April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Not at all sarcastic. If I'm understanding the proposal correctly, a three year old kid would also receive a dividend cheque? How can anyone claim to be fiscally responsible and think that's a good idea?

Well in that case you've basically stated every parent in Alberta has no clue how to spend and/or save money, specifically when it comes to money intended for the children.

What about the current $100.00/month Alberta Benefit? Do you want to regulate what parents do with that as well? What about the Federal Child Tax Benefit? Should that all be put in a trust fund too?

Why stop there... Let's regulate what they can do with child support payments from they ex's....

You don't think the Wildrose is fiscally responsible, yet you don't seem to think individuals can be fiscally responsible either.... Or is it just those of us who have children you don't trust.

"Who" exactly is this phantom government you feel is best able to make spending decisions? The PC's?

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Not at all sarcastic. If I'm understanding the proposal correctly, a three year old kid would also receive a dividend cheque? How can anyone claim to be fiscally responsible and think that's a good idea?

It is not contradictory to be fiscally conservative / responsible and support 1/5th of a resource revenue surplus as a dividend to citizens. Cutting a cheque out of general revenue when there is no surplus of any variety would definitely not be fiscally responsible.

A three-year-old is as much a citizen as a ten-year-old or an adult. Or is there a point in life where you become a "viable" citizen?

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Here's a question for the left leaners on here.

If the Wildrose manage to keep there momentum in the upcoming weeks and are sure to win a majority. (I know that's a big if)

Do you then switch your vote back to the Libs, AP or ND's?

I'm sure that at least 10% of the 30% the PC's are polling at is support from moderate Libs and potential AP supporters. If they abandon the PC's they could get hurt really badly.

I think if the WRP continues to gain momentum you'll see more people pushing towards the PCs at the expense of the Libs and AP. If the PCs were in Majority range, I think you'd see a softening of votes back to the Libs and AP.

The NDP continues to show a strong base of support and I don't think there are really soft NDP'ers in Alberta, so I don't see votes swinging back to them.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Well in that case you've basically stated every parent in Alberta has no clue how to spend and/or save money, specifically when it comes to money intended for the children.

What about the current $100.00/month Alberta Benefit? Do you want to regulate what parents do with that as well? What about the Federal Child Tax Benefit? Should that all be put in a trust fund too?

Why stop there... Let's regulate what they can do with child support payments from they ex's....

You don't think the Wildrose is fiscally responsible, yet you don't seem to think individuals can be fiscally responsible either.... Or is it just those of us who have children you don't trust.

"Who" exactly is this phantom government you feel is best able to make spending decisions? The PC's?

I never said parents have no clue how to spend or save money. Please don't attempt to distort my position.

I think everyone acknowledges that a dividend cheque sent to a toddler is going to be spent by the parent, not the child. So the proposed dividend system will be setup so that one class of citizen (parents with young children) will receive a greater share of the 20% dividend pot than everyone else (childless Albertans or parents with adult children).

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I know it sounds crazy but I bet 1-3% went to the Wildrose. Liberal was the only real option for people who wanted to get rid of the PC's in the last election.

Not crazy sounding at all. I know one person who actually is a traditional Liberal voter who this time is planning on voting Wildrose. Reason being is that she just wants the PCs out and it transcends policies or ideology with her. She works in the Provincial government and is sick of the intimidation and downright corruption of the PCs.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I never said parents have no clue how to spend or save money. Please don't attempt to distort my position.

You said:

Originally Posted by MarchHare

So the proposal is to give kids an equal share of the 20% too? Is there any way to guarantee the money will even be used by the intended recipients (e.g. putting it into a trust until the child turns 18, as is frequently done when children earn money)? What's to stop the cheques intended for children from turning into bonus double dividend payments for the parents?

The fact that they will go to the parents, makes it very clear you are questioning what parents will do with the money.

I think everyone acknowledges that a dividend cheque sent to a toddler is going to be spent by the parent, not the child. So the proposed dividend system will be setup so that one class of citizen (parents with young children) will receive a greater share of the 20% dividend pot than everyone else (childless Albertans or parents with adult children).

Ahhh no, the "class" as you refer to it = all Albertans. Being under 18 makes you no less an Albertan or a different class. Each Albertan will receive an equal portion.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I never said parents have no clue how to spend or save money. Please don't attempt to distort my position.

I think everyone acknowledges that a dividend cheque sent to a toddler is going to be spent by the parent, not the child. So the proposed dividend system will be setup so that one class of citizen (parents with young children) will receive a greater share of the 20% dividend pot than everyone else (childless Albertans or parents with adult children).

