Chretien begins forming his fascist dictatorship

[Asher]

On a side note, when was the last time the NDP had a successful government in any region?

[Hobbes]

I'm a fan of the NDP's support of social programs. The CA is a bit too much to the right for my taste. Stockwell put off them all together.

[Asher]

Stockwell's history.

The problem with the NDP is they support social programs, but they haven't a clue how to implement them. Which is why every NDP government in recent memory has more or less been a total failure.

It's kinda like communism to the effect of "it's nice in theory" but not possible to do in practice. Which is why provinces like Ontario and Alberta leapfrog over the provinces with NDP governments.

[Hobbes]

On a side note, when was the last time the NDP had a successful government in any region?

It's all subjective. I was happier under the NDP, than with these bloody Liberals.

[Asher]

Nobody is truly happy under the liberals.

They're not right wing, they're not left wing, they're just...beurocrats.

[Hobbes]

Asher, not once has a government really worked in British Columbia. It's too diverse.

[Asher]

Diversity isn't the issue. Incase you haven't noticed, Alberta is really diverse also.

The only difference is the people who immigrate here tend to know a bit about how economics work, considering they decided to move here for the job market mostly anyway.

Since the immigrants in Alberta tend to know at least the basics of economics, they also tend to know that the NDP's policies trash the local economy, regardless of how diverse the region is.

[Hobbes]

Diversity is the issue. Special interest groups: Tree huggers, loggers, rednecks, Asians, East Indians, Natives, Hippies, etc. Com'on, Albertans are sheep. :P

[Asher]

Nonsense.

I'll repeat again: I, as a white male, was a minority in my high school.

We don't have loggers, but we've got oil rig workers. Other than that it's very similar.

You do have a higher concentration of hippies, as evidenced by voting in an NDP government in the first place.

The diversity in BC is only responsible in their indecision in selecting a government. They tend to select the same types of government in a cyclical fashion, and are somehow surprised every time that they don't work.

[Hobbes]

Yeah, we switch between left and right every four years, it's maddness. That's why we have no stability. You guys always a similar government in power, plus an industry that is great demand. People go to Alberta to make a buck, people go to B.C. to live.

[Asher]

When was the last time BC had a right wing government?

The liberals are NOT right wing. Maybe relative to the NDP only...

[Hobbes]

Social Credit. Oh, and yes this Liberals are more to the right of centre than the Liberals in Ottawa.

[Asher]

If you want a real right wing government, take Klein.

The BC Liberals are, at best, slightly right of center.

Even the Alberta Liberals are right of center. They're still commie bastards though.

[Hobbes]

Well, I may have to take back my 'BC Liberals being righter than the federal Liberals' statement after was Fuhrer Chretien did to poor Paul Martin.

[Tingkai]

You're wrong Asher.

Equalization payments are a transfer of federal money to the provinces. Provincial governments do not contribute money to the payments.

From the CBC
"Equalization payments are money [the federal government gives to poorer provinces to help narrow the gap between the "have" and "have-not" provinces."

From Department of Finance Canada
Equalization payments "allows all provinces, regardless of their ability to raise revenue, to provide roughly comparable levels of services at roughly comparable levels of taxation."

The $8,500 for Alberta refers to the revenue the Albertan government could collect if it used all of its revenue generating
capabilities, in order words, its "fiscal capacity."

"The fiscal capacity of a province is a measure of its ability to raise revenues from more than 30 revenue sources." -- From Department of Finance Canada

Yes, Alberta's fiscal capacity includes oil revenues. That is the only reason why its fiscal capacity is so high. But oil revenues do not fund the equalization payments.

Since we're dealing with federal money, income taxes provide a good picture of the contribution residents of each province make to the equalization payments. We could also look at profit tax, but that would be skewed in favour of Ontario since most Canadian corporations are based in Ontario, even if they do business throughout the country.

Originally posted by Asher
The Canadian government's website clearly disagrees with you.

Good luck finding a quote that says I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Asher
Your figures don't even add up to the total transfer payments paid...

That's because you incorrectly believe that only Alberta and Ontario contribute to the payments. In fact, the payments come from all Canadian taxpayers. For example, money from taxpayers in Newfoundland goes to the federal government which then transfers a portion to the Nfld provincial government.

Originally posted by Asher
I do mind sharing. Why should Alberta pay for Newfoundland's eqaulization for 52 years in a row? It's not a temporary measure, it's a constant money hole. Why did we even let Newfoundland in the country, anyway?

Again, you don't understand the point of the equalization payments. Think of it as two parts of a city, one rich and one poor. The city collects money from all of its taxpayers and then spends it equally throughout all of the city.

"Transfers help ensure that all Canadians receive reasonably comparable levels of public services, wherever they live. They support important provincial programs – such as health care, post-secondary education, social assistance, social services and early childhood development. " -- Department of Finance Canada

There are problems with the current equalization payments system, but I think a starting point is for you to understand how the system works.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Equalization payments are a transfer of federal money to the provinces. Provincial governments do not contribute money to the payments.

