[Yogi]

bootlegga bootlegga:

My bet is one of the first things Smith would do is re-instate the health care premium. It wouldn't bother me too much, but I have no doubt it would be a nail in her coffin.

The key is deciding what's 'unnecessary'. What is unnecessary to you may be critical to other people - based on your posting history, you probably wouldn't care about cuts to education - but that would affect millions of Albertans.

Regarding the rest of your suggestions, they already happened back in 2009 - pay increases, perks, benefits for ALL civil servants were cut - they even had a two year hiring freeze - resulting in hundreds of positions left empty.

(My 'posting history' as it relates to this particular subject. Please expand!)

Why should I care about any kids education? Especially that of my Grandchildren & neices & nephews!

[Caelon]

Recent polls are predicting either a minority Conservative government or a Wild Rose government.

When you look at Alberta history we tend to elect dynasties instead of rotating governments. Social Credit was in power from 1935 to 1971 (dates by memory) and the Conservatives were in power from 1971 until the present. The consistency is the party in power would be considered right wing by most people. The governing party does not lose power until the general populace feels they are disatisfied with the status quo.

So the question becomes 'Have enough voters become disenchated with the current regime to elect a different right wing party?' If that is the case then the Wild Rose can effectively sway voters if they stick to broad statements and do not get nailed down with specifics. If the Conservatives and the media attack the Wild Rose on hard numbers then public opinion can be reversed in Redford's favour.

Alberta is a province of immigrants from other provinces and countries. So far most seem to have adopted supporting a right wing party along with establishing residency. As the immigrant population grows will it reach a critical mass and move the general vote to the centre or left of centre? Will Alberta become more prone to change than in the past? The demographics are changing and we might be headed for a period of changing governments more oftern tha every three or four decades.

[bootlegga]

Yogi Yogi:

bootlegga bootlegga:

My bet is one of the first things Smith would do is re-instate the health care premium. It wouldn't bother me too much, but I have no doubt it would be a nail in her coffin.

The key is deciding what's 'unnecessary'. What is unnecessary to you may be critical to other people - based on your posting history, you probably wouldn't care about cuts to education - but that would affect millions of Albertans.

Regarding the rest of your suggestions, they already happened back in 2009 - pay increases, perks, benefits for ALL civil servants were cut - they even had a two year hiring freeze - resulting in hundreds of positions left empty.

(My 'posting history' as it relates to this particular subject. Please expand!)

Why should I care about any kids education? Especially that of my Grandchildren & neices & nephews!

Not trying to be snarky or anything, but to me, you always come across as a lifelong bachelor type...I didn't realize that you had children/grandchildren in your life.

Either way, the two biggest costs are education and health care, and short of letting private companies do that, there isn't all that much fat to trim off the budget. Sure, we can pull a Klein and send our welfare recipientts of BC via Greyhound or cut back AISH, but the reality is that the current government has cut the budget pretty sharply.

Anyone comparing 2012 and 2007 (as Wildrose is doing) has no clue when it comes to economics. It's easy to have a balanced budget when oil and natural gas are at all time highs and the global economy is on a tear, it's a little harder to do when resource prices (and demand) have fallen sharply and the global economy is in the doldrums.

[bootlegga]

Here's a real gem from Danielle Smith;

$1:

Aiming at the Tories’ deficit budget passed last week, Ms. Smith said her party, if elected, would tie the budget to inflation plus growth, ban deficits and bolster the province’s Heritage savings fund to $200-billion within 20 years.

“We pledge to balance the budget this year. We pledge to be in surplus next year while increasing funding on health, education and social services,” she said.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/28 ... -alliance/

How pray tell do you balance a budget AND not make any cuts to 80% of the budget and add $7-8 Billion a year to the HTF?

Either someone's planning on raising taxes or she's living in la-la land...

[Thanos]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Anyone comparing 2012 and 2007 (as Wildrose is doing) has no clue when it comes to economics. It's easy to have a balanced budget when oil and natural gas are at all time highs and the global economy is on a tear, it's a little harder to do when resource prices (and demand) have fallen sharply and the global economy is in the doldrums.

I'm more worried that WRA is thinking 1994. Despite all the evidence out there that massive budget cuts and austerity economics do more damage than good to an economy (see Alberta in the 1990's or Britain today as the best examples of bad fiscal thinking), my fear is that the sammich people and the live-in-the-past types are going to demand a repeat of the Klein slash-and-burn experimenting. It was a disaster the first time around and it'll just happen again.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

I just don`t get the healthcare premium. It`s a regressive tax that`s expensive to administer. Just raise income taxes the same amount as would be brought in with the medicare premium. Or, you know, maybe tax the oil industry the required amount.

Healthcare premiums affect everyone equally. Income tax has deductions that may not raise revenue by the expected and predictable amount.

Most of healthcare is already funded from general revenue. If you want health premiums to fund health care, they would have to be astronomical. By that logic, lets just tax everybody equally for everything - predictable income and everybody is affected equally.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

I just don`t get the healthcare premium. It`s a regressive tax that`s expensive to administer. Just raise income taxes the same amount as would be brought in with the medicare premium. Or, you know, maybe tax the oil industry the required amount.

Healthcare premiums affect everyone equally. Income tax has deductions that may not raise revenue by the expected and predictable amount.

