Referendum

[chuckChuck]

The west has to take a stance , this can not continue I don’t care how anyone tries to justify it ...


How anyone living in western Canada can’t see that this is so flawed is beyond comprehension

Good on Alberta for at least taking a stand .

Alberta has been receiving federal transfers for ever. But those transfer are not in the graphic?

Alberta has generated far more GDP from natural resources per capita than any other province and has benefited greatly from resource revenue.

But they don't want to pay their fair share of federal taxes. They're special.

It sucks to be richest province per capita and have to pay federal taxes at the same rate as every other Canadian.

[jazz]

The national playbook has been set for the next 2 yrs.

Kenny has his mandate and will legitimize it in the legislature shortly. It will be ignored and ridiculed by eastern Canada, and will become a pivot point for Alberta to be treated as those people who are anti Canadian. Like antivaxxers or some shit. CBC will be all over it.

Thats what the next election will be fought on, meanwhile radical ESG retard Guilbeault and former Sask NDP flameout refugee Wilkinson will be going all in on Western canada, not just oil, but ag as well, mining, everything. Quebec and maritimes will be spared all regulation.

Alberta will have its pension plan ace in the hole to play yet. And then we are off to constitutional crisis and hopefully permanent split.

https://www.prairiepost.com/alberta/free-alberta-strategy-group-including-med-hat-mla-calls-on-premier-to-make-alberta-a/article_ec06e75a-2085-11ec-b108-d32ede70be0d.html

[Guest]

The national playbook has been set for the next 2 yrs.

Kenny has his mandate and will legitimize it in the legislature shortly. It will be ignored and ridiculed by eastern Canada, and will become a pivot point for Alberta to be treated as those people who are anti Canadian. Like antivaxxers or some shit. CBC will be all over it.

Thats what the next election will be fought on, meanwhile radical ESG retard Guilbeault and former Sask NDP flameout refugee Wilkinson will be going all in on Western canada, not just oil, but ag as well, mining, everything. Quebec and maritimes will be spared all regulation.

Alberta will have its pension plan ace in the hole to play yet. And then we are off to constitutional crisis and hopefully permanent split.

https://www.prairiepost.com/alberta/free-alberta-strategy-group-including-med-hat-mla-calls-on-premier-to-make-alberta-a/article_ec06e75a-2085-11ec-b108-d32ede70be0d.html

not with that chicken shit kenney

[AlbertaFarmer5]

not with that chicken shit kenney

Sad but true.

Equalization referendum, threatening to pull out of CPP and RCMP, are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
We need to cut the chain to the anchor, and do it fast, since they are determined to drag us all down with them. Just read the crap Chuck posts if you have any doubts.

[furrowtickler]

Alberta has been receiving federal transfers for ever. But those transfer are not in the graphic?

Alberta has generated far more GDP from natural resources per capita than any other province and has benefited greatly from resource revenue.

But they don't want to pay their fair share of federal taxes. They're special.

It sucks to be richest province per capita and have to pay federal taxes at the same rate as every other Canadian.

Look at the numbers , the only special province in Canada is Quebec .
More of the transfer payments need to stay in western Canada if there is to be any future for western Canadians . It’s a slanted wealth transfer scheme pure and simple , and the carbon tax is no different

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Look at the numbers , the only special province in Canada is Quebec .
More of the transfer payments need to stay in western Canada if there is to be any future for western Canadians . It’s a slanted wealth transfer scheme pure and simple , and the carbon tax is no different

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.

[dmlfarmer]

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?

[dmlfarmer]

Holy fu(( DML, all that for that, good god.

You come on here trying to dis a vote by Albertans because of turnout that was as good as the federal election to push your left propaganda.

Your a real piece of work.

Instead of insults how about answering my question. If a landowner is not using basic rm provided services should he be expected to pay same rate of property taxes? Or should his tax rate be bases on value of services he received? If he pays more in gross property tax should he get more services?

[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 ????????