From the CBC
"Equalization payments are money [the federal government gives to poorer provinces to help narrow the gap between the "have" and "have-not" provinces."

Of course it comes from the FEDERAL Government. Duh?

It wouldn't make any sense if the Alberta government was directly giving money to Newfoundland, would it?

"The fiscal capacity of a province is a measure of its ability to raise revenues from more than 30 revenue sources." -- From Department of Finance Canada

Yes, Alberta's fiscal capacity includes oil revenues. That is the only reason why its fiscal capacity is so high. But oil revenues do not fund the equalization payments.

Bullshit.
To quote the CBC:

Currently, the federal government takes back 70 cents in equalization for every dollar in energy royalties.

Since we're dealing with federal money, income taxes provide a good picture of the contribution residents of each province make to the equalization payments. We could also look at profit tax, but that would be skewed in favour of Ontario since most Canadian corporations are based in Ontario, even if they do business throughout the country.

Are you unaware of just how much money the government collects in royalties? That's where a HUGE portion of this money is coming from and you're neglecting it completely in order to make your argument work.

That's because you incorrectly believe that only Alberta and Ontario contribute to the payments. In fact, the payments come from all Canadian taxpayers. For example, money from taxpayers in Newfoundland goes to the federal government which then transfers a portion to the Nfld provincial government.

You don't seem to have comprehended what I said. Of course ALL taxpayers pay towards this equalization fund -- but if these provinces get the money BACK, PLUS additional money from the "have" provinces, it's effectively the same as only having the "have" provinces pay for it, as they don't receive equalization payments at all. It's charity.

Again, you don't understand the point of the equalization payments. Think of it as two parts of a city, one rich and one poor. The city collects money from all of its taxpayers and then spends it equally throughout all of the city.

Duh?
That's the idea, you seem to misunderstand my argument it would seem.

There are problems with the current equalization payments system, but I think a starting point is for you to understand how the system works.

I know how it works, you're taking out gigantic chunks of the picture and even then it doesn't add up for you.

Look at your previously cited figures -- they don't even add up to the payments distributed, or even come close to it.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
When was the last time BC had a right wing government?

Let's see, how about for almost all of the past century.

Compared to the BC Socreds, the NDP did a fine job in BC.

Then there was the great record of the right-wing government of Grant Devine in Saskatchewan. They left a massive deficit and I think about 12 of the MLAs were convicted for corruption.

The NDP in Saskatchewan are probably the best provincial government.

The Socreds and the PCs in Alberta have done a terrible job. That's why there are only three million people there. After 50 years of massive oil revenues, pretty much all Alberta has to show for it is a bunch oil rigs.

[Asher]

Tingkai, to dispute my argument you're going to need to do the following, rather than just tell me I don't understand how it works:

Compute how much money each province contributes to equalization payments

Compute how much money each province receives in equalization payments

Compute how much money each provinces receives/gives as a net figure

Provide links and sources for your information

Because I've done this -- my numbers add up, and they make sense from all of the information I've read on it.

You're going to need to go into actual detail and give me numbers if you're going to disprove my numbers (which work).

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Let's see, how about for almost all of the past century.

Compared to the BC Socreds, the NDP did a fine job in BC.

Then there was the great record of the right-wing government of Grant Devine in Saskatchewan. They left a massive deficit and I think about 12 of the MLAs were convicted for corruption.

I was unaware Saskatchewan and BC merged. When did that happen?

And the corruption argument is incredibly silly, considering the scandals and corruption the NDP just went through in BC.

The NDP in Saskatchewan are probably the best provincial government.

ROFLMAO!
Look at the GDP growth, look at the unemployment rates, look at the consumer price index...

Have you a CLUE what constitutes a good government?

The Socreds and the PCs in Alberta have done a terrible job. That's why there are only three million people there. After 50 years of massive oil revenues, pretty much all Alberta has to show for it is a bunch oil rigs.

ROFLMAO!

Totally clueless. I think this quote right there discredits any further statements you have on the topic.

[Hobbes]

Have you a CLUE what constitutes a good government?

Depends whether you're rich or poor.

[DanS]

Canadians are mean to each other when it comes to politics. You guys should learn to get along with one another.

[Tingkai]

All right Asher, prove to me that the provincial governments pay for the equalization payments.

What is your problem with the numbers I listed. The equalization payments equal about $10.7 billion. If Ontario taxpayers provide 44 per cent of federal income tax revenues then Ontario finances $4.7 billion of the equalization payments (10.7 x 0.44). Albertan taxpayers provides 11 per cent of federal income tax revenues so Albertan taxpayers finance about $1.2 billion of the payments (10.7 x 0.11).

The remainder of the transfer payments would come from taxpayers in other provinces.

Instead of saying "you're wrong, you're wrong" why don't you state what you believe.

Originally posted by Asher
Bullshit.

