Referendum

[jazz]

dml, your analogy made my head spin. Its just so much simpler than that.

Equalization was never an issue until Trudeau wanted to bleed the province paying for most. Kenny may have renewed the formula, but even he couldnt imaging the incompetent evil idiot that the people would elect 3 times.

And for AF5s idea that instead of equalization we employ people here, thats all well and good, until they go back home and vote against us anyway like every newfie just did. No thanks.

[burnt]

dml, your analogy made my head spin. Its just so much simpler than that.
...

It's what sophists do best.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

And for AF5s idea that instead of equalization we employ people here, thats all well and good, until they go back home and vote against us anyway like every newfie just did. No thanks.

Actually, I would say that's the best of both worlds. They come here and spend their productive years contributing to the economy. Then go back home in retirement , not being a burden on our health system anymore.
If I were the other promises, that is the Injustice I would want fixed. So their systems have to put everyone through school, look after them until they are adults, then as soon as they are old enough to contribute and pay taxes, they leave soon as they are too old to contribute and pay taxes, they come back.

[Guest]

A question for those opposed to equalization

Since most of you are convinced that equalization is bad, and that it is wrong to use income tax monies from higher income areas of the country to support basic services in areas that cannot afford these services I would like your opinion on this scenario.

You live in an RM with 10 landowners (10 provinces) The mil rate is the same for all landowners (just like the the federal income tax rate is the same across Canada) Of course larger landowners pay more taxes than small land holders. And those blessed with better quality land pay more through higher assessments - the theory being better quality land will provide higher earnings. The taxes collected by the RM goes to fund basic services as determined by council: road, recreation facilities. fire protection, portion of education etc.

One of the landowners is a BTO with lands not only in your RM but many others. He does not live in the RM nor do any of his employees. One day the BTO decides he should not have to pay the same mil rate as anyone else because he does not receive the same amount of benefit as small farmers living in the RM. He does not need roads maintained year round, only spring and fall - in fact he thinks there are too many roads and wants to have some removed to make his fields bigger. He feels the inconvenience to other landowner if roads would be closed should be no big deal. He argues that there are less miles of roads in other RMs he farms in. And why should he have to support recreation facilities in some hick RM when he and his employees never use them. Same goes with education - let the people with children attending school in the RM pay for it or they can bus them to someplace else. And with his big equipment, water truck, and employees, they can handle any fires on their property themselves, probably better than a volunteer department if they are working in the RM when fires break out.



Another landowner is a large established farm operation who principle owner lives in the city and spends winters out of country. A third is a childless, lifetime bachelor who also has never benefited from the education portion of his property taxes.

The BTO's reasoning gets the two other large landowners also questioning why they are paying as more in property taxes than small landowners in the RM; especially for services they also don't use year round They see the BTOs argument as valid and join the chorus demanding change. Not only would it reduce their tax bill but these three also see a potential benefit of being able to expand their own operations with more money and maybe more opportunities. They wonder if by paying less property taxes, they might be able to expand their own operations if the remaining 7 smaller holders who lose services like education and recreation because of less tax support leave the RM.

So my question is if you disagree with equalization to fund the same basic services, are you also for basing property taxes on services used? Should a person who spends the winters in Arizona have to fund any snow plowing of RM roads?

i think all we are saying FFS, is that if one province collects half the money,with only a quarter of the pop of canada, and collects EVERY year , and never gets off it, well , maybe there is abuse ????????

[Guest]

Besides, the free market had worked out a very effective equalization scheme without government intervention.
How it works is that people move from places where their standard of living is less than they would aspire to because of a lack of good paying jobs, and move to places where there are more jobs than employees, and hence good wages and a better standard of living.

Canada, unlike those communist type places that Chuck worships, doesn't restrict the movement of people within the country. People from Quebec are welcome to move to the west to partake in the easy money( easy according to Chuck at least), as are the residents of any other province.

After working in Alberta throughout the recent boom times, easily half of my coworkers were from outside of Alberta. BC and Saskatchewan being well represnted, Manitoba to a smaller degree, plenty came from Ontario. Newfoundland, that goes without saying, I think they all came, New Brunswick, quite a few, PEI sent more than their fare share considering their size, Nova Scotian's, specifically Cape Bretoner's, made such a large part of our work force, that they had their own crews, all honest hard working good natured people. Some from the Territories. And in all the years, and all the people I knew, I only knew one who came from Quebec, and his work ethic left a lot to be desired.

