Hydraboss

The mythology Albertan extremists have promulgated around the NEP is a perfect example of the exaggerated grievances used by separatists. The way they whine about it, you'd think pogroms were conducted. They ignore the facts (economics, not the NEP, were responsible for such minor hardship as occured), and they conveniently forget the earlier contribution made by Canada to development of the oil industry in the first place. There's more fiction. Tranfer payments don't come from taxes imposed on a province. They come from the income taxes imposed on every taxpayer. Albertan extremists? There are Albertan extremists? Why wasn't I informed immediately? Minor hardship? Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about? At all? Minor hardship because of the NEP nearly devastated the province. It caused a tremendous rift between the West and Ottawa, the likes of which will not disappear during my lifetime (and hopefully not my kid's either!). There is disapproval of federal government involvement in anything out here, and also outright hatred. Transfer payments don't come from taxes imposed on a province? Is that a fact?..... You might want to read Jerry's reply again, as he worded it so well. As for your defence of the way it is administered, keep it up. Please continue treating us like the red-headed step child and see where it gets the ROC. It is obvious that you don't like separatists, or their beliefs. Who gives a flying f**k through a rolling donut? I don't. Are you just afraid that the rest of the country would have a tough time making it without their oil and gas supplying packhorse? Is that what is truly bugging you about my hopes and opinions?

Did you just admit that Canada is OUR country? Really, now! I never once considered you representative of all white males, but if you feel that way, then crown yourself as such. I just think you think like Geoff and a few others here, who create topics like: "We pay while Indians live in luxury", then give us a link to a news story that explains that the people affected are not all Aboriginal, but the Natives are the ones focussed on, and then the whining starts when a few of us point out that the topic heading is spun to focus specifically on Native people. Others like Geoff here? What about me? Did you forget about me? You don't seem to mind that fact. In fact, you've been a pillar of support for people like Geoff. Uhm, excuse me but here we go with the Geoff-thing again. They are already in the framework. What would make you think otherwise? listening to Geoff? He's a separatist who is caught lying repeatedly. Actually, I'm the separatist. I can see how you could make this mistake again, being that we all look alike. you sound as retarded as White Mens Jobs (aka Who's doing who) I'm starting to think that your barbs being aimed at other posters instead of me are intentional. No, I want the government to live up to it's treaty obligations and roll back it's racist laws, like the Indian Act, so we can be self-determining and live under our own laws and regulations. And pay for everything yourselves, too? That sounds like my kids wanting their own apartment but wanting me to keep paying for it. Just remember that you live under my roof, and as long as you do, you'll follow my rules.

Although you aren't directing this query at me, I firmly believe that you need appropriate, Eastern-based leadership. Even you exemplify the typical Alberta trait of flying off the handle without thinking ahead. You need good, steady leadership, and if you want I'll offer my services to be your leader or "guru". I can provide the foresight you, and nearly everyone else in your province, lacks. You can thank me later. I know! We can blockade Hobbema and Samson!!!! That's the proper way to extort what we want from the ROC! Leadership? And how, exactly, will that work? Maybe we can give all the provincial tax money to Chief Origami, and then he can give it to his friends so that our children can live in squalor! Excellent idea. And you, my friend, exemplify the typical indian trait of flying off at the mouth without thinking, period. Fig, I respect the fact that you do not like the idea of separation, but you seem to follow the ideals of a democracy. Would you endorse a plebicite on the separation of Alberta, or BC? What if BC suceeded and took all of Bubber's weed? Would you want to fight them on it, or is it just Alberta that pisses you off? This is one of the largest problems with the political and social systems in Canada. Everyone that doesn't live in a certain place thinks that they "know what is best" for the people of that place.

I'm supposed to be in Edmonton in the spring, at the hotel in the Mall. Date and time pending. I didn't know we (Easterners) allowed you people to have Tim Horton's. It's good to see that you're taking another step towards civilization. We can discuss your surrender terms over an Ice Cap. Actually, you don't let us have Tim Horton's. I was referring to Tim Polanski who own'e the NAPA in town. Makes great muffins. And, sorry, we ain't got no Ice Cap. But the Esso makes coffee fresh on odd-numbered days. Hell, we caint even spel serrender!!!

