180 degrees. About face.
Alison Redford may have been called a flip flopper before, but this time it was a complete polar turn around. To be fair, I see nothing wrong with flip flopping. We all make mistakes and we all make decisions without necessarily considering the complete information. Reversing a decision simply means that a person has given an issue further consideration and deemed that a different decision would be more appropriate. Policy development should be about getting things right and it shouldn't matter if someone thought wrong before and has since changed their mind - as long as they get it right.
Redford has now gotten it right (sort of). I am talking of course about the announcement made on Thursday that PC MLAs will return their no-meet-committee pay. Clearly, this issue was being heard on the doorsteps as MLAs were canvassing for votes. This issue, it was deemed, was driving down PC poll numbers. A flip was necessary.
And the PCs messaged this one perfectly - in a way very few politicians have had the courage to do so before.
"Growing up I was always taught that the only thing worse than making a mistake was not admitting it and fixing it. I made a mistake on these issues and now I am fixing them," she said. "Leadership is about making decisions; sometimes difficult decisions and sometimes, admitting you were wrong."
So, how did they get it so wrong? How did PC MLAs - smart, politically savvy people, with their ear to the ground - not know that Albertans would be so upset about this? I suspect they knew that there would be backlash, but they felt that the issue had been managed appropriately. Maybe they have a point.
First off, MLA compensation is broken. There is a dominant narrative that suggests politicians are a bunch of pigs at a trough and we pay them too much money. This narrative is particularly strong in Alberta. So, for the past two decades, MLAs have attempted to hide the real amount of compensation that they get. They got rid of the pension plan and replaced it with severance packages. They slashed base pay and implemented tax free allowances. They implemented pay for committee and portfolio work and boosted it by 30 per cent. All of this is done in an effort to make MLA remuneration appear lower than it actually is. Ultimately, it is dishonest and unfair to both MLAs and taxpayers.
MLAs saw the committee pay, not as pay specifically for the work of the committee, but rather just as a part of their actual total compensation. I think that is why Ray Prins was so insulted by this being phrased as an integrity question. For MLAs, being named to a committee meant they were being recognized for good work and the compensation that came with that was part and parcel of MLA pay. That concept that committee pay is about boosting total compensation for backbenchers as opposed to pay for extra work is echoed in statements made by former MLA Richard Marz.
The real problem is that MLA base compensation is too low. A number of MLAs are doctors, or lawyers or business executives and in many cases they now work harder and longer, under closer scrutiny and for less pay than they did before. Our premier, chairman of the board for an organization that manages a $40 billion per year operation - takes in a bit over $200,000 per year. I wonder how that would compare to the chairman of a similar sized organization in the private sector? The average MLA pay depending on the source you ask, is between $125,000 and $160,000. I'm not going to suggest that that is a small amount of money, but if we want the best decisions made, then we need to attract the best and brightest to public office. We have to give them an incentive for taking the risk, making the sacrifices and managing the time and stress associated with the role.
At the end of the day, a review is necessary and Redford has appropriately appointed former Supreme Court justice John Major to lead that review. Policy-wise it was the right decision to make - unfortunately it didn't work out well for her politically. Hopefully this honest reversal will.
Showing posts with label Conservative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservative. Show all posts
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Federal Election Prediction
With the 41st Canadian General Election Day arriving tomorrow, it seems that it is time for me to get my election prediction on the record.
I am predicting a Conservative minority government with the New Democratic Party holding the balance of power. At this point, those two predictions are not ground breakers, so I want to add that I see the NDP and Liberals being placed in a position where their combined seats will challenge the number of seats that the Conservatives hold - meaning that a coalition government formed by those parties would not necessarily require the formal support of the Bloc Quebecois. I am also going to predict that Elizabeth May will win her seat for the Green Parties.
Here are my predictions, by the numbers:
A special thanks to this page for supplying such a great summary of the poll numbers.
I am predicting a Conservative minority government with the New Democratic Party holding the balance of power. At this point, those two predictions are not ground breakers, so I want to add that I see the NDP and Liberals being placed in a position where their combined seats will challenge the number of seats that the Conservatives hold - meaning that a coalition government formed by those parties would not necessarily require the formal support of the Bloc Quebecois. I am also going to predict that Elizabeth May will win her seat for the Green Parties.
