Alberta is not as rich as it thinks – time to redesign tax
Gunnair @ Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:54 pm
peck420 peck420:
Gunnair Gunnair:
It's easy to cut out the ROC. Separate.
Or hang around a website and complain...
Or hang around a website and complain...
Maybe you should take a break and get some better zingers?
I see you still have nothing to say about receiving reward with Alberta's risk.
Why am I not surprised.
It's notable you opted not to address the answer.
Stay here and complain then.
As for the reward...what do you think you're offering this have province?
bootlegga @ Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:56 pm
andyt andyt:
bootlegga bootlegga:
andyt andyt:
Interesting how the discussion was shifted by the Alta folks away from the OP - guess that's too uncomfortable to talk about. Better just to bitch about other provinces allowing Alta to make a buck.
I believe it was YOU who brought up the whole "interconnected" argument - I just responded to it.
I brought up interconnectedness when Calep was questioning why Beaver was posting this. YOU then shifted the discussion to oil pipelines. You could have easily just stayed with why Alberta's financial position is of interest to people outside of Alberta, no no, YOU had to go for the pipeline.
BTW, we also have discussions about the financial pic of other provinces on this board. Quebec for sure, and if New Brunswick all of a sudden becomes a have province or something, there'd be lots of go round about that.
If you're going to talk about interconnectedness and what's good for CANADA, and not Alberta or BC or one single region, then how can a discussion about one province refusing to allow a project forward with national economic implications be a diversion? Oh yeah, it's not.
Either you actually mean we're all Canadians or you're talking out your ass. In your case, it's typically the latter...
bootlegga @ Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:09 pm
peck420 peck420:
bootlegga bootlegga:
The thing is we pay way less in taxes than any other province in Canada - the reason we have the ability to spend more is because of our oil industry. If we didn't have it, then we'd probably spend far less than most other provinces - or have higher taxes than we do now (the government largely uses it as a crutch to keep taxes low). Both Saskatchewan and BC collect much more per capita in taxes than we do (BC is almost twice our tax collection per capita).
This is all irrelevant. Government revenue is government revenue. If we get ours through oil royalties and they get theirs through taxes makes little difference to the government.
I don't think it is irrelevant at all. Taxes provide a stable form of income that a jurisdiction can use to plan its future - while resource revenues rise and fall and are anything but.
It's difficult to plan your future if you don't know if your next paycheck is $1,000 or $10,000.
peck420 peck420:
bootlegga bootlegga:
For the record, I don't think we do get less - sure some provinces may have a shorter waiting list for this procedure or that one, and another province might have a better education system, but I'd argue that's largely a matter of priorities here in Alberta. Why bother investing in post-secondary when lots of people just finish high school and then go into the patch and drive a hotshot truck or work on a rig?
I'd also argue that with our province growing much faster than most other provinces AND due to our lack of infrastructure spending in the 90s, we have a huge deficit of infrastructure that needs work. Tack on things like higher wages for medical staff in Alberta, lower corporate tax rates, etc, and you get a death by a 1000 cuts.
I'd also argue that with our province growing much faster than most other provinces AND due to our lack of infrastructure spending in the 90s, we have a huge deficit of infrastructure that needs work. Tack on things like higher wages for medical staff in Alberta, lower corporate tax rates, etc, and you get a death by a 1000 cuts.
It doesn't strike you as odd that the Alberta government has one of (if not) the highest revenue per capita, but can't offer all the luxuries?
Where is the money going? Why do we have an infrastructure debt? Or a better question, why did we need to go into an infrastructure debt to pay off our fiscal debt?
The way I see it, with the amount of money that the Alberta government is getting, they better be providing better than 'par with everybody else'. If they want to provide 'on par' I want them to reduce taxes until they have 'on par' revenue.
We have an infrastructure debt because a previous premier (Klein) thought it was better to pay off our debt quickly rather than build roads, schools and hospitals. Hell, he even went one better and actually closed schools and hospitals and laid off thousands of workers, creating shortages (especially in health care) that we're still reeling from today.
He also slashed funding across all services the provincial government offered and privatized a load of departments that actually generated revenues like registries, liquor stores, etc.
His slash and burn philosophy may have been popular with some people (and pretty much what Wildrose proposed in the last election), but all it does is offload the burden to the next generation. In the meantime, the Boomers, who passed the buck to Gen X and Y will retire and be 'off the hook' so to speak to pay for all of this. And because the Boomers are the biggest segment of the population (almost 1/3), their health care costs are probably going to bankrupt us (or damned close anyways).
I'm sure there is some fat to cut in the budget, but I doubt there is $6 billion to cover the bitumen gap Redford talked about last week. The hard cold fact is that the PC governments of the past 40 years have given us exactly what we asked for - lots of services and low taxes.
If anyone is guilty of the current situation, it's Albertans and their wants and desires.
andyt @ Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:21 am
peck420 peck420:
andyt andyt:
When they give me gas for free, I'll consider your proposal. As long as they are the ones making the profits while I pay, I say the risk belongs with polluter. Of course if them assuming the true risk raises prices on the product, I'll still pay. But I'm OK with that.
Are you sure you want the risk to belong to the polluter?
Better be 100% on that!
Now, go look up who the biggest polluters are....
Us, Joe Public.
As for not profiting from the oil, well then, maybe we should deduct all of that government revenue received from the oil industry...you know, the stuff that subsidizes our healthcare, education, police forces...the little things that let us live nice, comfortable lives in Canada.
