Alberta PC's way out front

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Life experience. Knowing the concerns of families. Never hurts.

"Vote for me, in my experience as a doorman at the Roadhouse I've broken up several verbal and violent conflicts. I can use this experience I have to keep our fracturing caucus as well as non partisan committees in check."

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

You're probably right. But I think deep down the Wildrose is just a loose alliance for pissed off farmers and pissed off Oil and Gas execs.

And fiscal Conservatives.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Jacks

And fiscal Conservatives.

I considered them as part of the pissed of O&G execs.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Slava

As far as basically anyone being qualified, take a shot yourself and draft some legislation. Its not just "we should do this". There are a lot of things to consider and a lot of issues. I don't think that just life experience is all thats needed here.

You do know that politicians do not draft any legislation I hope. They take an idea like banning smoking in cars and send that idea to a group who researches, writes and presents the idea to the politicians who then discuss and suggest revisions. They don't actually write anything, the people who do are unelected government employees who will still have their jobs after the election and will still be able to draft legislation no matter which party is in power. Politicians provide guidance and direction but the government is run by bureaucrats who will continue to run it after the election.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

You do know that politicians do not draft any legislation I hope. They take an idea like banning smoking in cars and send that idea to a group who researches, writes and presents the idea to the politicians who then discuss and suggest revisions. They don't actually write anything, the people who do are unelected government employees who will still have their jobs after the election and will still be able to draft legislation no matter which party is in power. Politicians provide guidance and direction but the government is run by bureaucrats who will continue to run it after the election.

Yes, absolutely. Its not as simple as just "make it say this" either though.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

You must be a pretty big fan of Redford relative to Smith then based upon her real life experience.

Why would you say that? Her main focus has been exclusive left wing programs and working for some of the biggest and most wasteful organizations on the planet.

They both are lacking in real world experience, IMO.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Jacks

And fiscal Conservatives.

And anyone concerned about the wholesale waste of oil and gas revenues.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

And anyone concerned about the wholesale waste of oil and gas revenues.

I don't know if we (you and I) can have a meaningful conversation about this, but I'll try. For the record I'm concerned about this waste as well. My question is do you think that a good use of this revenue is to keep taxes low?

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by Jacks

And fiscal Conservatives.

...and libertarians

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't know if we (you and I) can have a meaningful conversation about this, but I'll try. For the record I'm concerned about this waste as well. My question is do you think that a good use of this revenue is to keep taxes low?

Like it is now? Absolutely not.

If we were using interest payments to offset taxes, sure. I think that would be the whole idea, actually.

[GP_Matt]

I get the impression that you are in favour of a modest tax increase coupled with saving or redirecting the resource revenue.

I have a few problems with the idea, although not any that couldn't be solved but I would like to see them solved first.
Starting with the savings plan: Politicians love to spend money so I fear that they will raise taxes and put a portion of the money aside for a rainy day but the amount that they will put away will shrink on a yearly basis because they had to give the nurses more this year and they need a bunch of hospitals the next year and we really want a legacy museum the following year. The end result will be higher taxes and not much to show for it. The other concern is what are we saving for? Is it long term for a post carbon economy or is it short term to stabilize government revenue when prices are low? If it is short term then I would worry that it will be used to prolong high spending and we will quickly notice that it is raining every year thereby defeating the point. If it is long term then I wonder what we do with the money when oil runs out. Do we use it to fund massive make work projects to keep the population artificially employed until the money runs out or pick and chose which industries the government will then encourage to come to Alberta to replace the lost jobs. Both of those ideas have quite a few flaws in them. Alternatively we can use the money to shore up government revenues well into the future to avoid having to raise taxes at the same time that everyone is running out of work. But that sounds like pre-paying taxes now so that our kids won't pay as much in the future.
The other fear with Alberta banking huge sums of money for the future is that an eastern based party will be elected during a recession that will pass the Provincial Sovereign Wealth Fund Expropriation Act. It won't be targeted directly at us but the result will be the same, the fund will be expropriated either directly or through a lack of transfer payments and used for whatever the federal party deems important.
Looking at the other option that could result from increased taxes is redirecting the resource revenue towards encouraging other industries in Alberta. It sounds like a good idea but would result in either direct handouts to specific industries or targeted tax cuts for specific industries. I think that may have some merit but don't generally like it when the government decides which industries should be encouraged and which shouldn't and would prefer to see them encourage all industry through a reduction in corporate taxes. I like that plan, but I am pretty sure that you aren't advocating for the government to increase personal taxes so that they can lower corporate taxes.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

...and libertarians

Danielle Smith's advocacy for "conscience rights" (i.e. religion trumps equality) rules out the WRA as a libertarian party.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Like it is now? Absolutely not.

If we were using interest payments to offset taxes, sure. I think that would be the whole idea, actually.

I have more faith in the citizens of Alberta to save for a rainy day than I do the Government.

[Slava]

Thanks for the well thought out reply GP. I am on the fence as far as a tax increase. On one hand I pay enough tax, and really don't want to pay any more! But I have been thinking about this a lot lately, and I'm slowly coming around.

Why do I think its prudent? Well frankly this might just be the actual fiscally prudent step. I'm younger (or at least consider myself to be). I'm self employed and have been for years, married and have kids, own property. I suppose I'm part of the 1%, although I loathe that label and the "he can afford it" attitude that comes with it. I just wanted to say this, so you see a little more of my own situation and how it affects my thoughts.

Maybe its just me, but in all honesty I'm tired of the generation ahead of me not paying their fair share. They don't want to work longer, and want every benefit paid for by someone else because they've "earned it". Heres the problem though: you didn't. Your parents did. You know, those folks who fought the world wars, went through the depression and built things from nothing. I have a hard time thinking these poor folks need more breaks.

