Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Politics II

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bendit wrote: View Post

    Demo, with due respect you are mixing metaphors with certain processes/payments/transfers which provides a bit of a soup for my feeble mind vis a vis the whole matter about how Alberta is getting squeezed and by some interpretations an unwanted forced copulation with the mothership we call Ottawa.

    This Equalization payment process is guided by the Federal-Provincial Arrangements Act ... not some arbitrary annual allocation or payment of funds but via a predetermined agreed upon formula. I am not informed about the formula details but fundamentally it determines the have & have not provinces. This so there is a somewhat equitable balance in how all Canadians can live across the country in relative equality. A laudable sharing objective in my view.

    The formula mentioned above I think is rejigged/discussed every 5 years through a negotiation amongst Ottawa and the provinces so there is the possibility for grievances to be heard.

    Since this a complex subject with moving parts allow me to provide some "expert" opinion on the issues & sore points:



    The bolded above are mine with nothing changed/deleted.

    https://edmonton.citynews.ca/2018/12...rta-economist/

    Please point to any falsities and for that matter suggest what/how in your view Albertans can be allayed.

    I would make another point re Quebec and that individuals are taxed higher there than anyone else in the country while of course AB has no prov. tax. These are choices each province makes and as noted earlier the eq. payments are not based on prov. budgets. One other pt. Quebec does not in principle object to pipelines ...rather oil lines not gas ones.

    This is the deepest I have gone into this subject ... so am learning... but interested in trying to find if there is a truly inequitable treatment of Alberta & Sask. in this matter. We must all remember that this is a Canada wide project and the long game is always in play. eg. In my readings I found that for the first time in 2009-10 is when ON first received eq. payments. I am glad that per above we shall be contributors again for the next 2 years. So, circumstances change but the project remains.
    This is a pretty dodgy rebuttal bordering on a non response to the question at hand.... That the Liberal Party of Canada under the energy stewardship of Butts and Teleford and Trudeau has engaged on a path towards the systemic dismantling of the primary industry of a province for no demonstrable tangible gain to the country as a whole. None.

    What is tangible is artificially high unemployment, lost foreign and domestic capital investment and the accompanying social problems that come with the loss of hope as one area of the country is selectively targeted for pain by government fiat.

    Your work on Eqaulization aside...The statement still stands ..... Alberta still kicks in way more than they get back. They don't need another VAT to make up the difference.
    Last edited by Demographic Shift; Tue Oct 29th, 2019, 12:46 AM.

    Comment


    • Demographic Shift wrote: View Post

      This is a pretty dodgy rebuttal bordering on a non response to the question at hand.... That the Liberal Party of Canada under the energy stewardship of Butts and Teleford and Trudeau has engaged on a path towards the systemic dismantling of the primary industry of a province for no demonstrable tangible gain to the country as a whole. None.

      What is tangible is artificially high unemployment, lost foreign and domestic capital investment and the accompanying social problems that come with the loss of hope as one area of the country is selectively targeted for pain by government fiat.

      Your work on Eqaulization aside...The statement still stands ..... Alberta still kicks in way more than they get back. They don't need another VAT to make up the difference.
      On the first, I wish wholeheartedly that AB was mining motherlodes of diamonds rather than tar sands. Simply put, the national (and this is where the election comes in) priority is to manage CO2 emissions as efficiently and with targets. This is at odds with fossil fuel producers and the govt. of AB

      In 2019, there is no disagreement with the bold. Like I said previously The Federal-Provincial Equalization Arrangements Act was signed onto by all participants. It's major purpose was to ensure the viability & living conditions of all of it's citizenry across this very vast country. This is a long term project. You will have to reinvent another system to ensure the same desired outcome, no?

      On this (and some other policy matters in Canada) some of you really need to stop personalizing such matters to either the Liberal party or current Prime Minister. On this issue especially governments of both major parties are lockstep on the fundamentals. So some of the personalized sniping gets tiring after the usual banter.