We pay for the pollution we cause, pollution control on vehicles, etc. But if an oil company makes a spill or pollutes the environment getting out that oil, they should bear the burden. How far do you have to be up big oil's ass not to see that?
andyt @ Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:25 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
If you're going to talk about interconnectedness and what's good for CANADA, and not Alberta or BC or one single region, then how can a discussion about one province refusing to allow a project forward with national economic implications be a diversion? Oh yeah, it's not.
Either you actually mean we're all Canadians or you're talking out your ass. In your case, it's typically the latter...
Shit boots, all I did was point out to Caleb why Beaver might be interested in the goings on in another province in CANADA. It's you who chose to make it about the pipeline and who knows what else.
We do have trouble understanding how a province that has such high income can be running a deficit and not putting money in the piggy bank. Gotta be because you guys are all piggies, want your govt services but have oil pay for it, knowing full well that oil is cyclical and they ain't making it anymore - at least not at a rate that's any good to y'all.
WTF is in the Alberta water that makes them all so touchy? Sucking the sense of humor right out of you.
saturn_656 @ Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:38 am
It isn't hard to understand why.
No sales tax, no health premiums, flat rate income tax, and so on and so forth.
Albertans were living on easy street with oil money paying the bills, but the price of canadian oil is stagnant. Pipeline capacity is insufficient. Redford was in Ontario today trying to build support for the eastern pipeline. Alberta's prosperity (as well as their low tax rate) depends on it.
andyt @ Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:42 am
I think an eastern pipeline would be the best solution. But, read a piece in the paper that said it's a pipe dream (sorry). It's way longer distance and Quebec will never agree. They'd also have to build refining capacity in the east for the bitumen, or better yet of course, build it in Alta and ship actual oil.
saturn_656 @ Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:00 am
andyt andyt:
I think an eastern pipeline would be the best solution. But, read a piece in the paper that said it's a pipe dream (sorry). It's way longer distance and Quebec will never agree. They'd also have to build refining capacity in the east for the bitumen, or better yet of course, build it in Alta and ship actual oil.
As of November Quebec was sitting on the fence. It would be incredibly short sighted of them not to cooperate. The Albertan economy pays big into the equalization scheme that Quebec largely benefits from.
Don't bite the hand that feeds, in other words.
As far as refinery capacity, what we already have in the east should be sufficient. They'll simply be refining Canadian oil as opposed to foreign sourced crude that they work with now.
martin14 @ Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:01 am
saturn_656 saturn_656:
andyt andyt:
I think an eastern pipeline would be the best solution. But, read a piece in the paper that said it's a pipe dream (sorry). It's way longer distance and Quebec will never agree. They'd also have to build refining capacity in the east for the bitumen, or better yet of course, build it in Alta and ship actual oil.
As of November Quebec was sitting on the fence. It would be incredibly short sighted of them not to cooperate. The Albertan economy pays big into the equalization scheme that Quebec largely benefits from.
Don't bite the hand that feeds, in other words.
Don't tell that to the PQ.
$1:
As far as refinery capacity, what we already have in the east should be sufficient. They'll simply be refining Canadian oil as opposed to foreign sourced crude that they work with now.
Agreed.
1Peg @ Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:18 am
6 billion in debt..... 8 billion in equalization..... hmmm Wonder what Alberta should do.....
Gunnair @ Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:23 am
saturn_656 saturn_656:
andyt andyt:
I think an eastern pipeline would be the best solution. But, read a piece in the paper that said it's a pipe dream (sorry). It's way longer distance and Quebec will never agree. They'd also have to build refining capacity in the east for the bitumen, or better yet of course, build it in Alta and ship actual oil.
As of November Quebec was sitting on the fence. It would be incredibly short sighted of them not to cooperate. The Albertan economy pays big into the equalization scheme that Quebec largely benefits from.
Don't bite the hand that feeds, in other words.
As far as refinery capacity, what we already have in the east should be sufficient. They'll simply be refining Canadian oil as opposed to foreign sourced crude that they work with now.
I'd rather like to see any province turn to the Feds and say "I'm not paying equalization payments."
Bluster...
martin14 @ Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:27 am
1Peg 1Peg:
6 billion in debt..... 8 billion in equalization..... hmmm Wonder what Alberta should do.....
I guess in the village 5 km away, the people are different, too.
Unsound @ Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:05 am
Gunnair Gunnair:
I'd rather like to see any province turn to the Feds and say "I'm not paying equalization payments."
Bluster...
Bluster...
I don't think he was saying Alberta would refuse to pay, I think he's saying that without pipelines to sell the oil Alberta will soon not be able to pay. As much as I'm sure some people would like to see Alberta drawing a bit of equalization, I don't really see that as being any good for the country as a whole.
saturn_656 @ Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:10 am
Unsound Unsound:
Gunnair Gunnair:
I'd rather like to see any province turn to the Feds and say "I'm not paying equalization payments."
Bluster...
Bluster...
I don't think he was saying Alberta would refuse to pay, I think he's saying that without pipelines to sell the oil Alberta will soon not be able to pay. As much as I'm sure some people would like to see Alberta drawing a bit of equalization, I don't really see that as being any good for the country as a whole.
Bingo. Alberta's current budget problems are just the beginning if Keystone XL and the West to East pipeline aren't built.
jj2424 @ Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:18 am
[quote="bootlegga
I don't see you taking the risks - I see a company taking them. And depending on who you talk to, BC does get a nice payoff from oilsands (certainly more than Alberta sees from the BC logging or fishing industries) - roughly 6% according to CAPP.
But who wants 30,000 or so six figure jobs paying taxes to the BC government when they can just work at Timmies and pay next to nothing? [/quote]
or they can keep saying no no no to everything in BC and then run to Alberta for JOBs...no wonder the new Alberta plate is Blue and White.