Here are my predictions, by the numbers:
| Bloc | Conservative | Green | Liberal | NDP | |
| Total Seats | 30 | 140 | 1 | 41 | 96 |
| Popular Vote | 6% | 36% | 6% | 19% | 32% |
| Regional breakdowns | |||||
BC | -- | 18 | 1 | 3 | 14 |
| Alberta | -- | 26 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Sask/Man | -- | 20 | 0 | 2 | 6 |
| Ontario | -- | 56 | 0 | 24 | 26 |
| Quebec | 30 | 9 | 0 | 3 | 33 |
| Atlantic | -- | 10 | 0 | 9 | 13 |
| Territories | -- | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
A special thanks to this page for supplying such a great summary of the poll numbers.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Your Alberta Health Act: Opening Doors for Private Healthcare.
"We'd be a lot better off if we had funding follow the patient"
The comment hung in the air, a pinata, colorful, attention seeking, begging for a reaction.
I figured I would have to swing at it, or at least give it a poke.
I tapped the edge, "Hmmm, really? What makes you say that?"
"Competition. If you make the clinics compete for funding, then they will have to find efficiencies," replied my tablemate as I chewed on my cookie waiting for MLA Fred Horne to get the evening started.
About 80 Edmonton and area citizens came to the public consultation on the Alberta Health Act on this warm June evening. I came because I wanted to help ensure that high quality accessible health care is available for all Albertans when they need it. After having a brief discussion with my tablemate, I was glad that I came to balance his perspective.
I value medicare: free, accessible, effective, outstanding, public medicare.
Unfortunately, medicare in Alberta is once again at risk. The Conservatives are introducing a bill in the fall sitting of the legislature which will create a brand new Alberta Health Act and while they say it is needed to "facilitate current and future health system initiatives," they are being quite guarded about what those initiatives might be.
The purpose of the legislation emerged as the evening progressed, evident by the types of questions that were being asked and the answers that were already filled in. Progressive Conservatives in Alberta have tried numerous times over the years to bring in private delivery of health care. Their challenge has always been in bringing in the enabling legislation. Its not like you can just open up the hospital doors and lay out a welcome mat for private investors. The legislative framework must be in place and policies for monitoring the operators must be enacted. Much like the doomed Bill 11, this upcoming piece of legislation will attempt to enable private delivery of healthcare and place fences around the process.
There were a few things from the consultation process that make me think that the new Health Act will be used to introduce private for-profit health care.
One of the topics of discussion was on the principles that should be included in the legislation. The report of the Minister's Advisory Committee on Health assures us that the principles of the Canada Health Act will be incorporated into the new Alberta Health Act, including the addition of some made in Alberta principles. However, while the Canada Health Act incorporates explicitly the principle of "public administration," our discussion paper says the Alberta Health Act will integrate, "what these principles have come to mean to Canadians - a publicly funded health system that is accessible to all regardless of ability to pay." These weasel words clearly leave out public administration, suggesting that it is not a principle that matters to Canadians and that the new legislation will enable private for-profit providers.
Another topic of discussion was around the concept of a patient charter. A patient charter outlines the rights and responsibilities of patients. The discussion paper calls for a "full and transparent discussion around what it can be used for, including issues of accountability and liability." There are a number of pitfalls here, the most significant of which is the possibility that patients could be denied service if they don't live up to their responsibilities, including "making healthy choices" (ask Americans what they think about 'pre-existing conditions'). However, that is not the thesis of my argument. My argument is that this concept of a patients charter is being used to enable private health care delivery. The reason we would need a charter is so that the government can regulate the activity of service providers. Interestingly, concepts such as "being ensured of privacy of information" and "having timely and reasonable access to information" are already protected within public institutions through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This charter is not about placing regulations on public institutions like Alberta Health Services it is about regulating private service providers.