      I shall have to pound the entire content of the following essay to you ... it pretty much is trying to explain where I stand on this. I sometimes believe linking a piece which I feel lends to the debate gets treated with the equivalence of a toilet flush :

      [QUOTE] Why equalization is not unfair to Alberta

      TREVOR TOMBE
      CONTRIBUTED TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
      DECEMBER 18, 2018

      Trevor Tombe is an associate professor of economics at the University of Calgary, and a research fellow at the School of Public Policy.

      Financial transfers from Ottawa – and the provinces' disputes over them – are central to the Canadian experience. They are a key reason why our country exists at all, but also a continual source of tension.

      Part of this is unavoidable. Allocating scarce federal dollars is a zero-sum game, and flows to one province are lost to another. But much of the anger – especially in Alberta and Saskatchewan – is stoked by commentators and politicians who are deliberately fanning the flames.

      There is “no earthly reason why the second-most populous province receives equalization,” former Wildrose Party leader and current media personality Danielle Smith wrote in an op-ed about Quebec. Alberta’s finance minister, Joe Ceci, said the equalization system “needs fixing” and “doesn’t work for Alberta.”

      UCP leader Jason Kenney went even further. “Every year, Alberta sends $20-billion in transfers to other provinces through the federal government,” he wrote in a fundraising e-mail last Saturday, proposing a referendum on the issue. “It’s time to fight for fairness in the federation."

      Sensational claims drive interest and, more importantly, votes. And Ottawa is always an easy target, even as the federal government prepares to provide a $1.6-billion support package for oil and gas companies. But those claims only work because we let them. So it’s up to each of us to be informed about how equalization actually works, and why struggling Alberta doesn’t receive any while surplus-rich Quebec does.

      There are three major transfer programs: the Canada Health Transfer, the Canada Social Transfer and Equalization. The first two distribute funds to provinces according to their population. Quebec is twice Alberta’s size, so it receives twice the dollars. Today, nearly three in four federal transfer dollars are based on population, making transfers as equally distributed as at any point in Canadian history.

      Only the equalization program itself is unequal. But that’s deliberate: Some provinces have an easier time raising revenue than others, so equalization provides additional funds to lower-income provinces to ensure adequate public services can be provided to all Canadians.

      The formula itself asks what a province’s revenue would be if all its tax rates equalled the national average. Alberta would raise $12,327 per person, more than any other province, followed by B.C. at $11,052. Quebec is far behind, at $8,123, and Prince Edward Island lags even further, at $6,648, according to Finance Canada calculations. Equalization tops up provinces below the national average, which is why a province as populous as Quebec receives payments.

      One can certainly disagree with providing more transfers to lower-income regions, but this is hardly a coherent argument against a program designed to do exactly that. Instead, many argue that it is unfair to Alberta, because of the province’s large deficit and deep recession. But these arguments don’t hold water, either.

      Yes, Alberta’s recession has shrunk its economy by 12 per cent between 2014 and 2017 – but it remains on top. Alberta’s GDP per capita was nearly $77,500 last year, compared to the national average of $58,000; Quebec’s was $50,000. A strong economy means high income, and Alberta’s median household income was $93,000 in the last census, while more than two in three Albertans are employed today; both figures are higher than those in all other provinces.

      Alberta’s large deficit also does not entitle it to equalization. After all, Alberta chooses to have low taxes and high spending, made possible by the luxury of high oil and gas royalties, which have now been reduced. Alberta’s politicians need to come to grips with the fiscal reality, not look to Ottawa for help. And while Quebec may be running a surplus, its taxes are double those in Alberta.

      As Mr. Kenney says, Alberta does send more than $20-billion to Ottawa, though the federal government raises more from Alberta individuals and businesses than it spends in the province. My forthcoming research for the Canadian Tax Journal found that the federal revenue and spending gap represented an implicit transfer of $23.8-billion out of Alberta in 2017. And since 2007, this gap has totalled $264-billion.

      But the claim is still misleading. The federal government raised nearly $400 more per Albertan in GST than it did from elsewhere, and it raised over $2,500 more per person in income taxes. Neither, however, are transfer programs; the same 5 per cent GST applies everywhere, and there is only one income-tax system.

