Alberta Politics Thread

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by belsarius

This makes no sense.

CTax rebate is available to everyone as much as any other service is.

If I work all year EI isn't available to me. If I lose my job next year I suddenly have access to EI funding.

I didn't have a kid last year, child benefits were not available to me. This year I have a daughter and I get benefits for her.

I didn't have healthcare available to me because I was healthy. Next year I might not be healthy and that funding then becomes available to me.

I am not getting a CTax rebate one this year because I make too much, but next year if I make a lot less it becomes available to me.

I really don't see how you see a difference.

I didn't have healthcare available to me because I was healthy. Next year I might not be healthy and that funding then becomes available to me.

WTF. You have health care available to you weather you are sick or not. That is the point.

Whatever.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Chief ridiculous thought among them... wondering if you could make a human rights case over not being eligible for social programs due to having an income that is higher than the government's threshold.

If you read the original post you will clearly see that I said it sounds dumb.

Go back to work guys.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

I didn't have healthcare available to me because I was healthy. Next year I might not be healthy and that funding then becomes available to me.

WTF. You have health care available to you weather you are sick or not. That is the point.

Whatever.

Do you think you would win a human rights case to get healthcare dollars for a non existent illness?

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

I didn't have healthcare available to me because I was healthy. Next year I might not be healthy and that funding then becomes available to me.

WTF. You have health care available to you weather you are sick or not. That is the point.

Whatever.

No I don't. I can't walk in and demand they give me a room for the night and some morphine just because I pay taxes. I can't ask for some elective surgery for free. Yes it is available if I get sick, but they don't give services to people who don't need it.

The rebate is available to you if your income falls to a point you need it.

That is the point. It is available to all. Just all don't need it.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

As I have tried to explain several times....

Roads are a rational and moral use of government funds because every Canadian has access to them and can use them.

Heath care is available and accessible to all Canadians as well.

The CTax rebate is discriminatory because it is not available to 40% of the population. It is not that hard to understand.

The same applies to the child tax benefit. People who make less money get more, people who make too much are I guess in your view discriminated against and make none.

[Bownesian]

Thought experiment:

Should Canadians who earn more than a particular income threshold pay their own healthcare costs?

If they have a catastrophic medical event and fall below the threshold relative to their expenses, they would go back into the public system. Would that be a fairer (more moral) system than paying the healthcare expenses of the richest 10% / 1% / 0.1%?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

Thought experiment:

Should Canadians who earn more than a particular income threshold pay their own healthcare costs?

If they have a catastrophic medical event and fall below the threshold relative to their expenses, they would go back into the public system. Would that be a fairer (more moral) system than paying the healthcare expenses of the richest 10% / 1% / 0.1%?

Provided health insurance to cover catastrophic events is made legal and taxes are cut by a corresponding rate, yes.

By not means testing programs you just effectively collect the tax and pay it back out minus the handling costs.

The only reason for universality is to prevent bitterness from taxpayers and voters which makes the program less stable and more prone to cutting for political desires.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

Thought experiment:

Should Canadians who earn more than a particular income threshold pay their own healthcare costs?

If they have a catastrophic medical event and fall below the threshold relative to their expenses, they would go back into the public system. Would that be a fairer (more moral) system than paying the healthcare expenses of the richest 10% / 1% / 0.1%?

Sure then make my private insurance premiums partially tax deductible.

You're basically saying that you want to create an unfair state where universal health care is in fact not universal.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

Thought experiment:

Should Canadians who earn more than a particular income threshold pay their own healthcare costs?

If they have a catastrophic medical event and fall below the threshold relative to their expenses, they would go back into the public system. Would that be a fairer (more moral) system than paying the healthcare expenses of the richest 10% / 1% / 0.1%?

I don't think fair and moral fit the same here.

Fair is everyone is equal regardless of wealth. "Moral" covers this sort of tax the rich more than the poor idea.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The reason it sounds crazy is because it is. Wealth is not a human right.

But you do have a right to accumulate wealth.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

The only reason for universality is to prevent bitterness from taxpayers and voters which makes the program less stable and more prone to cutting for political desires.

Well yes. Universality it the cornerstone of public health care. Without it, you end up with the situation in the U.S. where the wealthy have their own health care and education systems, so they lobby against funding public systems which are no benefit to them. It's unfair in the sense that we publicly pay for services that some people can afford privately, but it's better than the alternative of counting on the wealthy to disregard their self-interest in favour of public altruism.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I don't think fair and moral fit the same here.

Fair is everyone is equal regardless of wealth. "Moral" covers this sort of tax the rich more than the poor idea.

Yeah, fair and moral were used interchangeably above by others - that's why I injected it here. I agree with you.

My point behind this idea is that if it's OK to make the top 40% and large companies alone bear the expense of GHG transition, why not apply that to other social expenses. How about education? Rich kids' parents can afford it - make them pay for their own spoiled brats. How about means testing for property taxes?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But you do have a right to accumulate wealth.

