If there was a provincial election held today...

[SKR]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You're either being sarcastic or are drinking the same hogwash Zechs is.

I'm just here to see truth bombs dropped on libtards.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

QUOTE=A790;4876406]
Alberta would still be ahead from lower overall fund costs to Albertans, to being able to setup a more sustainable system. Less old people = lower costs, but math is hard I suppose.

You don't get ahead by paying two levels of government to provide the same service.

Only way Alberta gets ahead is if Revenue Canada and the CPP is as efficient as as an Alberta equivalent (so the savings are proportional) AND the Alberta equivalent outperforms the CPP.

[dirtsniffer]

Those are both good points, but you also need to consider the demographics. Having the highest earning, and the youngest population, will definitely be a significant factor in the fund. I think the government is doing a study on what the benefits would be. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

[Tik-Tok]

Is no one else worried about them fucking around with the payments when it's time to collect? Like I've worked 23 years in Alberta, and will probably work 20 more, but when I retire somewhere else, they go and charge an extra tax or some such bullshit for no longer living in Alberta.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Those are both good points, but you also need to consider the demographics. Having the highest earning, and the youngest population, will definitely be a significant factor in the fund. I think the government is doing a study on what the benefits would be. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

Highest earning doesn’t mean as much when CPP contributions are capped, compared to say, income tax. Somebody making $60K contributes the same as somebody making $260K since they’re both above the max threshold. Median individual earnings in Alberta are closer to the national average than average earnings, so the median individual pension take home is similar as well.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is no one else worried about them fucking around with the payments when it's time to collect? Like I've worked 23 years in Alberta, and will probably work 20 more, but when I retire somewhere else, they go and charge an extra tax or some such bullshit for no longer living in Alberta.

If you go by QPP:

If you work here and retire somewhere else, you apply via APP and collect. Your pension income is taxed based on the rules of where you retire.

If you worked here then moved somewhere else and worked there for a bit before retiring, you apply through the Canadian program (they have a sharing program) and pension income is taxed the same way.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is no one else worried about them fucking around with the payments when it's time to collect? Like I've worked 23 years in Alberta, and will probably work 20 more, but when I retire somewhere else, they go and charge an extra tax or some such bullshit for no longer living in Alberta.

Do you worry about CPP paying you or not if you choose to retire somewhere outside of a frozen hell?

[dirtsniffer]

I can see your point. Our median income is above the cpp max and so is ontarios so the majority of people are paying the max cpp in both provinces. But our average age is 37 and in Ontario its 40, so are we making a higher wage earlier in life and paying the maximum for more of our careers?

[zechs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You don't get ahead by paying two levels of government to provide the same service.

Only way Alberta gets ahead is if Revenue Canada and the CPP is as efficient as as an Alberta equivalent (so the savings are proportional) AND the Alberta equivalent outperforms the CPP.

You aren't paying two levels.

And no. Just no. Alberta funds the rest of the country's CPP due to demos and our higher AVERAGE wages. That is where the vast majority of "savings" comes from. Not paying for the dead weight.

You know this though. You just refuse to recognize it as a valid point even though its the largest reason to do it.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You aren't paying two levels.

And no. Just no. Alberta funds the rest of the country's CPP due to demos and our higher AVERAGE wages. That is where the vast majority of "savings" comes from. Not paying for the dead weight.

You know this though. You just refuse to recognize it as a valid point even though its the largest reason to do it.

The average wage is a terrible metric because of the cap on CPP contributions as higher wages drag up the average without increasing contributions. Average wage isn't all that great for knowing the tax burden in a progressive tax system either given what outliers do, but it's not quite as out of whack as it can be with something like CPP.

Here's an example of how wage averages can skew with something like this:

If 100 Albertans make $150,000, and 100 Ontarians make $70,000, both groups contribute exactly the same to CPP as everybody is over the maximum amount, despite Albertans having more than twice the average wage and would owe nearly triple the income tax.

If 20 Albertans are making $300,000 a year and 80 are making $50,000 a year, they'd contribute less to CPP than the 100 Ontarians making $70,000 despite having a higher average wage and paying almost double the income taxes, because 80 of them are under the maximum threshold for CPP contributions.

And you are paying two levels, as you'd be paying for a provincial agency to collect and manage the premiums of Albertans, and federal income taxes would still be going to the feds who fund Revenue Canada.

[g-m]

You're arguing semantics around his point and you know it

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You're arguing semantics around his point and you know it

I don't think that means what you think it means.

[duaner]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I've always voted Conservative and likely always will, although I certainly don't agree with all their policies. It's just that every other party is so much worse. I pretty much don't trust any politician, particularly those in leadership. I think they're only interested in two things: what can get them into power and what can keep them there.

Unfortunately, at both the provincial and federal levels, both Conservative parties have been utterly disappointing for the last several years. I don't like Kenney all that much, although he has done some good here and there. I think he's playing the long game to get into leadership of the federal party. Alberta was just an easy stepping stone for him to be a party leader.