Found the DND site for pay. Private (base level, non-commissioned) $29,808 Corporal (basic) $50,112 http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dppd/engraph/..._payrates_e.pdf Seems like an unfair comparison to me: Teachers vs soldiers. One can die for his country, the other works 180.5 days per year (as per Black Gold Regional CBA)

Believe me, I know. Just read my signature line. It was given to me by someone on this board because I tried to make a case for true equality in Canada.

Here's what a 0 year teacher makes in the Black Gold Region. 0 year means new grad, with absolutely no teaching experience. 0 years experience 4 years education - $48,255 5 years education - $50,862 6 years education - $53,859 4 years experience 4 years education - $56,337 5 years education - $58,956 6 years education - $61,954 http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Salary+and+Benef...tive+Bargaining Looks pretty decent to me.

None, I think it takes more school than that. Can be done. Graduate at 17 from high school, and depending on intake date, graduate with a B. Ed at age 22. The job's are waiting. As for how much they make, what does a 22 year old soldier make, anyway?

Hardly. I fully supported Mulroney when he brought in this essential reform to our tax system. I critized the Liberal plan to scrap the tax in 1993 as well. Bottom line: consumption taxes are good. income taxes are bad. People who think consumption taxes are worse than income taxes do not look at the big picture. Incidently, there is no magic bullet that will reduce gov't spending much less than what it is today. There are some wasteful programs but cutting these would only bring in limited savings. The vast majority of public spending is on programs that the majority of the population consider to be essential. Agreed and disagreed. Taxes are a reality. Consumption taxes are the closest thing we have to voluntary taxes. Don't want to pay the tax? Don't buy the item. There can always be exempt items...milk, bread, children's clothes.... Buy a $50,000 truck, pay $5,000 in taxes. Simple really. Right now, I don't have the option of whether or not I pay income taxes, and right now I pay a huge amount. Flat income tax is a more fair way of distributing the burden. Consumption taxes make up the balance. (And, no, I haven't changed my mind. Only the provinces should be collecting taxes.) I do believe that HUGE savings could be realized by cutting uneccessary spending at all government levels.

Actually, that is the ultimate irony of separatist movements. All separatists are always hypocrites because once you agree that Canada is divisible then all of the newly created units are also divisible. If a democratic vote is enough to trigger the separation of Quebec or Alberta then a democratic vote can trigger the creation of any number of aboriginal states covering the northern parts of the provinces. If separatists try to use violence to stop aboriginal secession then they are inviting the rest of Canada to use violence to stop them from separating.On the whole separation is a pandora's box that only the most naive would ever consider opening. I agree. If people want to part everything out into smaller and smaller pieces, who am I to stop them. I have always been a huge supporter of a separate nation (or nations) for indians. Let them have theirs, and then we can quit paying. The devil is in the details, as they say, and they would have to agree that accepting the land means that they are in fact a unique and separate nation, one that does not and cannot depend on the former nation for support. I say go for it. Only the most naive would cling to the idea that Canada can remain as it is for all eternity. The true naivety is that we can continue as one big happy family (dysfunctional as it is) and "we will overcome". The box has been opened for "just a peek" for far too long and now needs to be flung wide open. Let the chips fall where they may.

Excellent. I'll see you when you get here. (and I'll have some Tim's muffins waiting for you)

Back to the original post: This is being done for indians, but it would not be done for white people. That is the point of contention, not whether it should be done or not. The reserves receive more than enough to look after reserve indians, but for some reason, the building they inhabit falls under government responsibilty to repair (and put them in a hotel). Why? No government official would dare risk being called a racist, and the indians would be the first to play that card. Only white people can be called racist. Prove me wrong. If an indian were to refuse something to a white person, it would no doubt be put down as the choice of a minority. Women can have a women's only hospital, Native Friendship centers, Negro College Fund, RCMP intake quotas for minorities, and the list goes on. Can you imagine the sh*t storm if I started the Caucasion Youth College Endowment Fund? Any bets on how many SECONDS it would take for the first comparison to Hitler to hit the news? The building in question will be inspected and repaired on the taxpayer's tab, and no taxpayer had better say a word in public. It makes no difference whether or not it needs it, or whether or not the indians in question can pay for their own accomodations in the meantime. It will be done because they are indian.

