Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Hysterical level post. Congrats. You're an endless stream of red herrings in here. 99% of what you say is "yeah, but what about... *insert misinformation and misdirection here* NDP!"

Slava is a respected poster in this forum and has tried to create some discussion in a thread that is basically a circle jerk of members agreeing how bad Smith and the UCP are.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Torture

Also, THIS is what they were announcing today? Hey we might take away your pensions but at least seniors get a coupon for discounted road tests, drivers licenses and camp sites. Lololololol absurd. Big ideas over in the UCP camp. Real big.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1656718395063279616

I hate blanket discounts for seniors SO MUCH. I'm 100% supportive of means-tested breaks that give a universal benefit to anyone in need (regardless of age), but why should a 70-something retired petrochemical engineer married to a retired investment banker get a break on the registration fee for their BMW but a struggling 20-something who drives a used 1997 Corolla to two minimum wage jobs has to pay full price?

[Fuzz]

It's amazing that people don't see the APP is just one piece in a much bigger picture.


And it's all because these failures of brain activity think if they just take enough stuff over from Ottawa, they'll eventually be able to demand Quebec level treatment. They are this dumb.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I hate blanket discounts for seniors SO MUCH. I'm 100% supportive of means-tested breaks that give a universal benefit to anyone in need (regardless of age), but why should a 70-something retired petrochemical engineer married to a retired investment banker get a break on the registration fee for their BMW but a struggling 20-something who drives a used 1997 Corolla to two minimum wage jobs has to pay full price?

I'm with you on this. I just think Smith is doing this as a means to buy votes from seniors. It should also be based on income. I'm a senior myself, certainly don't need the discounts.

When the UCP gave me a $600 rebate I turned around and gave it to a single mom raising 2 boys, who works at my local grocery store.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

If you look at the past couple years for Aimco, they've beaten their benchmark. That's not blowing up, and it's not a terrible record. Over the past decade they've outperformed their benchmark by about 0.7%...again not indicative of poor management. And no, it doesn't matter whether that is more or less than another pension fund because the benchmark return for these mandates is what matters. You can't just cherry pick data and say "we could've done better", because the mandates are not necessarily the same.

I have other reasons that I don't like the APP scheme (notably the deranged push for sovereignty), but again...people are not having their pension stolen.

I have no idea what you're on about, but feel free to ignore me if you don't want to have a rational conversation.

They could have their CPP taken. I really want to see this ad, now. Anyone else see it? Does it say pension, or CPP?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's amazing that people don't see the APP is just one piece in a much bigger picture.


And it's all because these failures of brain activity think if they just take enough stuff over from Ottawa, they'll eventually be able to demand Quebec level treatment. They are this dumb.

My concern is Smith won't put it to a referendum. She'll ignore the wishes of voters and ram it through the legislature.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

They could have their CPP taken. I really want to see this ad, now. Anyone else see it? Does it say pension, or CPP?

To be fair, I don't know if it says pension or CPP. But to try to split hairs and say that technically they're taking the CPP to move it to the APP isn't really the same as "they're going to take your CPP" when that's not really what's happening.

[Torture]

Based on what I have seen (can't post it, sorry, received it in an email from a group called "Alberta Institute" in an article written by a guy named Peter McCaffrey- not sure his or this group's political association); but this author makes claims that such a program is anticipated to cost $87 Billion, based on the fact that the current grid is 85% non-renewable energy (not sure if this is true?). So, to overhaul 85% of electricity in Alberta to non-carbon emission would imply a gigantic spend and basically this author cites reports from AESO (based on a July 2020 report that stated transitioning AB to a net-zero electricity grid by 2035 would cost $52 Billion in "additional capital investments and generation operating costs", as well as 'a new report' by "Navius" which Peter claims is a "traditionally left-leaning environmental economic research group" that would imply additional impact of $35 Billion in indirect costs to Alberta before counting inflation (this is how the author arrives at $87 Billion).

Lol. Take a stroll through Peter McCaffrey's Twitter feed and tell me what you think his political association is. His "think tank" is in their own words a libertarian think tank advancing "personal freedom and choice". Peter and his "Think tank" are blatantly partisan and pro-Smith. He's the new Mat Wolf but 1 degree removed from Government. Honestly there's a decent chance that Peter McCaffrey is Yoho, lol.
https://twitter.com/peteremcc

Also, the "left wing" research group was commissioned BY THE UCP to do the research, and they told the UCP that they were looking at the report wrong as soon as they came out with this announcement. The total cost to move to net zero was over 30 years (iirc) and was something tiny like 0.03% of Alberta's GDP over that 30 year timeframe. Oh yeah, and the UCP commissioned this report with government funds, and then held it secret until the election so that they could make a big deal out of (wrongly) adding up costs as an attack on the NDP.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1653908984037011456

https://twitter.com/user/status/1653908986784284672

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I hate blanket discounts for seniors SO MUCH. I'm 100% supportive of means-tested breaks that give a universal benefit to anyone in need (regardless of age), but why should a 70-something retired petrochemical engineer married to a retired investment banker get a break on the registration fee for their BMW but a struggling 20-something who drives a used 1997 Corolla to two minimum wage jobs has to pay full price?

Just remember that seniors are the only group with a UBI, have the lowest levels of poverty and benefited the post from asset inflation over the last 15 years. As a cohort they are the least deserving group to get a discount.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Dion

My concern is Smith won't put it to a referendum. She'll ignore the wishes of voters and ram it through the legislature.

Referendums are dumb.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Torture

The total cost to move to net zero was over 30 years (iirc) and was something tiny like 0.03% of Alberta's GDP over that 30 year timeframe.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1653908986784284672

I think they missed a decimal place, cumulative Alberta GDP from 2020-2040 (assuming $320B starting value and 3% annual growth) will be around $9.1T total. $35B would represent around 0.35-0.4% annual drag on the economy.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

To be fair, I don't know if it says pension or CPP. But to try to split hairs and say that technically they're taking the CPP to move it to the APP isn't really the same as "they're going to take your CPP" when that's not really what's happening.