      So it’s not that Alberta pays more: high-income individuals do, regardless of where they live, and Alberta just happens to be home to a large number of them. That implicit, unavoidable transfer happens within provinces just as it does between them. But rather than unequal federal policy, it’s Alberta’s strengths, such as higher incomes and a younger population
      – which means fewer CPP and OAS cheques flow to Alberta – that are widening its federal fiscal gap.

      We shouldn’t shy away from debates over transfer programs. They are hard conversations to have openly and honestly, but we must reject misleading claims and accept hard truths. Doing otherwise would be truly unfair.

      Comment


      • The never ending boorishness of some tv commentary.


        Comment


        • [QUOTE=Bendit;n1318920]

          On the first, I wish wholeheartedly that AB was mining motherlodes of diamonds rather than tar sands. Simply put, the national (and this is where the election comes in) priority is to manage CO2 emissions as efficiently and with targets. This is at odds with fossil fuel producers and the govt. of AB

          In 2019, there is no disagreement with the bold. Like I said previously The Federal-Provincial Equalization Arrangements Act was signed onto by all participants. It's major purpose was to ensure the viability & living conditions of all of it's citizenry across this very vast country. This is a long term project. You will have to reinvent another system to ensure the same desired outcome, no?

          On this (and some other policy matters in Canada) some of you really need to stop personalizing such matters to either the Liberal party or current Prime Minister. On this issue especially governments of both major parties are lockstep on the fundamentals. So some of the personalized sniping gets tiring after the usual banter.

          I shall have to pound the entire content of the following essay to you ... it pretty much is trying to explain where I stand on this. I sometimes believe linking a piece which I feel lends to the debate gets treated with the equivalence of a toilet flush :

          Why equalization is not unfair to Alberta

          TREVOR TOMBE
          CONTRIBUTED TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
          DECEMBER 18, 2018

          Trevor Tombe is an associate professor of economics at the University of Calgary, and a research fellow at the School of Public Policy.

          Financial transfers from Ottawa – and the provinces' disputes over them – are central to the Canadian experience. They are a key reason why our country exists at all, but also a continual source of tension.

          Part of this is unavoidable. Allocating scarce federal dollars is a zero-sum game, and flows to one province are lost to another. But much of the anger – especially in Alberta and Saskatchewan – is stoked by commentators and politicians who are deliberately fanning the flames.

          There is “no earthly reason why the second-most populous province receives equalization,” former Wildrose Party leader and current media personality Danielle Smith wrote in an op-ed about Quebec. Alberta’s finance minister, Joe Ceci, said the equalization system “needs fixing” and “doesn’t work for Alberta.”

          UCP leader Jason Kenney went even further. “Every year, Alberta sends $20-billion in transfers to other provinces through the federal government,” he wrote in a fundraising e-mail last Saturday, proposing a referendum on the issue. “It’s time to fight for fairness in the federation."

          Sensational claims drive interest and, more importantly, votes. And Ottawa is always an easy target, even as the federal government prepares to provide a $1.6-billion support package for oil and gas companies. But those claims only work because we let them. So it’s up to each of us to be informed about how equalization actually works, and why struggling Alberta doesn’t receive any while surplus-rich Quebec does.

          There are three major transfer programs: the Canada Health Transfer, the Canada Social Transfer and Equalization. The first two distribute funds to provinces according to their population. Quebec is twice Alberta’s size, so it receives twice the dollars. Today, nearly three in four federal transfer dollars are based on population, making transfers as equally distributed as at any point in Canadian history.

          Only the equalization program itself is unequal. But that’s deliberate: Some provinces have an easier time raising revenue than others, so equalization provides additional funds to lower-income provinces to ensure adequate public services can be provided to all Canadians.

          The formula itself asks what a province’s revenue would be if all its tax rates equalled the national average. Alberta would raise $12,327 per person, more than any other province, followed by B.C. at $11,052. Quebec is far behind, at $8,123, and Prince Edward Island lags even further, at $6,648, according to Finance Canada calculations. Equalization tops up provinces below the national average, which is why a province as populous as Quebec receives payments.

          One can certainly disagree with providing more transfers to lower-income regions, but this is hardly a coherent argument against a program designed to do exactly that. Instead, many argue that it is unfair to Alberta, because of the province’s large deficit and deep recession. But these arguments don’t hold water, either.