I am seriously rethinking this. It appears that Kenney is no different than Trudeau in a dangerous respect: he's pushing for an authoritarian style of government. This is now at least the second time Kenney is shoving democracy off to the side to make a power grab:

"Buried in Bill 24, in very complicated legal language, is another UCP power grab which circumvents democracy and gives the Minister of Health and the Alberta government alarming new powers. Premier Kenney previously acknowledged public concern regarding Bill 10, and promised revisions to amend it. But instead of undoing Bill 10’s unconstitutional delegation of power from the Legislature to single cabinet ministers, Bill 24 extends these powers further. There are at least three significant areas of concern with Bill 24 that impact constitutional freedoms and our democracy.

First, Bill 24 takes the extraordinary temporary powers (section 52.6 of the Public Health Act), which are available only in the exceptional circumstances of a public health emergency, and makes some use of those powers available to the Alberta government permanently, even when no public health emergency exists.
...
Second, Bill 24 gives power to Health Minister Tyler Shandro to make regulations based on the Health Orders which were issued by Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Deena Hinshaw during the public health emergency, even though the public health emergency no longer exists. Dr. Hinshaw currently cannot issue new orders under section 29(2.1) of the Public Health Act because the state of emergency is no longer in effect. If passed, Minister Shandro has said that Bill 24 would change this, restoring Dr. Hinshaw’s law-making powers even though a state of public health emergency has not been declared, and would also give Minister Shandro the unfettered opportunity to create special Regulations for Health Orders.
...
Third and finally, Bill 24 extends Minister Shandro’s release of private medical information to the police from August 14, 2020, when it would have lapsed, to December 31, 2021, for an additional 16 months. Minister Shandro unilaterally created this new law to violate patient privacy and confidentiality on May 14, 2020 by adding sections 53(4.2) and (4.3) to the Public Health Act. Minister Shandro’s new law contains no safeguards outlining the use, storage and retention of the personal data by police. No safeguards exist to clarify how long this information will remain in the police’s possession. There are no limitations on how the police may use this private and personal information. There is no clause that mandates that the information will be destroyed at a later date."

https://www.jccf.ca/justice-centre-c...oritarian-law/


I think these moves significantly raise the likelihood of the UCP losing the next election. Personally, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for someone like Kenney and those he is training up within the UCP, which really leaves no party for me to vote for. Maybe Wexit it will be, somewhat begrudgingly.

[Lex350]

I didn't vote for UPC last election because of kenney and I wouldn't do it now either.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I didn't vote for UPC last election because of kenney and I wouldn't do it now either.

Ha.

I might actually vote NDP next time around (for the first time in my life).

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think these moves significantly raise the likelihood of the UCP losing the next election. Personally, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for someone like Kenney and those he is training up within the UCP, which really leaves no party for me to vote for. Maybe Wexit it will be, somewhat begrudgingly.

Governments around the world is doing the same power grab under the pandemic. For 1 it's a necessity but for politicians, it's an opportunity you don't want to miss.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I am seriously rethinking this. It appears that Kenney is no different than Trudeau in a dangerous respect: he's pushing for an authoritarian style of government. This is now at least the second time Kenney is shoving democracy off to the side to make a power grab:

"Buried in Bill 24, in very complicated legal language, is another UCP power grab which circumvents democracy and gives the Minister of Health and the Alberta government alarming new powers. Premier Kenney previously acknowledged public concern regarding Bill 10, and promised revisions to amend it. But instead of undoing Bill 10’s unconstitutional delegation of power from the Legislature to single cabinet ministers, Bill 24 extends these powers further. There are at least three significant areas of concern with Bill 24 that impact constitutional freedoms and our democracy.

First, Bill 24 takes the extraordinary temporary powers (section 52.6 of the Public Health Act), which are available only in the exceptional circumstances of a public health emergency, and makes some use of those powers available to the Alberta government permanently, even when no public health emergency exists.
...
Second, Bill 24 gives power to Health Minister Tyler Shandro to make regulations based on the Health Orders which were issued by Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Deena Hinshaw during the public health emergency, even though the public health emergency no longer exists. Dr. Hinshaw currently cannot issue new orders under section 29(2.1) of the Public Health Act because the state of emergency is no longer in effect. If passed, Minister Shandro has said that Bill 24 would change this, restoring Dr. Hinshaw’s law-making powers even though a state of public health emergency has not been declared, and would also give Minister Shandro the unfettered opportunity to create special Regulations for Health Orders.
...
Third and finally, Bill 24 extends Minister Shandro’s release of private medical information to the police from August 14, 2020, when it would have lapsed, to December 31, 2021, for an additional 16 months. Minister Shandro unilaterally created this new law to violate patient privacy and confidentiality on May 14, 2020 by adding sections 53(4.2) and (4.3) to the Public Health Act. Minister Shandro’s new law contains no safeguards outlining the use, storage and retention of the personal data by police. No safeguards exist to clarify how long this information will remain in the police’s possession. There are no limitations on how the police may use this private and personal information. There is no clause that mandates that the information will be destroyed at a later date."

https://www.jccf.ca/justice-centre-c...oritarian-law/


I think these moves significantly raise the likelihood of the UCP losing the next election. Personally, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for someone like Kenney and those he is training up within the UCP, which really leaves no party for me to vote for. Maybe Wexit it will be, somewhat begrudgingly.

You can't really be a Federalist in Canada without being an authoritarian. It's part of the gig. Kenney clearly has designs on a Federal presence. His interest in serving Albertans is only coincidental with that aim.