Alberta budget news

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Yeah on that note.... how come they always complain about Alberta growing by 100,000 people per year, but never celebrate the increased tax revenue that generates?

Well its also 100,000 new people to provide services to, and of course many of these could be kids that pay no taxes...damn kids!

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Dion

I seem to remeber that the other 3 parties said the oil price they used for budget purposes was too high and unrealistic.The Redford govt was also painting a rosy and bright picture for the province during the election.

I've always held the belief that relying soley on oil and gas revenues is a risk the provice shouldn't be taking. It could have been avoided if other streams of revenue were used along with energy royalties.

Exactly.

We are on the same page here.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Slava

You mean other sources of revenue like taxes?

I'd like to see the flat tax replaced with a progessive one.

Health Care premiums should never have been eliminated - bad move by Stelmach.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Yeah on that note.... how come they always complain about Alberta growing by 100,000 people per year, but never celebrate the increased tax revenue that generates?

Tax revenue increases from population growth is as a rule of thumb is neutral.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Dion

I'd like to see the flat tax replaced with a progessive one.

Health Care premiums should never have been eliminated - bad move by Stelmach.

Your ALP membership card is in the mail!

[Red]

Originally Posted by Slava

With our reliance on resource revenues it was somewhat unavoidable, wouldn't you say?

I think it's fair to say that a 6B shortfall was unavoidable. But lower revenues don't have to result in huge deficit.

They had either grossly overestimated oil revenues or had know all along that we were in trouble.

Not good either way.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by Dion

I'd like to see the flat tax replaced with a progessive one.

Health Care premiums should never have been eliminated - bad move by Stelmach.

Why is it that most politicians have no foresight. Stelmach gets rid of health care premiums because Alberta had record revenues, did he really think it would last forever? Those premiums would estimate to provide the province somewhere near 1.3 billion right now.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Red

They had either grossly overestimated oil revenues or had know all along that we were in trouble.

Both.

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Why is it that most politicians have no foresight. Stelmach gets rid of health care premiums because Alberta had record revenues, did he really think it would last forever? Those premiums would estimate to provide the province somewhere near 1.3 billion right now.

If I recall correctly that was vote buying right before an election?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Both.


If I recall correctly that was vote buying right before an election?

Is there anywhere where we can see what the Wildrose had budgeted for resource revenues? Would we be in the same position from a revenue standpoint?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

Is there anywhere where we can see what the Wildrose had budgeted for resource revenues? Would we be in the same position from a revenue standpoint?

I'm tired of playing the game where everytime the PC's drop the ball you come along and say the WR would be the same or worse. It's hard to predict what would have become in a hypothetical world.

From memory they were projecting lower resource revenues considering they said Redford's numbers were in fantasy land and they weren't promising as much spending.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I'm tired of playing the game where everytime the PC's drop the ball you come along and say the WR would be the same or worse. It's hard to predict what would have become in a hypothetical world.

From memory they were projecting lower resource revenues considering they said Redford's numbers were in fantasy land and they weren't promising as much spending.

No, its not hard to predict. I'm sure the Wildrose (who happens to be the official opposition and potentially government in waiting, as well as the party you support), made some predictions as to what the resource portion of their budget would be based on. I have no idea why my asking what they budgeted causes so much consternation?

"OMG, the guy is asking whether the Wildrose predictions were worse than the PCs!!! I should fly off the handle and explain that I don't want to answer those questions, I only want to take shots at the government!!!"

[Jacks]

Well then just keep deflecting any criticism away from the PC's (the party you support). Doesn't matter how inept or corrupt they are because the evil Wildrose might be worse.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Well then just keep deflecting any criticism away from the PC's (the party you support). Doesn't matter how inept or corrupt they are because the evil Wildrose might be worse.

I don't support the PC's actually, but thanks for the attempt. That point doesn't mean that I don't think that the Wildrose would be worse though, so maybe that's why you're getting confused.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't support the PC's actually,

Well you are front and centre defending them in every single thread so you'll have to forgive my confusion.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Slava

Your ALP membership card is in the mail!

It is??? I'll rip to shreds when it gets here

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Well you are front and centre defending them in every single thread so you'll have to forgive my confusion.

It only comes across that way. I have a lot of misgivings with the PCs actually, but the Wildrose today is comprised almost entirely of the PCs of 3-4 years ago. A leopard doesn't change his spots.

Even taking that into account though, what's the big deal with me asking how the Wildrose would handle things differently? This seems like something you would be keen to answer and spread if you want gain supporters?

[GP_Matt]

The Wildrose stated that there was a problem during the election and that they would be reducing spending the minute they got into power.

We can debate about whether or not they would have been able to reduce spending enough to avoid a deficit. I don't think they could have done it either but they would have tried and they would have started it sooner.

[Slava]

I know they would have reduced spending....that's not the question though. Maybe they end up with a $2.5B deficit instead of the $6B today. Is that good enough?

[Dion]

Corbella: Doctor bashing by premier is unfair

“Why,” asks Downey, “doesn’t the government actually consult with doctors more on developing real solutions for health care?”

Downey says a family physician friend of hers told her that most GPs refuse to do small surgical procedures in their offices anymore — like removing a mole or stitching up small cuts — because the fee the government gives them to do so doesn’t even cover the cost of the surgical kit.

So guess what? That person either goes to emergency or they get referred to a specialist, both of which cost the system much more. Those are the expensive, unintended consequences of bureaucrats acting without knowledge.

Cardiologist Dr. James Stone, past president of the AMA’s section of cardiology, points out that the overhead for the cardiology clinic where he works — TotalCardiology — is about 50 to 60 per cent of their billings.

Besides paying for the lights, heating and water, all doctors who don’t work out of a hospital must also pay their staff and for their staffs’ insurance and pensions, etc. Then come the costly supplies and equipment.

TotalCardiology, for instance, has three $800,000 gamma cameras that cost $300,000 annually each to maintain. They have nine $250,000 echocardiogram machines that cost $75,000 annually to maintain. Then, there are the treadmills, ECG machines and other supplies, not to mention well-paid technologists.

“In a community practice environment, if I’m not able to cover the cost of inflation, then every year I have to pay myself less,” explains Stone.

And that’s exactly what’s happened.

“My income has not changed in a decade and, with inflation, I’m making 30 per cent less than what I made a decade ago,” he adds.

Stone says he’s “disappointed that the premier would choose the media to negotiate with doctors.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...975/story.html

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

I know they would have reduced spending....that's not the question though. Maybe they end up with a $2.5B deficit instead of the $6B today. Is that good enough?

Since you dont "defend the PC's"....you tell us.

Which scenario is better?