          Yes, Alberta’s recession has shrunk its economy by 12 per cent between 2014 and 2017 – but it remains on top. Alberta’s GDP per capita was nearly $77,500 last year, compared to the national average of $58,000; Quebec’s was $50,000. A strong economy means high income, and Alberta’s median household income was $93,000 in the last census, while more than two in three Albertans are employed today; both figures are higher than those in all other provinces.

          Alberta’s large deficit also does not entitle it to equalization. After all, Alberta chooses to have low taxes and high spending, made possible by the luxury of high oil and gas royalties, which have now been reduced. Alberta’s politicians need to come to grips with the fiscal reality, not look to Ottawa for help. And while Quebec may be running a surplus, its taxes are double those in Alberta.

          As Mr. Kenney says, Alberta does send more than $20-billion to Ottawa, though the federal government raises more from Alberta individuals and businesses than it spends in the province. My forthcoming research for the Canadian Tax Journal found that the federal revenue and spending gap represented an implicit transfer of $23.8-billion out of Alberta in 2017. And since 2007, this gap has totalled $264-billion.

          But the claim is still misleading. The federal government raised nearly $400 more per Albertan in GST than it did from elsewhere, and it raised over $2,500 more per person in income taxes. Neither, however, are transfer programs; the same 5 per cent GST applies everywhere, and there is only one income-tax system.

          So it’s not that Alberta pays more: high-income individuals do, regardless of where they live, and Alberta just happens to be home to a large number of them. That implicit, unavoidable transfer happens within provinces just as it does between them. But rather than unequal federal policy, it’s Alberta’s strengths, such as higher incomes and a younger population – which means fewer CPP and OAS cheques flow to Alberta – that are widening its federal fiscal gap.


          We shouldn’t shy away from debates over transfer programs. They are hard conversations to have openly and honestly, but we must reject misleading claims and accept hard truths. Doing otherwise would be truly unfair.
          What a specious argument by the good associate professor. This is a wheelbarrow full of tripe.

          Said another way..the good academic is saying tax the rich. If someone is successful let’s take it away from them and drag everyone down to the mean. That the O&G industry, which provides so many high paying opportunities, should be spayed for doing that rather than encouraged to provide yet more wealth is an incredulous position.

          Trudeau and Betts and Teleford have screwed the West for a chance to genuflect at the alter of the church of climate evangelism and unlimited credit for no material gain for all the citizens of Canada.




          Comment


          • [QUOTE=Demographic Shift;n1318972]
            Bendit wrote: View Post

            On the first, I wish wholeheartedly that AB was mining motherlodes of diamonds rather than tar sands. Simply put, the national (and this is where the election comes in) priority is to manage CO2 emissions as efficiently and with targets. This is at odds with fossil fuel producers and the govt. of AB

            In 2019, there is no disagreement with the bold. Like I said previously The Federal-Provincial Equalization Arrangements Act was signed onto by all participants. It's major purpose was to ensure the viability & living conditions of all of it's citizenry across this very vast country. This is a long term project. You will have to reinvent another system to ensure the same desired outcome, no?

            On this (and some other policy matters in Canada) some of you really need to stop personalizing such matters to either the Liberal party or current Prime Minister. On this issue especially governments of both major parties are lockstep on the fundamentals. So some of the personalized sniping gets tiring after the usual banter.

            I shall have to pound the entire content of the following essay to you ... it pretty much is trying to explain where I stand on this. I sometimes believe linking a piece which I feel lends to the debate gets treated with the equivalence of a toilet flush :



            What a specious argument by the good associate professor. This is a wheelbarrow full of tripe.

            Said another way..the good academic is saying tax the rich. If someone is successful let’s take it away from them and drag everyone down to the mean. That the O&G industry, which provides so many high paying opportunities, should be spayed for doing that rather than encouraged to provide yet more wealth is an incredulous position.

            Trudeau and Betts and Teleford have screwed the West for a chance to genuflect at the alter of the church of climate evangelism and unlimited credit for no material gain for all the citizens of Canada.
            I have 2 points on your comments... isn't the bold true for "rich" people from Nfld to B.C.? This would suggest you are not so concerned about AB's plight with how the Confederation operates then ... but general tax policy. I think we are making progress.