So here we are in Alberta. We have all of these resources, and the most spending in the country to go with it. Our services aren't any better though. We're certainly not the envy of the country as far as our health or education is concerned. So lets pretend that just to keep these things rolling it costs a lot of money, and there is no easy fix. We have to get the money from somewhere, and our choice has been using our resource revenue and keeping taxes at the absolute lowest possible. We're using a finite resource (finite for a number of reasons) to keep taxes low...why exactly? We literally can point to nothing we have as a result of the resource wealth at this point. Our services aren't any better than others, we have no amazing piece of infrastructure or any savings to speak of. The only thing we've accomplished with this wealth is to have people pay less tax than anyone else in the country. How long can we do this? Its hard to say. Eventually the resource revenue will decline and we'll be forced to raise taxes, maybe for people my age or maybe for our children.

I think that the actually fiscally responsible way isn't to subsidize low taxes with this money. We could increase taxes, just a small amount, and actually save money. We could still be the lowest taxed regime in the country by a lot. We'd just be paying a little more to make sure that our competitive advantages are actually used to some real benefit.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

...and libertarians

And young professionals who want the spending to stop.

It is a mistake to characterize wild rose supporters as farmers and oil execs. I'm neither and am supporting the wr this election.

[llama64]

Ok, I realize that discussion has moved to the other thread (as it should), but I wanted to take this opportunity to suggest that EVERYONE on this forum take the time to read Slava's last post above (http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=677)

There is no reason for Alberta to not be way ahead in healthcare, education, infrastructure and quality of life considering our standard of living. Every one of us should be leaning HARD on our political representatives no matter what "team" they play for to ensure that we as citizens get what we deserve.

NONE of the parties running in this election seem to be focused on anything long term. And that to me makes me nervous about both the PC's and Wild Rose.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by llama64

NONE of the parties running in this election seem to be focused on anything long term. And that to me makes me nervous about both the PC's and Wild Rose.

And that is where you lose all credibility.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

And that is where you lose all credibility.

How so?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Thanks for the well thought out reply GP. I am on the fence as far as a tax increase. On one hand I pay enough tax, and really don't want to pay any more! But I have been thinking about this a lot lately, and I'm slowly coming around.

Why do I think its prudent? Well frankly this might just be the actual fiscally prudent step. I'm younger (or at least consider myself to be). I'm self employed and have been for years, married and have kids, own property. I suppose I'm part of the 1%, although I loathe that label and the "he can afford it" attitude that comes with it. I just wanted to say this, so you see a little more of my own situation and how it affects my thoughts.

Maybe its just me, but in all honesty I'm tired of the generation ahead of me not paying their fair share. They don't want to work longer, and want every benefit paid for by someone else because they've "earned it". Heres the problem though: you didn't. Your parents did. You know, those folks who fought the world wars, went through the depression and built things from nothing. I have a hard time thinking these poor folks need more breaks.

So here we are in Alberta. We have all of these resources, and the most spending in the country to go with it. Our services aren't any better though. We're certainly not the envy of the country as far as our health or education is concerned. So lets pretend that just to keep these things rolling it costs a lot of money, and there is no easy fix. We have to get the money from somewhere, and our choice has been using our resource revenue and keeping taxes at the absolute lowest possible. We're using a finite resource (finite for a number of reasons) to keep taxes low...why exactly? We literally can point to nothing we have as a result of the resource wealth at this point. Our services aren't any better than others, we have no amazing piece of infrastructure or any savings to speak of. The only thing we've accomplished with this wealth is to have people pay less tax than anyone else in the country. How long can we do this? Its hard to say. Eventually the resource revenue will decline and we'll be forced to raise taxes, maybe for people my age or maybe for our children.

I think that the actually fiscally responsible way isn't to subsidize low taxes with this money. We could increase taxes, just a small amount, and actually save money. We could still be the lowest taxed regime in the country by a lot. We'd just be paying a little more to make sure that our competitive advantages are actually used to some real benefit.

I see a major flaw in your logic. You acknowledge that we pay far more for our services, and have for a long time, in Alberta. You agree that we really don't see any advantage to this huge discrepancy in spending, but yet you support continuing down this path of overpayment and underdelivery of services but instead pay for it through tax increases instead of total reliance on resource revenues.

I guess it is a slight step in the right direction, because maybe people will start to realize that for the most part, services in Alberta are some of the least efficient in all of Canada.

My perspective is that we need to make it illegal to include resource income in general revenues and we should rely entirely upon 'traditional' sources of revenues (mainly taxes) to fund our expensive social programs, and to save resource revenues to supply a perpetual income stream from the investment interest. I don't share the concern of others that this fund would become a raid target for the rest of Canada, that's already been tried once and would likely lead to Western Seperation.

But the bottom line is we need to cut spending significantly and compete at a level of the rest of the provinces providing services to our populace at a reasonable cost. This whole 'spend it because it's there' approach has been lunacy and has not resulted in any measurable gains in service delivery.

So, let's spend a reasonable amount. Get reasonable outcomes. Stop letting our public service workers hold taxpayers hostage. And save for future generations.

Ie: Vote Wildrose...

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that the actually fiscally responsible way isn't to subsidize low taxes with this money. We could increase taxes, just a small amount, and actually save money. We could still be the lowest taxed regime in the country by a lot. We'd just be paying a little more to make sure that our competitive advantages are actually used to some real benefit.

Unlike the Fraser Institute, I don't think less tax and smaller government, is the solution to all of our problems. I want a fair tax, and good government.