Canadian Federal Election 44 - Sep 2021

[Altair]

It doesn't matter what you say, he just wants to twist it into random strawmen to argue with which is why the conversation can't get anywhere.

"I have concerns about this method of universal childcare" becomes "you hate women" real quick with this guy.

I think it might be Yves Blanchet to be honest.

I'm a PPC voting Liberal supporter, I think I'm far too confusing for any political party to understand.

I definately wouldn't run for the bloc though.

 

[Altair]

You exhibit remarkably poor reading comprehension. I wrote that I benefit either way. I benefit from good governance if government resists the temptation to socialize all costs. I benefit personally if a social program puts money in my pocket. Whether the program is "OK" is a different question.

You seemed far more okay when you received personal benefits from a social program than when you do not receive benefits from a social program.

I wasn't talking about whether the programs are any more okay.

 

[Brad Sallows]

For all the heat and light over equalization, the amounts involved are not particularly large. And while all the people writing about equalization are strangely reluctant to reveal the benchmark taxation rate used to calculate fiscal capacity (I've skimmed quite a few articles now), I suppose that it isn't 20%.

 

[Altair]

For all the heat and light over equalization, the amounts involved are not particularly large. And while all the people writing about equalization are strangely reluctant to reveal the benchmark taxation rate used to calculate fiscal capacity (I've skimmed quite a few articles now), I suppose that it isn't 20%.

People also fail to realize that even if equalization were to be scrapped, that doesn't result in more money for places like alberta, at leas.t not directly.

Just more money for the feds to spend other priorities instead of sending it to Quebec and the atlantic provinces.

The only way getting rid of equalization would see more money in the hands of places like alberta is if it was accompanied with a tax cut.

So the argument could not be more petty. Its not about places like alberta getting more, its about places like quebec getting less.

 

[Brad Sallows]

You seemed far more okay when you received personal benefits from a social program than when you do not receive benefits from a social program.

You missed the point entirely, which is that I don't care which way the ball lands. I'll argue for what will probably provide better long-term fiscal growth and stability (and thus fulfill the first requirement for social programs - be able to pay for them), which I see as a better deal for young Canadians and less well-off Canadians. But if others persist in making what I think are poor decisions, I'll pocket my cheque (this was in the context of universal pharmacare) and let them deal with the unforeseen consequences.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So the argument could not be more petty. Its not about places like alberta getting more, its about places like quebec getting less

Pay more attention to federal-provincial relations, an example of which is going on right now (ie. the latter demanding more money from the former). If equalization ended tomorrow, the premiers would be full of ideas that would in common share the theme that the best use of newly uncommitted federal funds would be other transfers to provinces. And AB might get a piece of that, so "more".

 

[Altair]

Pay more attention to federal-provincial relations, an example of which is going on right now (ie. the latter demanding more money from the former). If equalization ended tomorrow, the premiers would be full of ideas that would in common share the theme that the best use of newly uncommitted federal funds would be other transfers to provinces. And AB might get a piece of that, so "more".

Sure they "might" get more, but the government could also just toss that money at the deficit with the provinces not receive a penny.

But as you hear opponents to equalization talk about it, they don't want to send Alberta money to Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. Fine, so stop that and that money just sits in federal coffers. So at the heart of the issue, its not more for Alberta, its less for Quebec, which, at the end of the day to me, is petty.

 

[ballz]

Quebecers have lower incomes, and bring in less per capita than other provinces (still better than all the atlantic provinces, but nobody talks about them)

So while they do get support from other provinces it is called equalization. It doesn't shoot Quebec or the atlantic provinces ahead of the others.

It's welfare for provinces, plain and simple. It doesn't shoot them "ahead" because Alberta has historically managed itself pretty well. But an extra $11.7 billion, or $1379 per citizen, is one hell of a handicap. That would be $6 billion for Alberta, and would cover every deficit they've run by a long shot.

Why do Quebecers have lower incomes? Again man, you just want to ignore whatever doesn't suit you.

They also benefit hugely by the fact that hydropower is exempt from the formula. This wasn't by mistake.

So all things being equal, I would say Quebec is doing rather well. They were a economic basket case and they turned things around.

All things aren't equal, that's the only reason they're running any surpluses and like I said, a few years isn't very impressive.

The money gets taken by everyone. From Quebecers, from Ontarians, from Albertans, from coast to coast. The money is taken regardless. Its coming from general revenues. Same taxes you pay that goes to the military? Yeah, that same general revenue.

