Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

If anyone is interested in reading it, here's where you can get the paper put out by Trevor Tombe today. It's actually pretty interesting: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=4576950

If you don't want to read it, he says that the contribution rate required would be about 8.2% (currently 9.5% with CPP), but that is contingent on the amount of assets from CPP that APP would get, along with several other risk factors he outlines. These are things like continued net positive migration to the province, demographics and investment risks. Those challenges could quickly eat into that 1.3% savings, and nullify it entirely.

I was told there would be no math.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Money is money I’d like to see what this has to offer. Was it the end of the world when Quebec got their own pension?

Quebec never entered the CPP though. To me, the idea that "Quebec has one!" is not a reason to consider the APP. I would also say that politics and sticking it to the feds, or hating Trudeau is a poor reason to make a move like this.

[MoneyGuy]

The UCP is already lying. They’re claiming that Alberta would get roughly 50% of CPP assets, which is bullsh1t. The success of a referendum depends on accurate information being given to Albertans. No worries; there are numerous economists, etc. who will fact check their nonsense.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I was told there would be no math.

haha, well you know...those formulas always look more complicated than they actually are!

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Money is money I’d like to see what this has to offer. Was it the end of the world when Quebec got their own pension?

Because the AB Conservatives are so good with your money.

cough cough - war room - cough

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Money is money I’d like to see what this has to offer. Was it the end of the world when Quebec got their own pension?

“Duplicate administration, limited risk pooling, and greater risk on investment returns likely mean that while Albertans would have a lower contributory rate to start, over the long term the contributory rate would likely exceed that of the CPP,” according to 2022 documents obtained by access to information request

Implementation costs between $75 million best case scenario, to an excessive $2.1 billion worst case scenario (right from the article) - however you cut it, those are costs that we as taxpayers now get to pay. Then, our individual contribution rates over the long-term would be higher than contributing to CPP (quoted above). And this is all under the illusion of being able to get 53% of CPP assets. Then there has to be a referendum, which costs money. Then there's apparently an approval process from other provinces needed.

The same old, tired virtue signalling is pervasive in all of this too - just like Kenney's $1.4 billion that we got to pay for to a pipeline to nowhere, and a moratorium on renewables that will cost Albertans their jobs (which you seem to no problem with).

[Fuzz]

So page 14 Tombe discusses the transfer amount and logic, which he struggles with the interpretation. But concludes Alberta woudl be entitled to $150 billion, not $334 billion. We can probably imagine why the government number comes in over twice as high, and it will be about selling it to Albertans. We already know truth matters not to them.

[Stewie991]

Originally Posted by Muta

Premier Danielle Smith to move ahead with plans to leave CPP, set up Alberta pension plan

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...anielle-smith/

#### off, Dumbell Smith. I'm Canadian first and foremost - Albertan second. I ####ing hate this divisive rhetoric from this ass-backwards redneck party. Can she please just take the UCP party back to the scum pond it came from and rot away for eternity.

Incorrect, Albertan First, Canadian Second!!!!!

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Stewie991

Incorrect, Albertan First, Canadian Second!!!!!

Nope. Canadian first. Always will be. And I was born in Alberta.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Stewie991

Incorrect, Albertan First, Canadian Second!!!!!

I see you need some punctuation and sentence structure lessons as well. You really did get the raw deal with that home schooling, eh?

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Stewie991

Incorrect, Albertan First, Canadian Second!!!!!

How do you define Albertan? Please enlighten us all.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Stewie991

Incorrect, Albertan First, Canadian Second!!!!!

How can Mutas personal ranking be “incorrect”???

[Ozy_Flame]

The ardent "Alberta first" thing is weird to me. Not even in America have I heard people moistly identify with the state they live in they way some do in Alberta.

"GOD BLESS MISSOURI!" or "OKLAHOMA FIRST, AMERCIA SECOND!"