A third discussion had to do with "ensuring ongoing citizen engagement in the development of legislation, regulation and policy." I summed this up as governance and argued that the government has already completely failed on this matter. The most effective forms of governance are distributed to local communities, because decision makers in individual communities are more closely aware of the circumstances and contexts of the community, thus they are in the best position to make informed decisions. I argued that the PCs missed on governance with two epic fails: removing democratically elected health boards and amalgamating heath regions into AHS. This discussion was really about testing the waters in Alberta about private governance. The PCs need answers to the question, "what decisions can be made without public consultation and public accountability and what types of public input is minimally necessary for those decisions that need it."
The final question was blatant: "What changes are you open to? What assurances are important?" Here the government was looking for data on the specific issues of private delivery - what can we get away with politically? I have to respect Horne and the PCs for finally realizing that they cannot afford to get health care reform wrong again. Albertans care too deeply and a misstep here may spell the end of their reign. With this consultation process the PCs are attempting to get a very specific reading on Albertans' appetites for changes.
Shockingly, before we broke up into our discussion groups my table mate from the start of the evening revealed something very telling about his views on medicare. He essentially asked, why shouldn't someone who can afford better treatment get it - after all that's how the rest of our world works.
For people like me, who want to defend public medicare - we need to mobilize and get the message out. Otherwise, the government will end up believing that the true sentiment of Albertans is that of my tablemate's and the concept of universal public healthcare will be in jeopardy.
You can still have your say by visiting http://yourhealthact.alberta.ca.
For a further glimpse into why private delivery will not benefit us, see this post.
The comment hung in the air, a pinata, colorful, attention seeking, begging for a reaction.
I figured I would have to swing at it, or at least give it a poke.
I tapped the edge, "Hmmm, really? What makes you say that?"
"Competition. If you make the clinics compete for funding, then they will have to find efficiencies," replied my tablemate as I chewed on my cookie waiting for MLA Fred Horne to get the evening started.
About 80 Edmonton and area citizens came to the public consultation on the Alberta Health Act on this warm June evening. I came because I wanted to help ensure that high quality accessible health care is available for all Albertans when they need it. After having a brief discussion with my tablemate, I was glad that I came to balance his perspective.
I value medicare: free, accessible, effective, outstanding, public medicare.
Unfortunately, medicare in Alberta is once again at risk. The Conservatives are introducing a bill in the fall sitting of the legislature which will create a brand new Alberta Health Act and while they say it is needed to "facilitate current and future health system initiatives," they are being quite guarded about what those initiatives might be.
The purpose of the legislation emerged as the evening progressed, evident by the types of questions that were being asked and the answers that were already filled in. Progressive Conservatives in Alberta have tried numerous times over the years to bring in private delivery of health care. Their challenge has always been in bringing in the enabling legislation. Its not like you can just open up the hospital doors and lay out a welcome mat for private investors. The legislative framework must be in place and policies for monitoring the operators must be enacted. Much like the doomed Bill 11, this upcoming piece of legislation will attempt to enable private delivery of healthcare and place fences around the process.
There were a few things from the consultation process that make me think that the new Health Act will be used to introduce private for-profit health care.
One of the topics of discussion was on the principles that should be included in the legislation. The report of the Minister's Advisory Committee on Health assures us that the principles of the Canada Health Act will be incorporated into the new Alberta Health Act, including the addition of some made in Alberta principles. However, while the Canada Health Act incorporates explicitly the principle of "public administration," our discussion paper says the Alberta Health Act will integrate, "what these principles have come to mean to Canadians - a publicly funded health system that is accessible to all regardless of ability to pay." These weasel words clearly leave out public administration, suggesting that it is not a principle that matters to Canadians and that the new legislation will enable private for-profit providers.
Another topic of discussion was around the concept of a patient charter. A patient charter outlines the rights and responsibilities of patients. The discussion paper calls for a "full and transparent discussion around what it can be used for, including issues of accountability and liability." There are a number of pitfalls here, the most significant of which is the possibility that patients could be denied service if they don't live up to their responsibilities, including "making healthy choices" (ask Americans what they think about 'pre-existing conditions'). However, that is not the thesis of my argument. My argument is that this concept of a patients charter is being used to enable private health care delivery. The reason we would need a charter is so that the government can regulate the activity of service providers. Interestingly, concepts such as "being ensured of privacy of information" and "having timely and reasonable access to information" are already protected within public institutions through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This charter is not about placing regulations on public institutions like Alberta Health Services it is about regulating private service providers.
