Chretien begins forming his fascist dictatorship

[Asher]

Originally posted by Hobbes
Oh, and they use religion to play the 'oh poor me, Ontario is descriminating because we are God fearing people'

Huh?

This is what I'm talking about when I say people are so clueless when it comes to what Alberta really is.

Oh well, I suppose it's better that the "slower" people think Alberta is hideous while the smarter people like doctors keep flocking here...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Provide the numbers. You haven't so far. All you have done is talk.

I have provide total revenue numbers and per capita numbers.

Show me the numbers.

I did!

For some reason you refuse to believe them because you feel they're measuring something else.

Those are the numbers given on the WEBPAGE FOR EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS on the GOVERNMENT OF CANADA'S WEBSITE. Whether you choose to believe them or not is irrelevant!

[Hobbes]

Oh well, I suppose it's better that the "slower" people think Alberta is hideous while the smarter people like doctors keep flocking here...

Smarter as in "Damn, I couldn't afford that Jaguar in B.C. with what they were paying me, so I might as well go to Alberta?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Hobbes
Smarter as in "Damn, I couldn't afford that Jaguar in B.C. with what they were paying me, so I might as well go to Alberta?

Smarter as in where you move to where you have a better quality of life.

It seems the people who believe Albertans are religious rednecks don't really know much of anything about the province to begin with.

Calgary especially has the highest rate of post secondary education (outside of Halifax -- cause of the colleges there) in Canada. The local churches are starting to merge together because there's little to no congregations.

[Hobbes]

Quote:

Smarter as in where you move to where you have a better quality of life.

Better quality of life? Pretty extreme judgement call. In my idea of a good quality life, I would place a nice climate and mountains (not to mention a coastline) in my description. But that's just me.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Hobbes
Better quality of life? Pretty extreme judgement call. In my idea of a good quality life, I would place a nice climate and mountains (not to mention a coastline) in my description. But that's just me.

So why don't you move to California?

I've lived there. Far nicer than B.C.

There's more factors than just environment. Climate in Calgary is just fine, we've got mountains, but no coast.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by David James
Something here doesn't make good sense Tingkai; Equalization isn't like any other federal program; it's explicitly designed as a transfer program from "have" areas to "have-not" areas

That's not completely true. The transfer system allows money from the have-not provinces to stay in these provinces. Equalization payments are a re-routing of tax dollars from the federal government to the provincial governments.

It may seem pointless to transfer money from a have-not province to Ottaw and then back to the have-not province, but the benefit that this creates is that it allows provincial governments to spend money on provincial services. Otherwise that money would just go to federally provided services.

If transfer payments did not exist then there would be a drain of taxes (in the form of federal taxes) from have-not provinces.

The calculation for transfer payments look at a provinces ability to raise revenue to pay for provincial services. If a province does not have the ability to raise the average level of revenue then it receives transfer payments.

In Alberta's case, its "fiscal capacity" does not reflect the actual money that the Albertan government could collect. It is a representation of what it should be able to collect through a complex formula. The difference between actual and capacity is due to the lack of a sales tax in Alberta.

So it's not a question of only taking money ($10.7 b) from two provinces and giving it to the rest of the country. The actual percentage of this $10.7 billion that comes from Ontario is the percentage of federal tax dollars that come from Ontario. Using income tax as an example, and Asher doesn't understand the concept of examples, about 44 per cent of federal income tax revenue comes from Ontario so the transfer payment cost for Ontario would be about $4.4 billion.

When you add everything up, more money leaves Alberta and Ontario then goes back in. However, it is incorrect to say that all of the money transferred to other provinces comes from Alberta and Ontario.

Asher talks about resource royalties, but that is not the only other source of federal revenues. There is also profit tax revenues and since most corporations are based in Ontario, most of this profit tax comes from Ontario. However, since corporations make their profits from national sales, it is difficult to say to how much of the profit tax revenue originates in Ontario.

[Hobbes]

Far nicer than B.C.

Okaaay there... I guess you are entitled to your opinion...

There's more factors than just environment. Climate in Calgary is just fine, we've got mountains, but no coast.