It's not a human right though or at least doesn't fall under human rights legislation(to my knowledge), and there are laws that regulate how you earn your wealth. Earn more money pay more tax.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

Yeah, fair and moral were used interchangeably above by others - that's why I injected it here. I agree with you.

My point behind this idea is that if it's OK to make the top 40% and large companies alone bear the expense of GHG transition, why not apply that to other social expenses. How about education? Rich kids' parents can afford it - make them pay for their own spoiled brats. How about means testing for property taxes?

I don't think it's accurate to say the top 40% are bearing all costs, the bottom 60% might get refunds but do they really cover all the costs to them? Also I'm not sure exactly how the rebates for making the environmentally friendly renos and what not work, nor what the compensation is for them, but you could argue the top 40% are better positioned to get those.

I think your suggestions regarding the education fees would be a very worthwhile idea for the government to look into. The property tax one is a little unrealistic though, property tax plays a roll in propert value and other factors. What happens if your neighbor moves and someone who earns less moves in? Your taxes go up?

[Bownesian]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...nada-1.3895133

Anyone in the bottom 1/3 makes money with the rebate (i.e. this is a rank wealth transfer), the middle up to the 60th income percentile has a clawed back rebate that transitions from net positive to net negative, and from the 60th percentile and above, there is no rebate and thus they are bearing the majority of the cost from a personal side.

Similarly for businesses - the cost is borne (primarily) by those that are above the small business threshold and rebated to those below it.

This program is a wealth transfer from successful businesses to less successful ones, from richer to poorer, as well as to NDP pet projects like picking winners in power generation, transit, buyouts for coal communities and a minute rebate (as a percentage of the total take) for energy efficiency programs.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...nada-1.3895133

Anyone in the bottom 1/3 makes money with the rebate (i.e. this is a rank wealth transfer), the middle up to the 60th income percentile has a clawed back rebate that transitions from net positive to net negative, and from the 60th percentile and above, there is no rebate and thus they are bearing the majority of the cost from a personal side.

Similarly for businesses - the cost is borne (primarily) by those that are above the small business threshold and rebated to those below it.

This program is a wealth transfer from successful businesses to less successful ones, from richer to poorer, as well as to NDP pet projects like picking winners in power generation, transit, buyouts for coal communities and a minute rebate (as a percentage of the total take) for energy efficiency programs.

Which makes this whole Carbon Tax a joke.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

Thought experiment:

Should Canadians who earn more than a particular income threshold pay their own healthcare costs?

If they have a catastrophic medical event and fall below the threshold relative to their expenses, they would go back into the public system. Would that be a fairer (more moral) system than paying the healthcare expenses of the richest 10% / 1% / 0.1%?

Sure provided they can also buy preferential access to treatment, even if that means pushing people supported by government money back in line.

[Torture]

Dwayne Bartley certainly isn't sold on the carbon tax.
The retired rancher and Baptist minister lives in Airdrie, Alta., with his wife, who works in nearby Calgary. Between her commute and his diesel truck, they burn a lot of fuel and worry about the impact a carbon tax will have on their bottom line. So much so, that the couple has considered relocating to Mexico to avoid paying the new tax.
"It won't be because we want to, it will be because we have to," he said. "We will be forced out of the country."
Bartley said he and his wife have already started cutting back on steak and other luxury items to prepare for the dramatic increase they expect the new tax will have on their budget.
But the reality of the increases they face is somewhat less dramatic. The new tax will mean the couple will spend about $550 more next year on fuel to run their two vehicles and to heat their home.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...nada-1.3895133

Lol, going to be forced to move to mexico to save $550/year...

[Ozy_Flame]

That article also says that after someone gave him actual numbers and not just grapevine boogeyman boogaloo he was less inclined to move.

[Bootsy]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...nada-1.3895133

Anyone in the bottom 1/3 makes money with the rebate (i.e. this is a rank wealth transfer), the middle up to the 60th income percentile has a clawed back rebate that transitions from net positive to net negative, and from the 60th percentile and above, there is no rebate and thus they are bearing the majority of the cost from a personal side.

Similarly for businesses - the cost is borne (primarily) by those that are above the small business threshold and rebated to those below it.

This program is a wealth transfer from successful businesses to less successful ones, from richer to poorer, as well as to NDP pet projects like picking winners in power generation, transit, buyouts for coal communities and a minute rebate (as a percentage of the total take) for energy efficiency programs.

Correct it has nothing to do with the environment it is a wealth redistribution tax. It's why socialists and communists are the biggest environmental activists. It has nothing to do with the environment but they know average voters will never accept their economy killing policies, however if they sneak them in under the guise of "save the environment" people might accept it.
I think Notley is finding out that not all Albertans were born yesterday and the backlash will only get bigger.