A third discussion had to do with "ensuring ongoing citizen engagement in the development of legislation, regulation and policy." I summed this up as governance and argued that the government has already completely failed on this matter. The most effective forms of governance are distributed to local communities, because decision makers in individual communities are more closely aware of the circumstances and contexts of the community, thus they are in the best position to make informed decisions. I argued that the PCs missed on governance with two epic fails: removing democratically elected health boards and amalgamating heath regions into AHS. This discussion was really about testing the waters in Alberta about private governance. The PCs need answers to the question, "what decisions can be made without public consultation and public accountability and what types of public input is minimally necessary for those decisions that need it."
The final question was blatant: "What changes are you open to? What assurances are important?" Here the government was looking for data on the specific issues of private delivery - what can we get away with politically? I have to respect Horne and the PCs for finally realizing that they cannot afford to get health care reform wrong again. Albertans care too deeply and a misstep here may spell the end of their reign. With this consultation process the PCs are attempting to get a very specific reading on Albertans' appetites for changes.
Shockingly, before we broke up into our discussion groups my table mate from the start of the evening revealed something very telling about his views on medicare. He essentially asked, why shouldn't someone who can afford better treatment get it - after all that's how the rest of our world works.
For people like me, who want to defend public medicare - we need to mobilize and get the message out. Otherwise, the government will end up believing that the true sentiment of Albertans is that of my tablemate's and the concept of universal public healthcare will be in jeopardy.
You can still have your say by visiting http://yourhealthact.alberta.ca.
For a further glimpse into why private delivery will not benefit us, see this post.
Monday, February 08, 2010
Manning Centre misses opportunity
In his book Don't Think of an Elephant, George Lakoff provides a metaphor for conservatives as the strict father figure, where as liberals are the nurturant parent. Upon first reading I have to admit I didn't completely buy the metaphors as a way to collectively describe the baskets of conservative and liberal viewpoints.
While I am loath to pigeonhole myself and others using simplistic labels, I am definitely more likely to be described as a liberal than a conservative. So when I found myself at this past weekend's Conference on Alberta's Future, hosted by the Manning Centre for Democracy, I was excited to get a sense of what the vision for our future looked like through the eyes of conservatives.
It really was a shame then that I left without hearing the big picture vision.
Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate the opportunity that I was given to be there and I applaud Preston Manning and the centre for putting the event on. No matter what your political stripe is, it's important to encourage civic engagement and discussions on big picture ideas. I just felt like the vision, a sense of what the ideal Alberta looks like, wasn't delivered. In fact the session titled "Vision for the Future of Alberta" ended up being an election style debate between PC MLA Kyle Fawcett and WAP leader Danielle Smith over who can do a better job pandering to oil and gas interests. Interestingly the first speaker to mention "Quality of Life" was former Liberal MLA Mike Percy, well into the second day.
What I learned most from the weekend, I learned by comparing this event to my experiences at the Reboot event I attended in Red Deer in November. What I learned is that Lakoff's view of conservative ideology as the strict father figure holds some truth.
That conclusion comes not necessarily from what was said, rather it comes from how the event was conducted.
In the leadup to the Reboot conference, delegates were asked about what topics they wanted to discuss at the event. At breakfast on the first full day we were given dot stickers with which we could vote on the suggested topics to determine what would be discussed. From that point on people picked the tables they wanted to be at and discussion ensued.
The day before the Alberta's future conference, I was emailed an agenda filled with predetermined subjects and preselected speakers. I applaud the organizers for bringing in challenging speakers like Percy and Pembina Institute's Marlo Raynolds, but in the end very little time was given to hearing from delegates. After 30 minutes per topic focussed on the speaker, there was a mere 20 minutes provided for discussion and it was based on whether you agreed or disagreed with the speaker. In essence, the entire topic was dominated by the agenda set forward by the speakers.