Oh yes Banff. That's pretty much B.C. I like B.C., nice climate, diverse landscape, very multicultural, pretty cities. For me, it's just a whole lot nicer that Alberta, which seem rather 'empty'. But, that is just a personal opinion with no logical facts to back it up, of course.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
In Alberta's case, its "fiscal capacity" does not reflect the actual money that the Albertan government could collect. It is a representation of what it should be able to collect through a complex formula. The difference between actual and capacity is due to the lack of a sales tax in Alberta.

Again, I don't know how many times I've said this now, but this is completely untrue.

Ottawa skims money (quite a bit of it) off royalties that Alberta collects from its energy sources. Had Ottawa not taken that money, it would have gone directly into provincial coffers.

So it's not a question of only taking money ($10.7 b) from two provinces and giving it to the rest of the country. The actual percentage of this $10.7 billion that comes from Ontario is the percentage of federal tax dollars that come from Ontario. Using income tax as an example, and Asher doesn't understand the concept of examples, about 44 per cent of federal income tax revenue comes from Ontario so the transfer payment cost for Ontario would be about $4.4 billion.

The problem here is you're taking the $10.3B figure as a gross figure, when it's a NET figure. It doesn't count the money that stays in the provinces that are classified below the standard. This counts the money coming FROM the "have" provinces TO the "have not" provinces.

That's something you still don't appear to understand.

Asher talks about resource royalties, but that is not the only other source of federal revenues. There is also profit tax revenues and since most corporations are based in Ontario, most of this profit tax comes from Ontario. However, since corporations make their profits from national sales, it is difficult to say to how much of the profit tax revenue originates in Ontario.

Calgary has the 2nd most # of corporate HQs in Canada. So

And for the record I believe the oil companies in Calgary are more profitable than companies like Eatons based in Ontario.

[Hobbes]

Have fun, Asher and Tingkai, I'm going to go cruise the internet for pictures of Incubus for art. Boo-yah!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Hobbes
Okaaay there... I guess you are entitled to your opinion...

How can you say otherwise?

Better weather, has mountains with skiing, clean air (Northern California only ), lower taxes, better job market, real beaches with warm water, etc.

Oh yes Banff. That's pretty much B.C. I like B.C., nice climate, diverse landscape, very multicultural, pretty cities. For me, it's just a whole lot nicer that Alberta, which seem rather 'empty'. But, that is just a personal opinion with no logical facts to back it up, of course.

Of course, since it doesn't make much sense.

[Asher]

Tingkai, I'm going to prove to you that it's a net figure, rather than gross.

$1,074,000,000 was transferred to NFLD in 2001.
Newfoundland's population in 2001 was 533,800
That's roughly $2011 per person in transfer payments, right?

Now look at the graph:


Notice how there's roughly $2000 missing between the "standard" and the bar? Coincidence?

If it was a gross figure, there would need to be more than $2000 transferred per person to Newfoundland, because it'd need to offset the money it already gave away, plus gain more back in return.

Does that make sense to you?

[Tingkai]

Asher: you have completely misunderstood the numbers you refer to in previous posts.

I would strongly recommend that you read up a bit more before you add any more misguided comments.

The big problem is you don't understand the meaning of fiscal capabilities. As a result of your misunderstanding, all of the calculation you did are incorrect.

Example:

Originally posted by Asher
Look at this graph of government revenue per capita.

Wrong. The graph you referred to shows the estimated capability of a provincial government to raise revenue, not the actual revenue raised.

Originally posted by Asher
This means roughly $2000, PER CAPITA, in Alberta is going to other provinces, and has been for decades.

Wrong. The $2,000 per capita figure only indicates that the Alberta government has a theorectically higher ability to collect revenue within the province. It has nothing to do with the amount transferred to other provinces.

In fact, the Alberta fiscal capabilities are not even included in the calculation of equalization payments. That calculation is based on fiscal capabilities in five other provinces.

Originally posted by Asher
$2000 * 3,000,000 people = $6B in lost Revenue from Alberta.
That means Alberta pays for $6B of the $10.8B total transfer payments.

Wrong again, this calculation is incorrect because you misunderstand the meaning of fiscal capability. The $2,000 figure does not refer to the amount of taxes actually paid by taxpayers.

[Asher]

I think you have some fundamental misunderstandings here, Tingkai.

You seem to think that the chart uses magical numbers, whereas the real transfer payment numbers from each province are based on different numbers.