No, the money does not get taken "regardless." Do you think if the equalization program didn't exist, we couldn't have lower tax rates and leave that money in the hands that earned it?

Or put it towards the deficit?

Or put it towards things the benefit all Canadians?

The point of a federal government is to govern for the benefit of all Canadians, the animosity about equalization is justifiably about the fact that it's not a fair system, even the formula isn't fair. The animosity is further multiplied when the province that benefits the most (due to the formula which was hand-tailored for them) is arrogant about it and goes out of their way to screw over the provinces whose backs they ride to balance their budget.

Sure they "might" get more, but the government could also just toss that money at the deficit with the provinces not receive a penny.

But as you hear opponents to equalization talk about it, they don't want to send Alberta money to Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. Fine, so stop that and that money just sits in federal coffers. So at the heart of the issue, its not more for Alberta, its less for Quebec, which, at the end of the day to me, is petty.

Yeah yeah, Quebec is just a victim.

The difference equalization makes is Quebec sees some of it come back and alberta does not.

Right. So in other words, Albertans pay it into the Federal government, and Quebec withdraws it. If it were cash you could literally mark the bills and watch them appear in Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

So this Alberta would have a sales tax if only equalization didn't get taken away is not how the system works.

I never stated that. What I was getting at is it's "rich" that the welfare cases who are benefitting from the work of "have" provinces (who are apparently a fiscal wreck according to you) and then saying "ah fuck your deficit, just raise taxes even more" despite the fact that their only scraping by because of equalization. Here's an idea, why don't we get rid of equalization and put it towards the deficit, and Quebec can raise it's own damn taxes???

What you clearly don't understand... remember when you proposed how impossible it would be to move because of things like family? Starting over? etc.? Fact is many Albertans left their homes, sacrifices some people won't make for themselves, and now realize they're the ones subsidizing all those who are simply not willing to make that sacrifice for themselves. They're content that someone else makes the sacrifice for them and uses their vote to convince the government to abandon "governing for everyone" and just want to use government for personal gain.

 

[Altair]

It's welfare for provinces, plain and simple. It doesn't shoot them "ahead" because Alberta has historically managed itself pretty well. But an extra $11.7 billion, or $1379 per citizen, is one hell of a handicap. That would be $6 billion for Alberta, and would cover every deficit they've run by a long shot.

Alberta's deficits is 7.8 billion.

Why do Quebecers have lower incomes? Again man, you just want to ignore whatever doesn't suit you.

They also benefit hugely by the fact that hydropower is exempt from the formula. This wasn't by mistake.

Most provincial utilities is not included in the formula.

All things aren't equal, that's the only reason they're running any surpluses and like I said, a few years isn't very impressive.

They are on par with Ontario, which is leaps and bounds ahead of where they used to be.

No, the money does not get taken "regardless." Do you think if the equalization program didn't exist, we couldn't have lower tax rates and leave that money in the hands that earned it?

Lol, the government does not do tax cuts very well.

Or put it towards the deficit?

Maybe

Or put it towards things the benefit all Canadians?

Could. But in the age of deficit spending, they are usually covering what they want to cover anyways.

The point of a federal government is to govern for the benefit of all Canadians, the animosity about equalization is justifiably about the fact that it's not a fair system, even the formula isn't fair. The animosity is further multiplied when the province that benefits the most (due to the formula which was hand-tailored for them) is arrogant about it and goes out of their way to screw over the provinces whose backs they ride to balance their budget.

You are being really mean to PEI.

Yeah yeah, Quebec is just a victim.

Petty.

Right. So in other words, Albertans pay it into the Federal government, and Quebec withdraws it. If it were cash you could literally mark the bills and watch them appear in Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

If you think that Quebecers only pay 1379 per capita in taxes every spring, well, I don't know what to tell you.

I wouldn't want your accounting expertise though.

I never stated that. What I was getting at is it's "rich" that the welfare cases who are benefitting from the work of "have" provinces (who are apparently a fiscal wreck according to you) and then saying "ah fuck your deficit, just raise taxes even more" despite the fact that their only scraping by because of equalization. Here's an idea, why don't we get rid of equalization and put it towards the deficit, and Quebec can raise it's own damn taxes???