Since parents with young children have more mouths to feed I don't see why it would be a big deal if the parents got a greater share. Unless you are afraid they will spend all the money on the new Ipad and let their children starve.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I never said parents have no clue how to spend or save money. Please don't attempt to distort my position.

I think everyone acknowledges that a dividend cheque sent to a toddler is going to be spent by the parent, not the child. So the proposed dividend system will be setup so that one class of citizen (parents with young children) will receive a greater share of the 20% dividend pot than everyone else (childless Albertans or parents with adult children).

You continue to assume that children are not citizens. The whole point is that every citizen of Alberta benefits from the resource surplus. You are creating classes based on age and/or family status.

Kids need the fundamental necessities in life, too. Yknow - food, shelter, clothes, iPads, etc. They bring in no revenue to the family, but incur a lot of expense, yet this is the line you draw as per who should benefit.

*Damn, fire took my iPad joke!

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by Fire

Since parents with young children have more mouths to feed I don't see why it would be a big deal if the parents got a greater share. Unless you are afraid they will spend all the money on the new Ipad and let their children starve.

The smart parents will spend the money on beer & popcorn, kids love popcorn.

[DigitalCarpenter]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I never said parents have no clue how to spend or save money. Please don't attempt to distort my position.

I think everyone acknowledges that a dividend cheque sent to a toddler is going to be spent by the parent, not the child. So the proposed dividend system will be setup so that one class of citizen (parents with young children) will receive a greater share of the 20% dividend pot than everyone else (childless Albertans or parents with adult children).

As a parent with 2 small children the thing you are forgetting is that there is no "my money" in the household. There is "family" money. Everything for the kids (food, shelter, clothing) is paid out of this family money and anything the kids would generate would go back into the same pot and be spent on the kids as per usual.

You seem to forget that parents are taking on the financial burden of raising new tax payers and yes that means they should get more of the pot from this benefit as it is a tiny drop in the bucket required to raise said future taxpaying citizens (I will pay 18k this year for daily child care alone).

And people against the money are forgetting that the majority of families do not make a combined income of 100k a year, this money could represent a lot of things, say sending their kid to hockey one year when they could not afford it, or go on a vacation or do whatever they normally would not be able to budget for.

I would bet that the people who are against this policy are people who can afford to be.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by DigitalCarpenter

And people against the money are forgetting that the majority of families do not make a combined income of 100k a year, this money could represent a lot of things, say sending their kid to hockey one year when they could not afford it, or go on a vacation or do whatever they normally would not be able to budget for.

I would bet that the people who are against this policy are people who can afford to be.

Really, a 'fair-share' socialist arguement to vote FOR the Wildrose?

It's really just populist and not deeply thought out. While I don't necessarily advocate Rick Bell's viewpoint, I think his article sums up the emotions behind why Danielle Dollars are the way they are.

Ralph summed up the fight best.
All the folks he knew at Calgary’s swanky Glencoe Club opposed the idea, except the guy who handed out the towels in the men’s room.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/04/02...oming-up-roses

[DigitalCarpenter]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Really, a 'fair-share' socialist arguement to vote FOR the Wildrose?

Marchhare is the one arguing the "fair share" part, saying that parents shouldn't get extra money because the kids are underage and cannot spend the money themselves.

Think of it as a return on investment argument.

My attitude is that the government spends way more money than they need to and I view surpluses as over taxation, so a rebate makes perfect sense.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by DigitalCarpenter

As a parent with 2 small children the thing you are forgetting is that there is no "my money" in the household. There is "family" money. Everything for the kids (food, shelter, clothing) is paid out of this family money and anything the kids would generate would go back into the same pot and be spent on the kids as per usual.

You seem to forget that parents are taking on the financial burden of raising new tax payers and yes that means they should get more of the pot from this benefit as it is a tiny drop in the bucket required to raise said future taxpaying citizens (I will pay 18k this year for daily child care alone).

And people against the money are forgetting that the majority of families do not make a combined income of 100k a year, this money could represent a lot of things, say sending their kid to hockey one year when they could not afford it, or go on a vacation or do whatever they normally would not be able to budget for.

I would bet that the people who are against this policy are people who can afford to be.

There are already many existing programs (at all levels of government) to assist families with the things you describe. The WRP has even proposed a $2000/child annual tax credit and and additional $500 credit if you enroll your children in arts or sports programs. How many different child benefits, tax credits, and cash pay-outs do you want?