Most of healthcare is already funded from general revenue. If you want health premiums to fund health care, they would have to be astronomical. By that logic, lets just tax everybody equally for everything - predictable income and everybody is affected equally.

Up until 2007, we all paid $64 a month per individual as a healthcare premium. Astronomical indeed. It was eliminated because of all the surplus budgets we were having, and the ROC objected to refund cheques for the extra taxes we had been charged. So it was seen as prudent.

The $64 per month per adult generated $1.2 billion that directly funded healthcare. Which is estimated to be underfunded by $1.1 billion. What a coincidence.

[andyt]

Underfunded, not totally funded. By your argument premiums should completely fund healthcare - think of what the premiums would be then.

Healthcare is funded out of general revenue and premiums go into general revenue. It's costly to collect the premiums. I don't think the govt has any problem figuring out the revenue it derives from income taxes, so I just don't see any merit in your argument. All it does is put more of the burden on lower income people.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

By your argument premiums should completely fund healthcare - think of what the premiums would be then.

When did I say that?

[bootlegga]

Thanos Thanos:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Anyone comparing 2012 and 2007 (as Wildrose is doing) has no clue when it comes to economics. It's easy to have a balanced budget when oil and natural gas are at all time highs and the global economy is on a tear, it's a little harder to do when resource prices (and demand) have fallen sharply and the global economy is in the doldrums.

I'm more worried that WRA is thinking 1994. Despite all the evidence out there that massive budget cuts and austerity economics do more damage than good to an economy (see Alberta in the 1990's or Britain today as the best examples of bad fiscal thinking), my fear is that the sammich people and the live-in-the-past types are going to demand a repeat of the Klein slash-and-burn experimenting. It was a disaster the first time around and it'll just happen again.

That's definitely their line of thinking, but Smith constantly babbles about how we're squandering our royalty payments - which sounds to me like she still thinks it's 2007. After all, look at her brilliant budget plan - no cuts to education, health care or social services AND billions more for the Trust Fund, AND a balanced budget on top of all that. The only thing left is to cut infrastructure spending and we all know what a great idea that is.

Otherwise it's time to raise taxes to pay for her promises...hopefully Albertans won't be so blind and think they can have their cake and eat it too!

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

By your argument premiums should completely fund healthcare - think of what the premiums would be then.

When did I say that?

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Healthcare premiums affect everyone equally. Income tax has deductions that may not raise revenue by the expected and predictable amount.

Follow the logic.

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Thanos Thanos:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Anyone comparing 2012 and 2007 (as Wildrose is doing) has no clue when it comes to economics. It's easy to have a balanced budget when oil and natural gas are at all time highs and the global economy is on a tear, it's a little harder to do when resource prices (and demand) have fallen sharply and the global economy is in the doldrums.

I'm more worried that WRA is thinking 1994. Despite all the evidence out there that massive budget cuts and austerity economics do more damage than good to an economy (see Alberta in the 1990's or Britain today as the best examples of bad fiscal thinking), my fear is that the sammich people and the live-in-the-past types are going to demand a repeat of the Klein slash-and-burn experimenting. It was a disaster the first time around and it'll just happen again.

That's definitely their line of thinking, but Smith constantly babbles about how we're squandering our royalty payments - which sounds to me like she still thinks it's 2007. After all, look at her brilliant budget plan - no cuts to education, health care or social services AND billions more for the Trust Fund, AND a balanced budget on top of all that. The only thing left is to cut infrastructure spending and we all know what a great idea that is.

Otherwise it's time to raise taxes to pay for her promises...hopefully Albertans won't be so blind and think they can have their cake and eat it too!

Albertans seem to be doing very well. Seems like the perfect time to raise income taxes. There's always an excuse why raising taxes can't be done, but in a good economy that is exactly what should happen. Use the money to pay down debt or put in your trust fund.

[bootlegga]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Up until 2007, we all paid $64 a month per individual as a healthcare premium. Astronomical indeed. It was eliminated because of all the surplus budgets we were having, and the ROC objected to refund cheques for the extra taxes we had been charged. So it was seen as prudent.

The $64 per month per adult generated $1.2 billion that directly funded healthcare. Which is estimated to be underfunded by $1.1 billion. What a coincidence.

Don't forget the heinous $88 families were forced to pay, "won't somone please think of the children!"

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

By your argument premiums should completely fund healthcare - think of what the premiums would be then.

When did I say that?

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Healthcare premiums affect everyone equally. Income tax has deductions that may not raise revenue by the expected and predictable amount.

Follow the logic.

I took Logic in University, and I know an incorrect assumption when I see one.

[andyt]

You can make the claim that any statement has no logic beyond itself. But by your own statement, healthcare premiums are predictable (really a form of poll tax) and that makes them better than income tax - so logically you would fund all healthcare with this nice, predictable, source of income.

You claim that the premium covered a budget shortfall. But a budget shortfall is not real unless you really do fund all healthcare by premiums. You move money around, and bada bing, you have no more shortfall. Or, you raise income taxes sufficient to cover it, and bada bing, no more shortfall the next year.

Using predictability as an excuse for a regressive tax is just lame. At least the BC govt is sophisticated enough to say the premium shows people that health care is not free. If that's what's wanted, have a line in your tax return that adds a health premium based on net income.

I mean why not have an education premium, or a road use premium, or what have you - nice predictable income for those expenditures too.