It's fact: The transfer payments are based off the figures used in that chart. Work it out for youself, it works out EXACTLY right when you treat it was a net figure, as I have shown in my previous post.

[Hobbes]

Of course, since it doesn't make much sense.

Alberta seems empty? B.C. has a nice landscape? No sense, eh?

British Columbia has temperate rainforests, deserts, huge mountains, the best skiing in the world, along with the best mountain biking, etc. It's a really beautiful place. Maybe you should come out to the west coast to see it all. I'll give you a tour.

[Tingkai]

From the Department of Finance
http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html

"Provinces with revenue-raising ability, or fiscal capacity, below a threshold or standard amount receive Equalization payments from the federal government to bring their revenues up to that standard"

The fiscal capacity of a province is a measure of its [the province's] ability to raise revenues from more than 30 revenue sources – including personal income tax, corporate income tax, sales taxes, property tax, and other sources – assuming that province has average tax rates.

The standard measures the average fiscal capacity of the five ‘middle income’ provinces – Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Wrong. The graph you referred to shows the estimated capability of a provincial government to raise revenue, not the actual revenue raised.

The actual revenue rasied is moot, since transfer payments are calculated off these figures on the chart anyway.

Wrong. The $2,000 per capita figure only indicates that the Alberta government has a theorectically higher ability to collect revenue within the province. It has nothing to do with the amount transferred to other provinces.

The only reason it's theoretical is because the federal government is taking a huge portion of it for transfer payments. Really, it's true.

In fact, the Alberta fiscal capabilities are not even included in the calculation of equalization payments. That calculation is based on fiscal capabilities in five other provinces.

The Alberta fiscal capabilities are not taken into account for the STANDARD calculation. What does this have to do with anything I've said?

Wrong again, this calculation is incorrect because you misunderstand the meaning of fiscal capability. The $2,000 figure does not refer to the amount of taxes actually paid by taxpayers.

The figure works out perfectly. Calculate it yourself.

Is it just convenient that all of the "have not" provinces get exactly the same amount of money that the chart says it would?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Hobbes
Alberta seems empty? B.C. has a nice landscape? No sense, eh?

British Columbia has temperate rainforests, deserts, huge mountains, the best skiing in the world, along with the best mountain biking, etc. It's a really beautiful place. Maybe you should come out to the west coast to see it all. I'll give you a tour.

I'm in Vancouver for the Molson Indy at the end of July, but I make it a habit of not meeting Apolytoners.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
It's fact: The transfer payments are based off the figures used in that chart. Work it out for youself, it works out EXACTLY right when you treat it was a net figure, as I have shown in my previous post.

Wrong.

Read the Department of Finance explanation.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
From the Department of Finance
http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html

"Provinces with revenue-raising ability, or fiscal capacity, below a threshold or standard amount receive Equalization payments from the federal government to bring their revenues up to that standard"

The fiscal capacity of a province is a measure of its [the province's] ability to raise revenues from more than 30 revenue sources – including personal income tax, corporate income tax, sales taxes, property tax, and other sources – assuming that province has average tax rates.

The standard measures the average fiscal capacity of the five ‘middle income’ provinces – Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

Again, I can't see how this is relevant to ANYTHING. I'm not talking about how the standard is collected...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Wrong.

Read the Department of Finance explanation.

ARGGGGGGGGGGGH!

I have been! You're either REALLY dense or you're being really clever in setting up a strawman.

I'm not arguing about the standard!

You're treating the total transferred as a GROSS PAYMENT.
It is a NET PAYMENT.

Thus your entire argument is INCORRECT.

For christ sake man, break out a pen and pencil and work it out for youself. My estimates from using the chart coincide EXACTLY with the total amount paid out to each province.

[Tingkai]

Asher: you really are making an ass out of yourself.

Let me try to explain the errors of your thinking in terms that even you can understand

The fiscal capability chart refers to provincial government revenue.

Equalization payments come from federal revenue.

So you are looking at provincial government revenue and then saying this represents federal government revenue. Wrong.

Sit down, and think before you continue making an ass out of yourself.