By the way, I would use the word "experts" instead of speakers, but the men who presented on Health and Education in Alberta are economists (one of whom is from BC). Hardly experts in the field.
The intent of the event was not to bring concerned citizens together and provide them with an opportunity to share their vision for what might be possible in Alberta in 25 years. From what I could tell, the intent was to bring people in one room to get them on-message as far as what the Conservative playbook should look like over the next few years (oh yeah, and so Manning could unofficially, yet overtly, place his support in the WAP camp). I heard a lot about the need for greater privatization, freer markets, smaller government, decreased spending and robust growth in the oil and gas sector, but to what end? What is the Alberta that we will create by implementing these ideologies?
In what can only be summed up with "Whaaaaa?" the day concluded with a presentation of the summaries of the table discussions, where the group voted on them. I would love to tell you what we were voting on, but I hadn't a bloody clue. Somehow without knowing what was being discussed at any other table but mine, I was supposed to endorse these documents as accurate representations of the discussion... and at the same time endorse them to be "taken forward to Albertans," whatever the eff that means. These votes garnered a weaker turnout than the last provincial election!
I decided to abstain from the votes, not that it mattered since father knows best anyway.
In the end I think these tweets summed up the strict father feeling best:
If you are interested in other progressive takes on this conference read:
For some more conservative views on the event try:
While I am loath to pigeonhole myself and others using simplistic labels, I am definitely more likely to be described as a liberal than a conservative. So when I found myself at this past weekend's Conference on Alberta's Future, hosted by the Manning Centre for Democracy, I was excited to get a sense of what the vision for our future looked like through the eyes of conservatives.
It really was a shame then that I left without hearing the big picture vision.
Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate the opportunity that I was given to be there and I applaud Preston Manning and the centre for putting the event on. No matter what your political stripe is, it's important to encourage civic engagement and discussions on big picture ideas. I just felt like the vision, a sense of what the ideal Alberta looks like, wasn't delivered. In fact the session titled "Vision for the Future of Alberta" ended up being an election style debate between PC MLA Kyle Fawcett and WAP leader Danielle Smith over who can do a better job pandering to oil and gas interests. Interestingly the first speaker to mention "Quality of Life" was former Liberal MLA Mike Percy, well into the second day.
What I learned most from the weekend, I learned by comparing this event to my experiences at the Reboot event I attended in Red Deer in November. What I learned is that Lakoff's view of conservative ideology as the strict father figure holds some truth.
That conclusion comes not necessarily from what was said, rather it comes from how the event was conducted.
In the leadup to the Reboot conference, delegates were asked about what topics they wanted to discuss at the event. At breakfast on the first full day we were given dot stickers with which we could vote on the suggested topics to determine what would be discussed. From that point on people picked the tables they wanted to be at and discussion ensued.
The day before the Alberta's future conference, I was emailed an agenda filled with predetermined subjects and preselected speakers. I applaud the organizers for bringing in challenging speakers like Percy and Pembina Institute's Marlo Raynolds, but in the end very little time was given to hearing from delegates. After 30 minutes per topic focussed on the speaker, there was a mere 20 minutes provided for discussion and it was based on whether you agreed or disagreed with the speaker. In essence, the entire topic was dominated by the agenda set forward by the speakers.
By the way, I would use the word "experts" instead of speakers, but the men who presented on Health and Education in Alberta are economists (one of whom is from BC). Hardly experts in the field.
The intent of the event was not to bring concerned citizens together and provide them with an opportunity to share their vision for what might be possible in Alberta in 25 years. From what I could tell, the intent was to bring people in one room to get them on-message as far as what the Conservative playbook should look like over the next few years (oh yeah, and so Manning could unofficially, yet overtly, place his support in the WAP camp). I heard a lot about the need for greater privatization, freer markets, smaller government, decreased spending and robust growth in the oil and gas sector, but to what end? What is the Alberta that we will create by implementing these ideologies?