Scrap equalization and Alberta isn't any further ahead. So yes, get a sales tax like every other province and stop blaming everyone else for its fiscal situation.

What you clearly don't understand... remember when you proposed how impossible it would be to move because of things like family? Starting over? etc.? Fact is many Albertans left their homes, sacrifices some people won't make for themselves, and now realize they're the ones subsidizing all those who are simply not willing to make that sacrifice for themselves. They're content that someone else makes the sacrifice for them and uses their vote to convince the government to abandon "governing for everyone" and just want to use government for personal gain.

Equalization is the boogie man here, but again, take it away and Alberta isn't any further ahead. Quebec and the Atlantic are just more behind. Yay?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Equalization is the boogie man here, but again, take it away and Alberta isn't any further ahead. Quebec and the Atlantic are just more behind. Yay?

Why shouldn't they be further behind ?

 

[Altair]

Why shouldn't they be further behind ?

Well, first reason is the constitution.

"Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation." (Subsection 36(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982)

Other than that, I suppose there is no reason they shouldn't be. But to complain Alberta has had a rough go and the solution is to make others have a worse go is nothing if not petty.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Well, first reason is the constitution.

Other than that, I suppose there is no reason they shouldn't be. But to complain Alberta has had a rough go and the solution is to make others have a worse go is nothing if not petty.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I mean I would help any of my siblings out.

The question for me is how long should a province be allowed to draw equalization payments ?

Shouldn't we expect Que and the Maritimes to be able to live within their means at some point ?

 

[ballz]

Alberta's deficits is 7.8 billion.

Once again, picking flyshit from pepper because you've got nothing useful to add.

Sorry, let me be more precise... it would cover the cumulative amount of the deficits they've ever run.

Most provincial utilities is not included in the formula.

The market value of hydropower is excluded from the formula that is supposed to calculate revenue capacity. It's a scam.

Lol, the government does not do tax cuts very well.

That's because of poisonous people like yourself.

You are being really mean to PEI.

Nope. I'm not talking about benefitting the most per capita or gross, I'm talking about a formula that's designed specifically to benefit Quebec.

Petty.

Just calling a spade a spade, Yves.

If you think that Quebecers only pay 1379 per capita in taxes every spring, well, I don't know what to tell you.

Again, your reading comprehension fails you. The equalization payments are equal to about $1379/Quebecker. Get rid of equalization and they can raise their own taxes by $1379/per person.

I wouldn't want your accounting expertise though.

You couldn't afford it.

 

[Altair]

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I mean I would help any of my siblings out.

The question for me is how long should a province be allowed to draw equalization payments ?

Shouldn't we expect Que and the Maritimes to be able to live within their means at some point ?

We should open up the constitution and change a few things around then.

That always works so well.

Back to serious world, I don't think places like PEI will ever be able to keep up with places like Alberta. The resource base isn't there, the industries are not there, there are a lot of reasons that places like Alberta will always be more dynamic than places like PEI.

So it doesn't matter how long they are on equalization, the second they are off for any reason other than their economy, wage growth, resource base, accelerates to the point its a have province and you have a case where they only fall further and further behind in terms of services to the point that you have massive inequalities across the nation.

 

[Altair]

Once again, picking flyshit from pepper because you've got nothing useful to add.

Sorry, let me be more precise... it would cover the cumulative amount of the deficits they've ever run.

Sorry, I didn't know we were going to retroactively repay every province all its ever contributed to equalization.

I assumed we were talking about tinkering or getting rid of the current program as of present day.

The market value of hydropower is excluded from the formula that is supposed to calculate revenue capacity. It's a scam.

Okay.

That's because of poisonous people like yourself.

Nope. I'm not talking about benefitting the most per capita or gross, I'm talking about a formula that's designed specifically to benefit Quebec.

Poor PEI.

Just calling a spade a spade, Yves.

Petty.

Again, your reading comprehension fails you. The equalization payments are equal to about $1379/Quebecker. Get rid of equalization and they can raise their own taxes by $1379/per person.

Or, and this is a fun game, Quebecers pay 9k in taxes, their own money originating in Quebec, and they get 1379 back.

Look at that, not a cent from Alberta made it to Quebec. But that doesn't fit the narrative of a money pipeline starting in Edmonton and ending in Quebec city does it?

You couldn't afford it.

Win Win.

 

[ballz]

Or, and this is a fun game, Quebecers pay 9k in taxes, their own money originating in Quebec, and they get 1379 back.