[PumpedTires]

If you read the Lifeworks report, essentially they're calculating the $277B figure with the math on page 48 of the PDF. So starting from year 1966, the formula is (AB contributions - AB Benefits - AB share operating expenses)*(nominal CPP RoR). They then accumulate this in a hypothetical account which grows by future annual CPP RoRs. Looks like from 1991 to 1997 AB was a net recipient of CPP benefits. Mathematically, this sort of makes sense, but in the real world would never be feasible. I'm also not sure if they've accounted for CPP contributions from individuals who lived in Alberta for their contributing years and have moved to other provinces for their benefit years.

From Tombe's paper:

"If British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario each withdrew from the CPP, for example, I estimate 128 percent of assets would need to be paid. It is therefore not an interpretation that results in a suitable allocation of CPP assets."

So the 3 biggest net contributors accumulate more than the balance of the CPP fund. Where is the shortfall made-up? I have to assume there are some provinces who've seen a net benefit, where in this hypothetical scenario of CPP dissolving with this mathematical formula they would actually be on the hook to pay-out others. Just a hunch though.

As for the 9x figure if every province withdrew, that seems pretty off-base. No idea how that was calculated.

That's my quick interpretation anyway. Whether this is a good idea or not almost completely hinges on what balance and what liabilities AB would get from CPP. I can't see a path where both sides meet in the middle. Therefore, I view this more as bluster/political stunt than serious endeavor.

[Stewie991]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I see you need some punctuation and sentence structure lessons as well. You really did get the raw deal with that home schooling, eh?

I Really Give NO 2 ####s About The English Language/Punctuation As I Speak Fluent Spanish And French, So Some Ones Small Minded Opinion Doesn’t Really Matter To ME!

[Wormius]

It’s just like when Springs1 comes by.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Slava

Quebec never entered the CPP though. To me, the idea that "Quebec has one!" is not a reason to consider the APP. I would also say that politics and sticking it to the feds, or hating Trudeau is a poor reason to make a move like this.

Exactly. Unless we've got a time machine to never enter CPP in the first place it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Marginal (at best) gains for significant risk. No thanks.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Stewie991

I Really Give NO 2 ####s About The English Language/Punctuation As I Speak Fluent Spanish And French, So Some Ones Small Minded Opinion Doesn’t Really Matter To ME!

It takes more effort to capitalize every word of a sentence than it does to just type without any. From an economy of use standpoint, you're exerting extra effort to look like a moron.

I doubt your statement on trilingualism immensely but have no good way of verifying it, so good for you bud! Here's a gold star.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The ardent "Alberta first" thing is weird to me. Not even in America have I heard people moistly identify with the state they live in they way some do in Alberta.

"GOD BLESS MISSOURI!" or "OKLAHOMA FIRST, AMERCIA SECOND!"

You never met a Texan, then?


Canada is a very big country with a very sparse population. I think it's pretty natural to to feel more attached to one's province than the country overall, and it's a pretty common sentiment across the country.

Environics Institute (a market research company) did a study of "Canadian Identity" (PDF link) and found that Quebecers and Newfoundlanders were more likely to identify with their province rather than the country, and the only province where the majority of residents identified themselves as Canadian only or Canadian 'first' was (very unsurprisingly, to me) Ontario.

[Ozy_Flame]

Yeah, about Texas all being "Texans first" . . . .

https://www.texastribune.org/2014/04...erican-second/

"Democrats and liberals overwhelmingly identify as Americans before they identify as Texans (84 percent and 92 percent respectively), and while majorities of Republicans and conservatives identify as Americans first, significant proportions (35 percent and 36 percent respectively) identify first as Texans. This difference is a probable reflection of the current Republican statewide dominance and, in turn, each voter’s willingness to identify with the state.".

So that majority of people in Texas identify as Americans first. There's more who identify as Texans first within Republican circles, but that's natural conservatism mixed with toxic exceptionalism.