In what can only be summed up with "Whaaaaa?" the day concluded with a presentation of the summaries of the table discussions, where the group voted on them. I would love to tell you what we were voting on, but I hadn't a bloody clue. Somehow without knowing what was being discussed at any other table but mine, I was supposed to endorse these documents as accurate representations of the discussion... and at the same time endorse them to be "taken forward to Albertans," whatever the eff that means. These votes garnered a weaker turnout than the last provincial election!
I decided to abstain from the votes, not that it mattered since father knows best anyway.
In the end I think these tweets summed up the strict father feeling best:
- @ChrisLaBossiere - I can't help but feel I wasn't being asked for my opinion or ideas as much as being polled or herded through someone elses. #projectab
- @djkelly: ORDER! ORDER! (The most overheard phrase at #projectab)
If you are interested in other progressive takes on this conference read:
For some more conservative views on the event try:
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Save the economy - get rid of the flat tax
In my post yesterday, I examined provincial personal income taxes for a variety of income earners. I realise now that I wasn't clear on my main thesis.
The primary point I wanted to make is that flat tax systems extraordinarily benefit high income earners - and do so at the expense of middle class workers.
My analysis showed that an Albertan earning $40,000 pays 40% more in income tax than her counterpart in British Columbia. At the same time, the Albertan making $200,000 pays 18% less than a similar west-coaster.
But let's also keep in mind two important considerations.
Dollar for dollar, that high income earner is saving $4,000 out of his $200,000 while the low income earner is paying an extra $700 out of $40,000. Who do you think notices that difference more?
Secondly, my calculations do not include deductions. How much tax do you think that $40,000 earner is deducting because of RRSPs, political contributions or investment dividends? Now, how much do you think that $200,000 earner is deducting?
But, more importantly let's think about the impact on the economy. Plain and simple, economic activity is generated by spending. The healthiest thing for us, economically speaking, is to have people spend money and to have them spend it locally. By injecting cash into the local economy, local people have jobs - local people with jobs means more people spending money locally.
Cash in the hands of working people gets cycled around the economy and spent over and over and over again - generating economic activity.
Cash in the hands of the wealthy doesn't get spent as much. A greater percentage of their money is saved or invested - removed from the local economy.
It makes much more sense to shift the tax burden from the working class and move it towards the wealthy. First off, they can afford it more and secondly they will benefit indirectly from the economic activity generated by the spending of the working class - whether its because of bonusses, businesses or returns on investments.
It's time that Alberta got rid of the flat tax, for the benefit of all of us.
The primary point I wanted to make is that flat tax systems extraordinarily benefit high income earners - and do so at the expense of middle class workers.
My analysis showed that an Albertan earning $40,000 pays 40% more in income tax than her counterpart in British Columbia. At the same time, the Albertan making $200,000 pays 18% less than a similar west-coaster.
But let's also keep in mind two important considerations.
Dollar for dollar, that high income earner is saving $4,000 out of his $200,000 while the low income earner is paying an extra $700 out of $40,000. Who do you think notices that difference more?
Secondly, my calculations do not include deductions. How much tax do you think that $40,000 earner is deducting because of RRSPs, political contributions or investment dividends? Now, how much do you think that $200,000 earner is deducting?
But, more importantly let's think about the impact on the economy. Plain and simple, economic activity is generated by spending. The healthiest thing for us, economically speaking, is to have people spend money and to have them spend it locally. By injecting cash into the local economy, local people have jobs - local people with jobs means more people spending money locally.
Cash in the hands of working people gets cycled around the economy and spent over and over and over again - generating economic activity.
Cash in the hands of the wealthy doesn't get spent as much. A greater percentage of their money is saved or invested - removed from the local economy.
It makes much more sense to shift the tax burden from the working class and move it towards the wealthy. First off, they can afford it more and secondly they will benefit indirectly from the economic activity generated by the spending of the working class - whether its because of bonusses, businesses or returns on investments.
It's time that Alberta got rid of the flat tax, for the benefit of all of us.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Debunking the low taxes myth.