If your family was in dire need of support (e.g. your children were literally starving to death or lacked the necessities of life like clothing and shelter), there are many other options available for you. I assume -- and certainly hope! -- you're not in that position, though.

It's true that I can afford to be against this policy, but frankly, so can practically everyone else. I don't think there's a single person reading this thread who needs a dividend cheque. It's a "nice-to-have", but so are many other things that we could be doing with 20% of any provincial surplus. I happen to value the alternatives and think there are better long-term options than a $300 per person cash payment.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Really, a 'fair-share' socialist arguement to vote FOR the Wildrose?

The Wildrose isn't 100% heartless.... which is why I think some are having challenges accepting this as a platform item.

[Thunderball]

Ideally, the percentage of the surplus that goes to municipalities and the percentage that goes to energy dividends would swap, but otherwise, I fail to see how this is a terrible policy. Especially when the other 80% is being invested back in government funds and to the municipalities. If the resource belongs to everyone, then surely it belongs to everyone, not just the politically expedient.

Heaven forbid the money goes back to working families, students, elderly and frankly, everyone else since the average Albertan will only "waste" it. Heresy when the Government can use it to put wi-fi in school busses, install unused smartboards in classrooms, kowtow to unions, have free tuition for career students, pay off non-existent committees, refuse to do actual audits on healthcare, as well as countless other examples of largesse proposed and/or imposed by the PCs and the left of centre parties.

Plus, think of it as a favor to the rest of Canada, since we all pay GST on our ipads.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by DigitalCarpenter

Marchhare is the one arguing the "fair share" part, saying that parents shouldn't get extra money because the kids are underage and cannot spend the money themselves.

Think of it as a return on investment argument.

My attitude is that the government spends way more money than they need to and I view surpluses as over taxation, so a rebate makes perfect sense.

This strikes me as a little odd, personally I view a surplus as a government keeping it's spending within (or below) it's means. No different than a healthy house hold budget that keeps a family within their means and not leveraging debt to fund their lifestyle.

Granted there's a limit to how much tax the government should collect if their running a surplus year after year, but I don't believe there's any government that's efficient enough to run a zero sum budget. I think most financial planners would tell any one of us that spending every dime we earn (no more, no less) is a bad idea in the long run.

Now what to do with that surplus is a much more involved debate, but I'm personally happy to see a government run a surplus.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I don't think there's a single person reading this thread who needs a dividend cheque.

You're likely right on this. Because the ones who really need this probably don't have computers and are working at one of their two minimum wage jobs.

I don't need it either. But there have been times in my life when I sure as hell could've used it.

I know lots of families (and single people) if I were to ask them; would you rather have $300 extra bucks or a bigger roadway.... they would pick the money hands down.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by First Lady

You're likely right on this. Because the ones who really need this probably don't have computers and are working at one of their two minimum wage jobs.

I don't need it either. But there have been times in my life when I sure as hell could've used it.

I know lots of families (and single people) if I were to ask them; would you rather have $300 extra bucks or a bigger roadway.... they would pick the money hands down.

Governments sometimes have to make decisions that are unpopular, asking people if they would like free money or a roadway they'll never use should not be how the Province determines spending.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by First Lady

You're likely right on this. Because the ones who really need this probably don't have computers and are working at one of their two minimum wage jobs.

I don't need it either. But there have been times in my life when I sure as hell could've used it.

I know lots of families (and single people) if I were to ask them; would you rather have $300 extra bucks or a bigger roadway.... they would pick the money hands down.

The people who benefit the most from public works projects such as health care initiatives, public transit and infrastructure development are those people who are on the bottom rungs of society. If that is the reason why this vote buying initiative has been instituted is to help the destitute why not focus in on that segment of the population (people filing less than X amount of money on their income taxes) rather than the province as a whole?

I am sure that there are people who really would need the $300 or whatever dollars but I would imagine that would be the slim minority of the people who would receive the dividend.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Governments sometimes have to make decisions that are unpopular, asking people if they would like free money or a roadway they'll never use should not be how the Province determines spending.

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

The people who benefit the most from public works projects such as health care initiatives, public transit and infrastructure development are those people who are on the bottom rungs of society. If that is the reason why this vote buying initiative has been instituted is to help the destitute why not focus in on that segment of the population (people filing less than X amount of money on their income taxes) rather than the province as a whole?

I am sure that there are people who really would need the $300 or whatever dollars but I would imagine that would be the slim minority of the people who would receive the dividend.

Again... this is the plan for surpluses... over and above the already balanced budget, which includes all these things.