PC Leadership Race- Redford wins.

[bomber317]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

I wish you could figure this out. It's nto that complicated.

It's not by province, it's by CANADIAN. It just so happens that more rich Canadians, who have to pay for poor Canadian's services, live in AB.

Where do the equalization payments come from?

is it from the Provincial treasury?

If it's from the provincial treasury, then that would come out of our provincial taxes correct?

So a single income earner living in Alberta, pays their 10% flat tax in income and loses some of it to some of the poorer provinces?

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by bomber317

Where do the equalization payments come from?

is it from the Provincial treasury?

If it's from the provincial treasury, then that would come out of our provincial taxes correct?

So a single income earner living in Alberta, pays their 10% flat tax in income and loses some of it to some of the poorer provinces?

I think the key things that drive the net outflow of money from Alberta to the federal level are:
1. Employment insurance - Alberta has lower unemployment and high participation rate equals more EI premiums than money collected from unemployed people in AB
2. High average salary - everyone pays the same federal income tax rate for the most part so higher salaries in AB equal more federal tax paid
3. Few direct federal dollars spent in AB - not a lot of federal department jobs, etc spent in AB relative to other provinces. Makes sense though in the context of higher wages in AB, i.e. if you can put the jobs anywhere, why pick a high cost province.
4. Actual transfers (equalization) - AB gets smaller per capita transfer than other provinces, but this is the federal gov't sending federal taxes back to the pronvinces, nothing to do with the provincial treasury directly. It does mean though that AB must raise more internally (read higher provincial tax rate) than would be the case if the federal gov't did not selectively redistribute federal taxes.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

I wish you could figure this out. It's nto that complicated.

It's not by province, it's by CANADIAN. It just so happens that more rich Canadians, who have to pay for poor Canadian's services, live in AB.

It is exactly by province. I don't know what you are trying to say. Maybe check the GOC website?:

" Equalization is the Government of Canada's transfer program for addressing fiscal disparities among provinces. Equalization payments enable less prosperous provincial governments to provide their residents with public services that are reasonably comparable to those in other provinces, at reasonably comparable levels of taxation "

[SebC]

It seems THE SCUD is trying to understand equalization with understanding economics. What he's saying is like saying "rich people don't pay for poor people's healthcare, the province does". Yeah, with taxes on rich people. Alberta's poor would be better off without equalization too: the province could impose a tax rate the same as the savings on federal tax that would result, and they province would have more money than what they currently get from Ottawa. That would mean either more services or lower taxes.

Bottom line: equalization takes money away from Albertans and gives it to people in other provinces. ALL Albertans.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

It is exactly by province. I don't know what you are trying to say. Maybe check the GOC website?:

" Equalization is the Government of Canada's transfer program for addressing fiscal disparities among provinces. Equalization payments enable less prosperous provincial governments to provide their residents with public services that are reasonably comparable to those in other provinces, at reasonably comparable levels of taxation "

Essentially, they take all the income tax of all Canadians, and put aside a certain percentage in a big pot earmarked for re-distribution back to the provinces it came from. Instead of Alberta getting say 20% of the total based on amount Alberta resident taxpayers paid in, Alberta gets 10% of the total, and the rest is given to other provinces.

While its not direct lifting of cash from province to province, it is an indirect loss and most definitely a flawed system rewarding bad politics and economics in other provinces, especially Quebec, and punishing growing provinces with high income earners and high infrastructure requirements, like Alberta. If there was no transfer program, theoretically the money earmarked to the provinces would return to each province by the percentage that their residents paid towards the total. The east would scream and pout, but ironically, with 25 billion dollar annual deficits, its probably something Ontario should be demanding.

Better yet, but file it under never going to happen...federal income tax could be lowered and provincial tax made to compensate... and that would mean billions more per year staying in Alberta.

[Julio]

Dunno why everybody in this debate are talking about Alberta vs Quebec...the Manitoba government gets a much higher percentage of it's total revenue from federal transfers then does Quebec. (MB 29.1%, QC 24.55%, AB 13.7%)

This money comes in various forms, such as health care transfers, emergency funding for flood regions and droughts, recent infrastructure grants to municipalities, and yes, to equalization.

This totals about 21 cents of each tax dollar received by the federal government, be it GST, personal/corporate income taxes or however else the revenue comes in. From that 20 cents about 7 cents of each tax dollar received goes into equalization (which includes subsidies for the territories). The feds describe equalization as:

"The Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing programs help less prosperous provinces and territories provide services that are reasonably comparable to those in other provinces at reasonably comparable levels of taxation." In other words so if I go to Winnipeg and get sick, the quality of health care there should be comparable to Calgary.