            On the second ... and the matter of tripe, allow me to share Vincenzo's offering on the subject (a good one). Try it Demo:




            Comment


            • [QUOTE=Bendit;n1318974]
              Demographic Shift wrote: View Post

              I have 2 points on your comments... isn't the bold true for "rich" people from Nfld to B.C.? This would suggest you are not so concerned about AB's plight with how the Confederation operates then ... but general tax policy. I think we are making progress.

              On the second ... and the matter of tripe, allow me to share Vincenzo's offering on the subject (a good one). Try it Demo:



              Again .. and I will reiterate under the 7 times principle.

              The Liberal Party of Canada under the energy stewardship of Butts and Teleford and Trudeau has knowingly engaged on a path towards the systemic dismantling of the primary industry of a province for no demonstrable tangible gain to the country as a whole. None. Zappo. Wazzooo. In exchange for crippling the Oil and Gas Industry in Canada we have received in return is a very divided nation along geographical lines. Hardly a win.

              Yet the continuation of this policy is championed by the PM's advisor and confidant Gerry Butts and the Chief of Staff Katie Teleford who advised the provincial Liberal party of Ontario under Katheleen Wynne to pursue their roadmap called the Green Energy Plan in Ontario. It was an abject failure. Ontario pays the highest energy prices in the country at twice the going rate of Quebec who is our compare. This was government made policy.

              And now this dogmatic adherence to a ruinous policy is on the national stage.
              Its bad policy.

              Comment


              • [QUOTE=Demographic Shift;n1319059]
                Bendit wrote: View Post

                The Liberal Party of Canada under the energy stewardship of Butts and Teleford and Trudeau has knowingly engaged on a path towards the systemic dismantling of the primary industry of a province for no demonstrable tangible gain to the country as a whole. None. Zappo. Wazzooo. .
                Its bad policy.
                It has demonstrable tangible gains for certain people..... and that's all that matters. They're the knaves. The fools who think they are ushering in a green utopia and saving the planet don't understand that they'll pay the piper for all this. They will one day but by then the electricity will be off like it is in California and they won't be able to tweet any hashtags to save their jobs or the planet....

                Comment


                • A terrible human cost is being paid for this misguided policy.

                  Comment


                  • It's all conspiratorial then I suppose. Where have I heard that one before. Why would any federal govt. of Canada act perniciously or with malice to 2-3 provinces in the country? I am afraid I have run out of meaningful reply content.

                    This is when I call in for backup fire (evidence) macro in nature but rounded in scope ... consistent the last few years so far as Canada is concerned I believe with an outsider view and evaluation of our country. This is the latest iteration I could find of such reporting.

                    __________________________________________________ ________________________

                    Best Countries 2019

                    Many people around the world believe that they live in the best nation. While your own personal circumstances may lead you to believe that you live in the best country in the world, does this hold true for other people in your country? How do you even measure which nation is truly the best?

                    One of the best measurements for the top countries in the world is the U.S. News & World Report’s Best Countries list. This country looks at a total of 65 attributes to determine which nations are the best in the world. Attributes are broken up into nine subrankings, including Power, Quality of Life, Adventure, Cultural Influence, and Entrepreneurship. These subrankings hold different weight. For example, the Adventure subranking only accounts for 2 percent of the score, while Citizenship accounts for over 15% of a nation’s total score.

                    Based on these factors, Switzerland tops the 2019 Best Countries list. Coming in second is Japan, followed by Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom.

                    The top 20 best countries according to this study include:
                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Last I saw AB (since this prov. has been the focus of thread) still has the highest per capita earner status in Canada.

                    http://worldpopulationreview.com/cou...est-countries/

                    Comment


                    • Bendit wrote: View Post
                      It's all conspiratorial then I suppose. Where have I heard that one before. Why would any federal govt. of Canada act perniciously or with malice to 2-3 provinces in the country? I am afraid I have run out of meaningful reply content.

                      This is when I call in for backup fire (evidence) macro in nature but rounded in scope ... consistent the last few years so far as Canada is concerned I believe with an outsider view and evaluation of our country. This is the latest iteration I could find of such reporting.