Albertan premiers have for a long time convinced Albertans that Alberta is the tax haven of North America. The last guy we had loved to talk about the Alberta advantage. The new guy wants us to think we have the freedom to achieve and tells us things like, "we have very low tax rates for people working in the province."
This graph shows the amount of provincial personal income tax paid in 2008 by someone making $30,000, $50,000 and $70,000 of taxable income. If you're making $40,000 in Alberta you would pay $2,383.90 or 6% of your income to the province. Meanwhile, in BC you would be paying 4.2% and in Ontario you're paying 5%. (All data is calculated from Revenue Canada tax returns with only the personal deduction claimed)
In all of the other provinces as an individual's income level rises, the proportion taken for provincial taxes also rises. Except for Alberta, represented by the blue line, where the more you make the more you save.
Either one of two things are happening for Premier Stelmach: he is trying to mislead us or he has no sense of what "working" people make.
He must not be talking about people who make between 30 and 80 thousand dollars a year. Because they could move to BC or Ontario and pay less in taxes.
In fact, as income levels rise, Albertans pay more tax than Ontarians until they start making $80,000. British Colombians save on taxes until they start making over $120,000.
The main reason for this, of course, is that Alberta has a flat income tax rate, while BC and Ontario have progressive tax rates. In fact, Alberta is the only province (and one of only a few jurisdictions) to have a flat tax.
We have it because we were duped.
In 2001 King Ralph moved Alberta to a flat tax and combined it with a tax cut. We bought the idea of a flat tax, because we liked the tax cut that happened to come with it. In actuality, the ones who really save with flat taxes are the wealthy.
To further support my claim that Alberta has revenue issues, this chart shows the 2008 personal income tax paid in 6 provinces, depending upon a person's taxable income.
In all of the other provinces as an individual's income level rises, the proportion taken for provincial taxes also rises. Except for Alberta, represented by the blue line, where the more you make the more you save.There is an Alberta advantage alright - it's just felt most by those people who make the most money. Here are the tax levels for people earning $150,000 and $200,000 in the various provinces:
So while the Albertan making $40,000 is paying $693 a year more in taxes than his counterpart in BC, the Albertan who makes $200,000 is saving $3,874. This provides for me two interesting alternatives. We could cut taxes for 6 Albertans by raising taxes on one siginificantly wealthier Albertan with no affect on the treasury. Or we could tax him at a level that all of the other provinces deem to be fair and save our public services.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Federal Election
Wow - its been well over a year. I want to try this again. I want to be more brief this time.
Stephen Harper must have been busy last night. No, not celebrating his victory. He must have been busy creating his economic plan.
Just like when I was in University, Harper left it until the last minute to create his plan for the economic crisis - or as he likes to call it the era of global economic uncertainty. He must have created it last night, or else why wouldn't he release during the campaign?
This makes me sick. Dion talks of having a plan but never talks about the details. Harper talks about taking it easy and not rocking the boat, then releases a six point plan after the election?!?! Shouldn't we be using the campaign to debate the merits of each plan and decide which one we want to carry forward with. But like Kim Campbell said, the election is no time to be discussing serious issues.
The only reason I can come up with why Harper didn't release his plan (because its not too controversial) before the election is because he actually had two plans ready to go.
That's right, one for a minority and one for a majority government.
Now, wouldn't we all like to know what he really wanted to do.
Stephen Harper must have been busy last night. No, not celebrating his victory. He must have been busy creating his economic plan.
Just like when I was in University, Harper left it until the last minute to create his plan for the economic crisis - or as he likes to call it the era of global economic uncertainty. He must have created it last night, or else why wouldn't he release during the campaign?
This makes me sick. Dion talks of having a plan but never talks about the details. Harper talks about taking it easy and not rocking the boat, then releases a six point plan after the election?!?! Shouldn't we be using the campaign to debate the merits of each plan and decide which one we want to carry forward with. But like Kim Campbell said, the election is no time to be discussing serious issues.
The only reason I can come up with why Harper didn't release his plan (because its not too controversial) before the election is because he actually had two plans ready to go.
That's right, one for a minority and one for a majority government.
Now, wouldn't we all like to know what he really wanted to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