[CrusaderPi]

Only one thing solves this equalization problem once and for all. The Republic of Alberta.....

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

Only one thing solves this equalization problem once and for all. The Republic of Alberta.....

I'm in

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

...
I would be all in favor of a female leader for the R of A.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

Only one thing solves this equalization problem once and for all. The Republic of Alberta.....

I support this idea, until our oil runs out.

[malcolmk14]

Instead of a spring election they should settle this in a mud-wrestling match.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Here's a question: How does everyone feel about having a female Premier? Also, how do you feel about the fact that our next premier will liekly be female as well, given the heads of both the Wildrose and PC Party are female?

I don't mind a woman premier but I don't like people using my tax money to buy votes.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/10/05...dfords-motives

"Redford met last week with Alberta Teachers’ Association brass before announcing an almost-immediate $107 million boost to education funding.

Running a distant second to favourite Gary Mar, Redford closed the gap and eventually won the leadership early Sunday morning."

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Julio

Dunno why everybody in this debate are talking about Alberta vs Quebec...the Manitoba government gets a much higher percentage of it's total revenue from federal transfers then does Quebec. (MB 29.1%, QC 24.55%, AB 13.7%)

psst, quick tip, comparing percentages alone means nothing. Extrapolate your numbers and with mine and you'll understand our beef with la belle provence


Population of Manitoba = 1,235,412
Population of Quebec = 7,907,375

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Julio

Dunno why everybody in this debate are talking about Alberta vs Quebec...the Manitoba government gets a much higher percentage of it's total revenue from federal transfers then does Quebec. (MB 29.1%, QC 24.55%, AB 13.7%)

This money comes in various forms, such as health care transfers, emergency funding for flood regions and droughts, recent infrastructure grants to municipalities, and yes, to equalization.

This totals about 21 cents of each tax dollar received by the federal government, be it GST, personal/corporate income taxes or however else the revenue comes in. From that 20 cents about 7 cents of each tax dollar received goes into equalization (which includes subsidies for the territories). The feds describe equalization as:

"The Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing programs help less prosperous provinces and territories provide services that are reasonably comparable to those in other provinces at reasonably comparable levels of taxation." In other words so if I go to Winnipeg and get sick, the quality of health care there should be comparable to Calgary.

And since the NDP just got elected for another 4 years in Manitoba, I would imagine that the high rate of payments going to there will continue.

[darklord700]

Told you so. The first thing Redford did after the win was to roll back the education cuts.

Conservative group calls Redford victory tainted

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/10/06...ictory-tainted

[starseed]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Told you so. The first thing Redford did after the win was to roll back the education cuts.

Conservative group calls Redford victory tainted

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/10/06...ictory-tainted

I applaud her for following through with her promises. The government set limits on how bad things could get with education, then at a time when we were exceeding the limits, the government decides to make huge cuts. That was a boneheaded mistake by Stelmach, and Redford made a step forward to fix it. She did not increase their budget, she just reversed the cuts.

Stelmach commits $25 million to the Stampede for the 100-year anniversary, and that is apparently not worthy of a mention, but as soon as Redford restores $107 million in funding for a badly funded pillar of our society, she is labeled as being an unprincipled politician? Get over yourselves.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Told you so. The first thing Redford did after the win was to roll back the education cuts.

Conservative group calls Redford victory tainted

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/10/06...ictory-tainted

That's basically what Rutherford said on Monday. I assume it's true.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by starseed

the government decides to make huge cuts. That was a boneheaded mistake by Stelmach,

Not by my book. And I have kids at schools and I'm not a fan of Stelmach. I guess it's still democratic if politician promise to give money away to win votes.

[Cscutch]

Like it or not... Even if it was lobbied for, it was announced before the vote, she is just following up on a promise she made, so I see no issues with it.

Chris

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Cscutch

Like it or not... Even if it was lobbied for, it was announced before the vote, she is just following up on a promise she made, so I see no issues with it.

Meeting with the Teachers union just days before the election promising them money is under handed. I do not want to see election in this country being reduced to meeting with special interest groups, nurses, policeman, students with the promise of money.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Not by my book. And I have kids at schools and I'm not a fan of Stelmach. I guess it's still democratic if politician promise to give money away to win votes.

Not to mention that Stelmach bought off the teachers with a cool 2 BILLION pension payment when he first came into office.

Would've liked to see that go to students instead of teachers pockets myself.