Well that is insightful. Exactly what do you think is bullshit? Are you trying to argue oil revenues do not contribute to Alberta's wealth?

It's charity.

It is an attempt to ensure that all Canadians receive the same level of services from areas controlled by the provincial governments, e.g. education.

[Hobbes]

Burn!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
All right Asher, prove to me that the provincial governments pay for the equalization payments.

I never said they did.

What is your problem with the numbers I listed. The equalization payments equal about $10.7 billion. If Ontario taxpayers provide 44 per cent of federal income tax revenues then Ontario finances $4.7 billion of the equalization payments (10.7 x 0.44). Albertan taxpayers provides 11 per cent of federal income tax revenues so Albertan taxpayers finance about $1.2 billion of the payments (10.7 x 0.11).

Again, you have no concept of oil royalties that would have gone to provincial governments if not given to the federal government.

And don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. My father was the one that negotiated royalties for Hibernia and is now working on the oil sands here. I know exactly what I'm talking about.

Well that is insightful. Exactly what do you think is bullshit? Are you trying to argue oil revenues do not contribute to Alberta's wealth?

You said oil revenues are not taken into account with transfer payments. I found a source stating you were clearly wrong. Thus, "bullshit", no?

[Hobbes]

Oooh, counter-burn!

[Asher]

The problem here is Tingkai is dabbling with gross figures, rather than net. Further, he's only taking into account gross income tax contribution, which is only a small fraction of the equation...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
I was unaware Saskatchewan and BC merged. When did that happen?

Never said it did.

Originally posted by Asher
And the corruption argument is incredibly silly, considering the scandals and corruption the NDP just went through in BC.

IIRC, No NDP MLAs in BC have been convicted for crimes, unlike the Devine government. Oh did I mention the Conservative MLA who was convicted of murder, Collin Thatcher, a crime committed while he was an MLA.

Originally posted by Asher
Look at the GDP growth, look at the unemployment rates, look at the consumer price index...

At 5.9 per cent, unemployment is well below the national average.

GDP growth projected at about 3 per cent for 2002.

Inflation 1.4 per cent (Mar - Apr) 3.6 per cent y-o-y (Alta's y-o-y inflation was 3.4 per cent.

Pretty good for a province that doesn't have much.

When the NDP under Tommy Douglas came to power, Saskatchewan was in massive debt. Douglas not only created a fiscal surplus, he also introduced the first medicare in Canada.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
IIRC, No NDP MLAs in BC have been convicted for crimes, unlike the Devine government. Oh did I mention the Conservative MLA who was convicted of murder, Collin Thatcher, a crime committed while he was an MLA.

Whatever happened to BC's Premier?

At 5.9 per cent, unemployment is well below the national average.

GDP growth projected at about 3 per cent for 2002.

Inflation 1.4 per cent (Mar - Apr) 3.6 per cent y-o-y (Alta's y-o-y inflation was 3.4 per cent.

Pretty good for a province that doesn't have much.

When the NDP under Tommy Douglas came to power, Saskatchewan was in massive debt. Douglas not only created a fiscal surplus, he also introduced the first medicare in Canada.

Yes, and to this day the quality of medicare deteriorates at a rapid rate while Chretien uses his budget to buy his private jet fleet.

What a wonderful thing Douglas gave us.

Public medicare only works if the government is competent enough to maintain it. Obviously, that concept is out of the question with Chretien.

Personally I've had nothing but horrible experiences with Canada's healthcare, FAR worse than I got in the states.

1) I had to wait over a YEAR to have a cyst removed on my right wrist -- for the last 4 months before the operation it began pinching a nerve and cramped my hand minutes after I started writing. My dad had the same operation done a year or two earlier on the SAME DAY he saw the doctor when we lived in California.

2) My dad's appendix burst and he had to wait nearly 12 hours WITHOUT PAINKILLER before they could operate. People who have had an appendix burst know how PAINFUL it is. This was in Ontario, before you blame it on Klein.

3) The public healthcare doesn't include dental care. I just coughed up $1500 for wisdom teeth removal. Thankfully my dad's company covers dental insurance...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
The problem here is Tingkai is dabbling with gross figures, rather than net. Further, he's only taking into account gross income tax contribution, which is only a small fraction of the equation

The income tax numbers that I provided represent actual income tax paid.

Income tax revenues provide a picture of the contributions from Canadian taxpayers.

If you have proof that Albertans pay more than Ontarians to Federal coffers then let's see it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
If you have proof that Albertans pay more than Ontarians to Federal coffers then let's see it.

I've already shown you the figures.

Albertans don't pay directly out of their pocket, as you seem to have taken the statement, but they pay with the huge loss of resource revenue. If all that money wasn't going to helping fund the welfare state of Newfoundland, it would have stayed in Provincial hands (you do know that provinces own the rights to resources in the province, right?), therefore giving the province more money, therefore reducing taxes/providing rebates.

And we're not talking gross federal coffers, but equalization payments.