                      __________________________________________________ ________________________

                      Best Countries 2019

                      Many people around the world believe that they live in the best nation. While your own personal circumstances may lead you to believe that you live in the best country in the world, does this hold true for other people in your country? How do you even measure which nation is truly the best?

                      One of the best measurements for the top countries in the world is the U.S. News & World Report’s Best Countries list. This country looks at a total of 65 attributes to determine which nations are the best in the world. Attributes are broken up into nine subrankings, including Power, Quality of Life, Adventure, Cultural Influence, and Entrepreneurship. These subrankings hold different weight. For example, the Adventure subranking only accounts for 2 percent of the score, while Citizenship accounts for over 15% of a nation’s total score.

                      Based on these factors, Switzerland tops the 2019 Best Countries list. Coming in second is Japan, followed by Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom.

                      The top 20 best countries according to this study include:
                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Last I saw AB (since this prov. has been the focus of thread) still has the highest per capita earner status in Canada.

                      http://worldpopulationreview.com/cou...est-countries/
                      People are on the verge losing their homes. There is a direct correlative link to the Trudeau initiated policy against the extraction and sale of fossil fuels that is the leading contributor to this social tragedy.

                      And you want want to go all Oliver Stone with the conspiracy theories and the ubiquitous best place to live lists.

                      Again...The Liberal Party of Canada under the energy stewardship of Butts and Teleford and Trudeau has knowingly engaged on a path towards the systemic dismantling of the primary industry of a province for no demonstrable tangible gain to the country as a whole.

                      its not good policy and it’s not right.


                      edit...Encana..has announced its leaving Calgary because its board feels it cant raise investment capital.

                      So unlike SNC, who is still in Montreal, a major O&G corporation just voted with its feet against targetted and punative LPC policy and is leaving the country. Money and capital dont have political leanings. They go where there is a level playing field.

                      Those assholes Butts and Trudeau and Teleford are killing Canadian prosperity.
                      Last edited by Demographic Shift; Thu Oct 31st, 2019, 10:41 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Put your chips on fossil fuels post 1980 and you will eventually see your country fail.
                        Is what it is

                        Comment


                        • Superjudge wrote: View Post
                          Put your chips on fossil fuels post 1980 and you will eventually see your country fail.
                          Is what it is
                          Can you provide any examples of petro economies on the wane, besides Canada who choked ours through fiat or those subject to political sanction by US foreign policy to back up your assertion. Venezuela is a classic example of socialism killing itself.

                          That demand for oil is still rising kinda kills your Randy Macho Man Savage political commentary dead in its tracks but I do wait for rebuttal.

                          Oh Yeah
                          Last edited by Demographic Shift; Thu Oct 31st, 2019, 09:34 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Superjudge wrote: View Post
                            Put your chips on fossil fuels post 1980 and you will eventually see your country fail.
                            Is what it is
                            Um, every energy producing economy in the world is booming except western Canada. Try again. The demand for fossil fuels is higher than it has ever been. We could be reaping the rewards of that (not just in the West but all of Canada), rather, we have chosen (or should I say the East has chosen) to destroy our industry so that it can import ever-increasing amounts of oil and gas from foreign countries. Or does Ontario run on unicorn farts now?

                            Comment


                            • Demographic Shift wrote: View Post

                              Can you provide any examples of petro economies on the wane, besides Canada who choked ours through fiat or those subject to political sanction by US foreign policy to back up your assertion. Venezuela is a classic example of socialism killing itself.

                              That demand for oil is still rising kinda kills your Randy Macho Man Savage political commentary dead in its tracks but I do wait for rebuttal.

                              Oh Yeah
                              Capitalism uber alles. Pretty much says it all.
                              Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

                              Comment


                              • What is it that Jack says, 'Turn out the lights, the party's over.....'. Good luck supporting the entire country Ontario, you'll need it.

                                EDIT: By the way, this is basically like RBC moving its HQ from Toronto to Charlotte.
                                The oil and gas producer is dropping the link to Canada from its name and will be known as Ovintiv
                                Last edited by slaw; Thu Oct 31st, 2019, 11:49 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X