EDIT: To be more accurate, the yellow bars were refer to potential provincial government revenue. The blue area refers to federal transfer payments that come from federal government revenue. The fact that Ontario and Alberta are above the standard only indicates that their theorectical ability to raise taxes is so high that these provinces do not qualify for transfer payments.

[Asher]

So you are looking at provincial government revenue and then saying this represents federal government revenue. Wrong.

What. The. ****.?

Look at the page, for christ sake.

Calculate the numbers!

IT WORKS, DAMNIT. That chart is EXACTLY what distribution is based on. If you don't believe me, grab a pen and paper and do it yourself! Honest to god it works.

Now that you know that the chart is accurate, look at it this way: If Alberta didn't need to give that much extra money from resource revenue (70 cents on every dollar(!!)) to Ottawa for equalization payments, where would that money go? Oh, that's right, to the province who owns the resource. In this case, ALBERTA.

So it effectively is provincial revenue being cyphoned off here for the benefit of equalization payments.

Why is this so difficult?!

[Asher]

If anyone else is lurking in this thread and can see what I'm saying, please, for the sake of my sanity, come out of the woodwork and say so.

I don't know if I'm not explaining this properly, or if Tingkai is deliberately talking about other things constantly to aggravate me...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
$1,074,000,000 was transferred to NFLD in 2001.
Newfoundland's population in 2001 was 533,800
That's roughly $2011 per person in transfer payments, right?

Now look at the graph:

Notice how there's roughly $2000 missing between the "standard" and the bar? Coincidence?

So in your first statement you say that transfer payments work out to about $2,000 per person. Then you point to the graph and say, look the graph showing transfer payments equals $2,000.

What the hell did you expect. The graph is based on the numbers you provided.

You really need to take a basic Canadian economics course, because you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
If anyone else is lurking in this thread and can see what I'm saying, please, for the sake of my sanity, come out of the woodwork and say so.

I don't know if I'm not explaining this properly, or if Tingkai is deliberately talking about other things constantly to aggravate me...

Why not consider the possibility that you have misunderstood the graph?

[Asher]

You can also look at it this way. Remember these are net figures, not gross.

2 provinces contributed that $10.7B in transfer payments, right? Alberta and Ontario.

Alberta has a population of 3,064,200
Ontario has a population of 11,874,400

Now, estimating from the graph on the page, it looks like Ontario is what, $300 per capita above the standard?
Now, estimating from the graph on the page, it looks like Alberta is what, $2500 per capita above the standard?

For Ontario's contribution: 11,874,400 people * $300 each = $3,562,320,000.
For Alberta's contribution: 3,064,200 people * $2500 each = $7,660,500,000.

Grand total: $11,222,820,000

Now, tell me if that's not damn close to $10,700,000,000, considering the margin of error when using estimates from the graph?

Are these all coincidences, Tingkai?

And don't you dare tell me to take Canadian economics courses -- I just took a year of them with more to come next year.

I think the problem originally was you mistook this figure for a gross figure, rather than net, and it looks like you still make the mistake...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Why not consider the possibility that you have misunderstood the graph?

While it is a possibility, I must be wildly lucky because my interpretation of the graph directly coincides with the actual raw cash handed out to each of the province. Using this proven knowledge, I'm extrapolating to determine how much each province has contributed, since we know it works for how much each province gets as well. And because this is a net figure, and not gross, we know that only the provinces above the standard contributed to the total. In this case, Ontario and Alberta.

[Tingkai]

How many times do I have to tell you!

The yellow bars represent the theorectical amount of PROVINCIAL revenue that a PROVINCIAL government can raise in taxes. It has NOTHING to do with the amount of federal revenue that come from a province.

I'm not going to repeat myself again. Until you understand this very basic and fundamental aspect of equalization payments, there is no point discussing this issue with you.

[Asher]

Tingkai, can you please explain how my numbers all work nicely when I'm so wildly off-base?

Where are your numbers that work nicely?

Can you also please explain to me what you think the purpose of that graph is on the equalization program webpage, if it only deals with pronvincial revenue and doesn't relate to equalization payments in any way?

It sounds to me like you're saying the graph is ONLY used to determine how much money is given to each province (which it CLEARLY is), and not where the money comes from.

And I'm still ANXIOUSLY awaiting your raw numbers of how much each province contributed. I've given you numbers that work very nicely, you've given me nothing but lip.