But they are planning exactly that. Take our CPP and put it into the APP. Just because they don't spell out the details of what is happening, doesn't make it inaccurate.


And honestly, this is like squishing a fire ant for survival when a rhinoceros is charging you. Focus on the big issue. I can't even comprehend why you would get hung up on this.

[Torture]

Peter McCaffery's "Think Tank" literally shares a PO Box with Rob Anderson, Smith's #2 and a bunch of other right wing sock poppet organizations . (the same Rob Anderson that Smith said was leading up the review of Pawlowski's case on the leaked phone call) But they're not partisan, nope.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1654154461546201089

[timun]

^^^



Bravo to the good detective work.

[timun]

Lol, oh ####, I googled that address and guess what else I found?

It's also the HQ of "Common Sense Calgary", the nutbar advocacy group involved in the municipal election two years ago. Guess who their executive director is? Megan McCaffrey, the UCP candidate in Calgary-Buffalo four years ago. Guess who her campaign CFO was? Her husband, Peter McCaffrey!

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Slava

To be fair, I don't know if it says pension or CPP. But to try to split hairs and say that technically they're taking the CPP to move it to the APP isn't really the same as "they're going to take your CPP" when that's not really what's happening.

Okay, but why is this necessary or good? It sounds like a make work project for the provincial and federal employees to implement this. How about they total up the cost of this change and deposit it into everyone’s CPP and call it a day. It’s just nonsensical.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

But they are planning exactly that. Take our CPP and put it into the APP. Just because they don't spell out the details of what is happening, doesn't make it inaccurate.


And honestly, this is like squishing a fire ant for survival when a rhinoceros is charging you. Focus on the big issue. I can't even comprehend why you would get hung up on this.

Honestly, I can’t comprehend why I’m hung up on this either! It’s basically a gear grinder for me

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

Honestly, I can’t comprehend why I’m hung up on this either! It’s basically a gear grinder for me

It’s because it’s an area where you have expertise in and people completely misconstrue what is happening and in general don’t care about misconstruing it. So even if people are right that it is a bad idea they are right for the wrong reason which is almost worse than being wrong because it makes them feel immune to criticism.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Slava

To be fair, I don't know if it says pension or CPP. But to try to split hairs and say that technically they're taking the CPP to move it to the APP isn't really the same as "they're going to take your CPP" when that's not really what's happening.

I get what you're saying, but if I have a Mclaren, and you take it from me and replace with a Camaro, I still have a car, but you've taken something away from me right? Isn't that kind of like what this is? Or am I completely misinterpreting their plan.

Obviously I don't think the CPP is as good as having a Mclaren.

Originally Posted by Slava

If you look at the past couple years for Aimco, they've beaten their benchmark. That's not blowing up, and it's not a terrible record. Over the past decade they've outperformed their benchmark by about 0.7%...again not indicative of poor management. And no, it doesn't matter whether that is more or less than another pension fund because the benchmark return for these mandates is what matters. You can't just cherry pick data and say "we could've done better", because the mandates are not necessarily the same.

I have other reasons that I don't like the APP scheme (notably the deranged push for sovereignty), but again...people are not having their pension stolen.

Aimco has been mediocre. They lost billions in one afternoon just a couple years ago, if that's not mismanagement I don't know what is.

They don't perform as well as the CPP, at least that's my understanding. It's not about what we could have had, it's about what we have, and not handing it over to this group who will do a worse job.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

I get what you're saying, but if I have a Mclaren, and you take it from me and replace with a Camaro, I still have a car, but you've taken something away from me right? Isn't that kind of like what this is? Or am I completely misinterpreting their plan.

Obviously I don't think the CPP is as good as having a Mclaren.




Aimco has been mediocre. They lost billions in one afternoon just a couple years ago, if that's not mismanagement I don't know what is.

They don't perform as well as the CPP, at least that's my understanding. It's not about what we could have had, it's about what we have, and not handing it over to this group who will do a worse job.

A few things….

APP may or may not earn as much on its investments as CPP. Historically it has not.

APP will have a much smaller asset base so could be more suitable susceptible to market issues.

There have been suggestions that the government could influence APP investments in a negative way. There was discussion here that this was not possible, but I don’t remember the outcome.

Pension payouts are based on a formula that considers the person’s age and earnings history, not the performance of the fund.

The government needs to ensure that fund remains viable out to some future horizon. If it’s not making enough then they would need to raise contribution rates (like the Feds have) reduce payouts (and never be elected again), or monkey with indexing (see AISH).

My understanding is that with Alberta’s current demographics and high average earnings the current CPP pension formula could be met by an APP with lower payments than the CPP, or APP could payout more for the same payment. We’re contributing more per capita than other provinces and will take it out later than others.

If those factors change drastically over time (e.g. the bottom drops out of oil and young people and families move away) then the APP would have a problem.

There will be extra costs to manage this as a separate program so it seems kind of wasteful, and dealing with multiple pensions as people move in and out of Alberta is an unnecessary PITA, but overall I’m lead to believe it would be pretty neutral or potentially beneficial. I’m no economist or accountant, just going by what I’ve read.

The big issue for me is this is one of the planks in the firewall and a necessary pre-condition to separation. While there isn’t a serious push for separation today there are people working on it. Moving to an APP is first and foremost a political act, not one driven by economics, even if there is an economic argument. It’s also a big FU to the rest of Canada since the CPP would take a big hit if Albertan allocations and payments are removed.

I say screw this, keep your hands off my CPP.