Look at that, not a cent from Alberta made it to Quebec. But that doesn't fit the narrative of a money pipeline starting in Edmonton and ending in Quebec city does it?

Or, Quebecers pay $9k/person in tax, their government spends $10,379/person, and yet they magically balance the budget.

Meanwhile, Albertans pay $9k/person in tax, their government spends $9k/persn, and yet they are in a deficit of $1379/person.

Anyway, agree to disagree, I can't handle this nonsense anymore.

 

[Altair]

Or, Quebecers pay $9k/person in tax, their government spends $10,379/person, and yet they magically balance the budget.

Federal, Provincial, so not so simple.

Meanwhile, Albertans pay $9k/person in tax, their government spends $9k/persn, and yet they are in a deficit of $1379/person.

Ah yes, this.

So Alberta chooses to have low taxes and high spending and when they cannot balance the books its everyone else fault. Meanwhile Quebec had a surplus but double the taxes of Alberta and yet the only reason for this is equalization.

Of course. Alberta could balance its book tomorrow if they wanted to, but they want to enjoy their low taxes. You talk about choices, well that's a choice Albertans are making.

Anyway, agree to disagree, I can't handle this nonsense anymore.

You have yourself a good night.

 

[ballz]

Federal, Provincial, so not so simple.

Altair, honestly, you're clearly just trying to be nuisance, get a sense of shame for God's sake. Before I hit send I thought "there's no way I need to add in both levels of tax to get the point across" but here we are..... obviously I overestimated you.

 

[Altair]

Altair, honestly, you're clearly just trying to be nuisance. Before I hit send I thought "there's no way I need to add in both levels of tax to get the point across" but here we are..... obviously I overestimated you.

Equalization is not the simplest system to explain, or even to debate.

Which is why people can rage against it in the most simple of terms because who spends their time trying to understand the byzantine rules behind the policy?

This guy.

There are three major transfer programs: the Canada Health Transfer, the Canada Social Transfer and Equalization.

Canada health transfer and Canada social transfer are based on population. These are given to all provinces based on population. Quebec is twice as big as Alberta so they receive twice as much.

Equalization is doing what it was set out to do in the constitution. Might it be tweaked? Maybe. But an uncomfortable truth is nearly three in four federal transfer dollars are coming through the Canada Health transfer and the Canada Social transfer program. So all the talk is about equalization when its the smallest overall transfer of the bunch.

And then you have politicians saying Alberta sends out 20 billion more than they receive annually. Which is true, but it's not equalization doing this. Alberta has a young population making a high average income, which leads to less CPP and OAS money coming back. Solution for Alberta here is to ironically get older.

Which leads to the big outflow of money from Alberta to the rest of confederation. Income tax and GST. But these are not transfer programs, these are taxes. Its flat across the board. Higher income individuals pay more income tax because they make more money. Solution for Alberta here is have lower average incomes.

These are the nuances involved in the system which cannot simply be explained away by equalization bad.

 

[Eaglelord17]

asking what we are trying to achieve and why would be helpful. I'm not dead set against subsidized childcare but something seems off on the equation to me. My children went to daycare, but it was also cheap compared to today.

There is clearly something wrong in the construct of our society when we have to mandate minimum wages, subsidized housing, subsidized everything but still as a society trend toward extinction. Obvioulsy this is a function of modern industrialized/service economies and not limited to Canada or even Western democracies

We aren't a industrialized society anymore, we are a 'post-industrial' society. There is some industry, but nothing near what there should be. As I tell people the difference between a pre-industrial society and a post-industrial society is the pre-industrial society had some manufacturing capability with the skilled tradespeople that existed (i.e. blacksmiths, leatherworkers, etc.). We are 100% dependent on others to survive when we could be pretty much the only country in the world to be completely capable of surviving in isolation due to how resource rich our country is.

Want to see the economy boom? Start making things in house again and stop the importation of products we can't even legally make in country due to how bad the pollution is.

Well, first reason is the constitution.

"Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation." (Subsection 36(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982)

Other than that, I suppose there is no reason they shouldn't be. But to complain Alberta has had a rough go and the solution is to make others have a worse go is nothing if not petty.

Which Constitution? You mean the one Quebec refused to sign and actively attacks with the Notwithstanding Clause? Just a bit of sarcasm on a province which wants to have its cake and eat it too.