

It would be nice if they put someone in charge of Alberta Health with even a slight bit of knowledge or experience.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Healthcare spending in Alberta has grown at an ANNUAL rate of 10% in the perioud 2000-2010, or over 200% in that time-frame. In 2000, Alberta spent about the same as the rest of Canada on healthcare, and now we spend about 20% more on average. The single largest component of that increase is in salary costs.

Meanwhile health outcomes (waiting times, access to specialists, etc.) have not improved, mainly staying flat. As you have noted, it doesn't seem that these increases in spending have made a difference on the front line for workers.

This system is clearly broken. We cannot afford to increase public spending on health care 10% year over year forever without seeing any improvement in outcomes or working conditions. Simply assuming more taxes and more spending will solve the problem doesn't make any sense at all, as it hasn't made a difference over the past decade.

I think that everyone can agree on that point. The issue I have though (can't speak for everyone) is that the alternatives to what we have today seem to be fairly radical, and just not acceptable solutions. So while I know that something has to be done and something has to be changed I have no idea what that change should entail.