Alberta to introduce motion for proposed equalization referendum Monday

[kertejud2]

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

The idea is to remove the money that they send to Ontario and Quebec.

Which this referendum question in no way addresses. Equalization makes a portion of the pot of money restricted in how it can be allocated. Right now the formula means Ontario doesn’t get anything from it. Take away the formula, that restriction is gone, a $20B pot that can go wherever the government wants. Equalization doesn’t affect how or where taxes are collected, only spent.

Let me rephrase the question: pretend for a moment you were hired to make that happen. How would you do it?

At least ask a referendum question that addresses the problem: ‘federal dollars distributed to a province should be proportional to the taxes collected from the province.’

And go through the legal dance after that, because at least if something sticks after that, it would actually be good for the province.

[kertejud2]

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

In this case, Alberta would add less, as the new formula should take into account previously exempt industries such as Hydro.

In this case, the referendum question is about removing the section dealing with equalization, not amending the formula.

But also, it wouldn’t result in Alberta adding less, because that isn’t how taxation works. Equalization doesn’t affect collection, only distribution.

[ExtraSlow]

You guys are mathing way above my level.

[vengie]

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

In this case, the referendum question is about removing the section dealing with equalization, not amending the formula.

But also, it wouldn’t result in Alberta adding less, because that isn’t how taxation works. Equalization doesn’t affect collection, only distribution.

Alberta wouldn't add less, but could receive something, anything in return with a new formula therefore reducing the total burden to Alberta.

At the end of the day all I care about is Quebec getting less, much less ideally.

[Xtrema]

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

At the end of the day all I care about is Quebec getting less, much less ideally.

this. Even if it's almost impossible.

[Buster]

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

At least ask a referendum question that addresses the problem: ‘federal dollars distributed to a province should be proportional to the taxes collected from the province.’

And go through the legal dance after that, because at least if something sticks after that, it would actually be good for the province.

This obviously doesn't get the job done. Now you're faced with the next step in your consulting job. What do you do for step 2 to reduce the transfer of wealth?

[kertejud2]

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

This obviously doesn't get the job done. Now you're faced with the next step in your consulting job. What do you do for step 2 to reduce the transfer of wealth?

Who’s interested in reducing the transfer of wealth? Definitely not the people who hired me for step 1. They approved the transfer as is.

Get your head in the game.

[Buster]

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

Who’s interested in reducing the transfer of wealth? Definitely not the people who hired me for step 1. They approved the transfer as is.

Get your head in the game.

Assume you are hired by the next regime. Kenney is out

[ThePenIsMightier]

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

...

Get your head in the game.

[kertejud2]

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

Assume you are hired by the next regime. Kenney is out

The next regime would either be the Dippers or the Klein/Lougheed-resurgence types, all of whom support equalization but want the formula changed. So we could try to undue all the political harm from the first step and get back to that, and push for increases in transfers on per capita basis.

But first we'd need a referendum to put equalization back in to stop Ontario and Quebec from getting more money than they currently do.

[Buster]

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

The next regime would either be the Dippers or the Klein/Lougheed-resurgence types, all of whom support equalization but want the formula changed. So we could try to undue all the political harm from the first step and get back to that, and push for increases in transfers on per capita basis.

But first we'd need a referendum to put equalization back in to stop Ontario and Quebec from getting more money than they currently do.

If you were hired as a consultant by a gov't that had been elected under a mandate to eliminate equalization, how would you compel/convince/cajole/coerce the Federal gov't and the other Provinces to play ball?

[ExtraSlow]

I believe they reject your premise.

[Buster]

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

I believe they reject your premise.

consultants are paid to accept a premise!

[kertejud2]

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

If you were hired as a consultant by a gov't that had been elected under a mandate to eliminate equalization, how would you compel/convince/cajole/coerce the Federal gov't and the other Provinces to play
ball?

Stomp feet, hold my breath, throw all the cans and cereal boxes onto the floor, and whatever other childish things to be done. Gotta represent the electorate.

But I'll answer what to do to get rid of Section 36, when you answer how you'd compel/convince/cajole/coerce all the First Nations groups to get rid of Section 35. Still waiting on that one.

[suntan]

I can only imagine the drivel kert is writing.

[Buster]

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

Stomp feet, hold my breath, throw all the cans and cereal boxes onto the floor, and whatever other childish things to be done. Gotta represent the electorate.

But I'll answer what to do to get rid of Section 36, when you answer how you'd compel/convince/cajole/coerce all the First Nations groups to get rid of Section 35. Still waiting on that one.

Let's stay on topic. Do people you spend time with actually fall for such deflections?

[kertejud2]

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

Let's stay on topic. Do people you spend time with actually fall for such deflections?

We went off topic when you talked about step 2.

I’d tell Quebec and Ontario that they could get more money from the feds if we drop equalization. That solves the 50% problem. BC would come out better without a formula as well since they’ve got a lot of seats up for grabs and don’t get any, so that gets them.

Saskatchewan would be on board without understanding why, but it’s the last province to get to 6 that would be tricky, and they all have a lot to lose. They might all race to the bottom to salvage something.

But yeah, wouldn’t be difficult. Just need to give Ontario and Quebec and BC more money. Equalization gone, consultation successful.

[ZenOps]

Get rid of it just in time for Quebec to pay Alberta because a barrel of oil is @ $200 and noone is buying any because they all switched over to electric?

Crazyness. Its like Albertans and Texans are caught in their own matrix.

[Buster]

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

We went off topic when you talked about step 2.

I’d tell Quebec and Ontario that they could get more money from the feds if we drop equalization. That solves the 50% problem. BC would come out better without a formula as well since they’ve got a lot of seats up for grabs and don’t get any, so that gets them.

Saskatchewan would be on board without understanding why, but it’s the last province to get to 6 that would be tricky, and they all have a lot to lose. They might all race to the bottom to salvage something.

But yeah, wouldn’t be difficult. Just need to give Ontario and Quebec and BC more money. Equalization gone, consultation successful.

You seem to be suggesting dropping Equalization, but keeping equalization, if you catch my meaning.

I'm just asking for your input into how one could solve the problem of tax resources leaving alberta which are less than gov't expenditures in Alberta. That is, how to you avoid a transfer of wealth from Alberta to elsewhere? As far as I can tell, your solution above does not address that.

[suntan]

kert is the prime example of how trust fund money completely ruins people.