First of all, the poll is not biased. I included both absolutes: yes and no. I also included a "yes" with conditions because a lot of people cannot comfortably vote for either of the first two. How do you word a "no - but only if they accept a portion of debt"? Second, the intention of the poll is for OVERALL ability of ANY province or territory to separate, not just Kwebek. p.s. - I couldn't care less what Kwebek does - I am an ALBERTA separatist. So either vote or don't. Either comment or don't. It's your choice.

Who cares what beliefs people hold about political parties? Most people I know wouldn't change their Conservative vote even if the CPC RAISED taxes. Good for the NDP. Good for the people of Sask. They're on the right track with this one.

August, all points well taken. By the way, I DO get it (hyuk, hyuk). What would I truly like done with the debt? Split out Alberta's per capita portion (there is no other way that could be agreed upon) and let the NATIONAL Alberta gov carry it. As you have said, it doesn't matter who holds the note because that doesn't matter to the borrower. Guess what, it doesn't mean a hell of a lot to the lender either as long as the borrower is stable. Alberta would be viewed as a hell of a lot more stable post-separation than other provinces...say...Kwebek. As a nation, Albertans can decide how to approach the debt reduction (notice I did not say elimination) while maintaining our lifestyle. Inflation is a problem that can be somewhat controlled within the financial borders of a country. Good luck, Canada. I can see how well the rest of the provinces have dealt with their debt, and I'm glad Alberta didn't continue down that garden path. It sure is nice when regions with increasing or at the least barely-manageable debt loads give advice to the poor yokels (no offence taken). By the way, has anyone noticed that the fact is Alberta could pay off it's debt, but it hasn't because it is using that money in higher interest bearing investments that exceed the servicing cost of the remaining provincial debt. The ROC would be essentially screwed if Alberta decided not to keep up the influx of over-taxation money (ie. stolen). Poor Ontario would have to keep the rest of the country afloat. Want tax-splitting? Fine. Lets add up all the provincial and federal revenue in the country, and Alberta will pay it's share based on a per capita formula, instead of oil and gas revenue. Think that might end the gravy train? It's the same as letting couples split income. If we can only have one other province or territory to split with (monogomous, you know) then I choose YK. Let's see how the numbers work out now. As for my comment about mortage interest, there is nothing wrong with the idea. But it does not operate in a bubble, it has to come with a lot of other policies as Wilbur pointed out. The gov of Canada has done an atrocious job of managing what should be money in trust. Anyone who can continue to put faith in the feds would have to be a yokel. Some of us are sick of it and will do what we can to end the thievery.

Naw, I was just playing with the situation. I don't really believe in any deductions, I was just offering an additional "add-on" to paying off the debt. As for decreasing the cost of home ownership, I don't know about the ROC, but in Alberta they now have zero downpayment, 40 year mortages at 5.5%. My banker told me that there is an application to extend to 50 year. You can't decrease the initial cost any more than that. Talk about leading people down the garden path.

I disagree. We are too valuable, they'd let Quebec go, but not the golden egg laying hen. We'll get a much more powerful, acceptable place in Canada's democracy before we seperated. In the mean time, we do need to give the rest of Canada a good smack upside the head and have them work on allowing Alberta to suceed without Canada's oppression of our potential. A rich Alberta is a rich Canada, a rich Alberta without a place in the process is an independant Alberta. That's the option. Absolutely correct. But let me add one thing here. Geoff, you're going to buy a truck this weekend, right? In your attempt to get the best deal, you make your "final offer" and then if it doesn't look like it's going to be accepted, you threaten to leave. Right? Do you want to know how to get your deal? (you'll have to trust me on this) Don't just threaten to leave. Leave. Make the salesman call you later that day or the next. And he will because his sales manager will be crawling up his ass for letting you go. Chances are you won't even make it off the lot before they tackle your car. The same logic applies to Alberta. Maybe if we threaten enough, we will get to sit at the grown-ups table at Thanksgiving. But when they say "no special treatment for Alberta. Who do they think they are? Kwebek?" then we say "Bye now. Bye, bye. See ya." and separate. The ROC will come begging, and if they don't? Who cares. p.s. - if you're buying a *choke, cough* Ford, I know someone in Okotoks that runs the Ford store. Let me know.