Since Quebec is a perrenial have not province, I would have thought that they would be leaving in droves for greener pastures, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

actually drilled a few holes in quebec , was great !
had a few quebec crews and hands from quebec over the years , they were crazy , hardworking MF's

[Hamloc]

A question for those opposed to equalization

Since most of you are convinced that equalization is bad, and that it is wrong to use income tax monies from higher income areas of the country to support basic services in areas that cannot afford these services I would like your opinion on this scenario.

You live in an RM with 10 landowners (10 provinces) The mil rate is the same for all landowners (just like the the federal income tax rate is the same across Canada) Of course larger landowners pay more taxes than small land holders. And those blessed with better quality land pay more through higher assessments - the theory being better quality land will provide higher earnings. The taxes collected by the RM goes to fund basic services as determined by council: road, recreation facilities. fire protection, portion of education etc.

One of the landowners is a BTO with lands not only in your RM but many others. He does not live in the RM nor do any of his employees. One day the BTO decides he should not have to pay the same mil rate as anyone else because he does not receive the same amount of benefit as small farmers living in the RM. He does not need roads maintained year round, only spring and fall - in fact he thinks there are too many roads and wants to have some removed to make his fields bigger. He feels the inconvenience to other landowner if roads would be closed should be no big deal. He argues that there are less miles of roads in other RMs he farms in. And why should he have to support recreation facilities in some hick RM when he and his employees never use them. Same goes with education - let the people with children attending school in the RM pay for it or they can bus them to someplace else. And with his big equipment, water truck, and employees, they can handle any fires on their property themselves, probably better than a volunteer department if they are working in the RM when fires break out.



Another landowner is a large established farm operation who principle owner lives in the city and spends winters out of country. A third is a childless, lifetime bachelor who also has never benefited from the education portion of his property taxes.

The BTO's reasoning gets the two other large landowners also questioning why they are paying as more in property taxes than small landowners in the RM; especially for services they also don't use year round They see the BTOs argument as valid and join the chorus demanding change. Not only would it reduce their tax bill but these three also see a potential benefit of being able to expand their own operations with more money and maybe more opportunities. They wonder if by paying less property taxes, they might be able to expand their own operations if the remaining 7 smaller holders who lose services like education and recreation because of less tax support leave the RM.

So my question is if you disagree with equalization to fund the same basic services, are you also for basing property taxes on services used? Should a person who spends the winters in Arizona have to fund any snow plowing of RM roads?

As an Albertan(where I live adds context to my opinion) I am not asking for a lower rate of taxation. Nor do I have a problem with the theory of equalization. What I do have a problem with is a province like Quebec who receives far more per capita from the federal government than Alberta essentially having a veto on the construction of export pipelines for Western Canadian resources and at the same time using derogatory terms like dirty oil for what we produce. While I disagree with the wording of the referendum question and believe they asked the wrong question, voting no would make eastern Canada believe Albertan’s are happy with the status quo which We are not! Being against sharing our wealth is not in my view what Albertan’s feel, being against allowing us to prosper is our concern.

[ColevilleH2S]

What the heck is with Albertans wanting to be flip-floppers!!??

Move the clock forward, move the clock back, move the clock forward, move the clock back, move the clock forward... fooking flip-floppers

[chuckChuck]

Underlying this issue is an anti french Canadian sentiment. Rarely are the other provinces who receive equalization ever mentioned. Manitoba for example also receives equalization. Saskatchewan historically also received equalization.

The principles of equalization are sound. Whether or not one region or province is favoured more than others is up for debate.

But don't expect republicans and separatists in Alberta to favour federal spending to ensure some parity in social programs across the country.

Several arrogant posters on this site from Alberta give the impression that Albertans are the only ones who work hard and contribute to the country! LOL

But any suggestion that Alberta is a victim is just political hot air.

How could the richest province with the highest per capita incomes in the country be at such a disadvantage because they are so well off and have to pay a lot of federal taxes at the same rate as every other Canadian?

[jazz]

Several arrogant posters on this site from Alberta give the impression that Albertans are the only ones who work hard and contribute to the country! LOL

They work 20% harder than everyone else in the country chuck as evidenced by the per capita GDP.

Take off the equalization handout and Albertans are nearly 40% more industrious and productive than any other Canadian except the Sask people kind.

facts.

[chuckChuck]

They work 20% harder than everyone else in the country chuck as evidenced by the per capita GDP.

Take off the equalization handout and Albertans are nearly 40% more industrious and productive than any other Canadian except the Sask people kind.

facts.

And the farmers and ranchers in Manitoba and BC. What a bunch of lazy welfare bums! Right? LOL