Looks like I found my new Minister of Finance.... ...or maybe the new Minister of Morality for the new Nation of Alberta (also referred to as Hydrabossia LLP). Now back to our regularly scheduled programming............. Countries rely on debt to issue against and borrow against. However, they can also issue and borrow against incoming debt, ie. the amount of money that it's citizens owe it. By transferring the national debt to it's citizens, Canada would be in a much better position to issue bonds against itself, as the bonds would be stronger on the world market. Will there always be personal debt in Canada? God, I hope so. The days of saving up and paying for a house in cash were over long before I was born. However, personal debt does not affect the finances of a country per se. Why, then, would we consider such a thing? To stave off the negatives that will attach themselves to the eventual (hopefully!) separation of Kwebek and Alberta. Once they seek to become independant, there will be no debt-related financial details to work out. Will the citizens of these new "nations" continue to pay? Not a chance in hell. But when it comes time to deal on a nation to nation basis.... Hey Len, 'member that 20 bucks you owe me? That's right. The ROC can use it as a bargaining chip, or leverage if you prefer. Alberta, however, will no doubt pay what it owes just to be free of the welfare-sucking Canadian machine. So there you go, the ROC WILL see some of it's money afterall. And if it's own citizens are "a little sluggish" to make good on their debts.......the bond markets will continue to grow. One more thing. If Canada were to adopt the US model of being able to write off mortage interest against taxable income in their outdated Canadian system, then the government could easily calculate the break-even point for it's citizens and actually capitalize on the incoming (but never paid) debt that it carries for it's people without ever costing those people any additional money.

Sure, add in the businesses if you wish. As for the families, you're right. It's crippling. And? If they don't pay it, who will? Higher income earners? The people of Canada owe this money. The people of Canada are responsible to pay it back. Maybe the five member family can apply for a twenty-five year mortgage extension. Would that be better? Remember, it's interest free. The debt is only changing hands of responsibility as the government still holds the books on it. And I can guarantee you, the people of Canada would hold every government after that FULLY ACCOUNTABLE for spending.

Agreed.

Actually, consumption taxes provide the widest base possible. However, it subjects the governments tax revenue stream to the whim of the consumer. If times are hard, people do not spend as much and the tax revenue falls. This can endanger government funded programs that are crucial. Not all, but some.

*edit* Sorry, didn't read the post closely enough.

August, I don't disagree on the "no corporate tax" point. I was only reacting to the suggestion of how a flat tax system would affect business taxes if they were left intact. I have been pointing out that the flat tax system would be more simple and much cheaper to administer. As for RRSP's and such, this money was taxed at the time of earning and should be. To try and encourage people to save by making it income tax reducible leads down the path that got us in this overly-complicated system to start with. Everyone pays fair tax on all income. As for child tax credits, get rid of them. Political suicide? The whole flat tax concept would be political suicide. Again, I am just pointing out that there are extremes at either end, and something acceptable somewhere in the middle. One must look to lofty goals if they are to accomplish lofty things.

There is a huge difference between 5% and 0%, it is simply a matter of how large the numbers are that you start with. Now the sales tax idea has merit, but only if you extend it to personal tax as well. However, you will hear the defenders of the low income earner scream and howl if the proposal is to do away with income tax and income tax free status. I love the idea of consumption taxes only, but then I am not a low income earner.

However, N, O, P, S, and V co's do not have rights because they are entities of one type or another. Provinces (meaning the physical land itself) cannot separate, but the people of the province can because they do have rights. In your example, N, O, and P are only a joint venture, not a combined entity. That would not be comparable to Canada, only to agreements such as the European Union. In the EU, the individual countries have never given up their identities, and therefore they are not separating in the same sense of the word as is being used here. Provincial separation would more clearly and accurately be likened to a divorce, with children. Years ago, divorce was illegal and still is in some countries. This is not the case in Canada.