Jump to content

$400 for every man woman and child in Alberta


Recommended Posts

I'm conflicted.

Generally I agree that big government surpluses are wrong because it means they pillaged too much out of the hands of the citizens in the first place. So giving the money back is the right thing to do.

On the other hand, I can see how the logistics of the whole thing are quite troublesome. For example, my sister-in-law just moved to Saskatchewan after living in Alberta for 28 years...tough luck for her I guess.

How long will someone have to be a bona fide Albertan to qualify for the cash?

Further, some pretty compelling arguments can be made by Health, Education, Justice and other provincial departments that they remain underfunded and that the public interest is best served if the money were given to them...once again, tough luck I guess.

But when all is said and done, I (with my wife and daughter) could really use the $1,200.00 so I guess I'm on board.

Long live King Ralph!

FTA Lawyer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It was said that the surplus came as a result of higher than expected oil prices/revenues. Although I believe money should be 'given back' in the form of permanent tax cuts, this is the next best way to return money to the people. There has already been massive spending initiated in Alberta's social programs so there shouldn't be too much crying coming from that area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us be crystal clear about this program. It is not a tax cut, it is handing out taxpayer’s money for rising energy prices. On this basis, the program will be yet another failure on Klein’s part. Why should every Albertan get $400.00 when this is supposed to compensate for rising energy prices? An individual who owns a small/medium business and must consume more energy will get back $400.00, while a couple with three babies will get back $2000.00. That is taking from the productive and giving to the unproductive. Returning taxpayer’s money is a great idea, but the way it is being returned smacks of political bribery and mismanagement.

The first time he gave out rebate money, it went to anyone who filed their taxes. This meant some teenagers received taxpayer’s money even if they lived at home with their folks and had no power bill. Some teens were gleefully out spending their “hard earned” power rebates. Recognizing this error, the next time he decided to give the rebates to homeowners, but renters did not qualify even though they obviously consumed energy. When confronted with this error, he suggested that landlords pass on the rebates to renters. I doubt many did just that. So, what will "residency" mean this time? Who is the real slim shady Ralph?

Instead of coming up with some screwball way of whimsically handing out taxpayer’s hard earned cash, how about doing what Tories always say they will do and cut taxes? How about reducing or eliminating health care premiums (which are taxes) or funding programs strapped for cash? He could have even created one-time only incentives to purchase fuel efficient cars or provide people with rebates to conserve energy in their homes.

But, explain to me why individuals should get energy rebates in the first place if the free market is supposed to best decide the price of energy? Klein says we should have free markets and maintain a privatized energy sector. It is supposed to be part of the reason the province is booming even if energy prices do rise. It will be nice to get my $400.00 back, but I really hate being bribed with my own money and that is what this is. If he wanted to cut taxes, he should have cut taxes for individuals and businesses alike.

Any Conservatives want to argue that taxes should not be cut?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us be crystal clear about this program. It is not a tax cut, it is handing out taxpayer’s money for rising energy prices. On this basis, the program will be yet another failure on Klein’s part. Why should every Albertan get $400.00 when this is supposed to compensate for rising energy prices?
I disagree.

The Albertan government stands to receive about $4 billion more this year in natural gas and oil royalties simply because of higher world prices. Klein wants to return this gift to residents of Alberta. In the past, Lougheed put the money into a Heritage Fund to be used later. Klein I guess has decided that individuals can decide for themselves whether to save it or spend it.

The amount per Albertan is over $1000 but Klein has decided to distribute only $400. It is unclear what will happen to the rest.

I think Albertan fears that the feds or other provinces would like a chunk of the cash are justified. This is the case Kimmy has made here. Handing this cash out to individuals may make it more difficult for the feds to get some of it.

Any Conservatives want to argue that taxes should not be cut?
Well, yes, but which tax? Alberta already has low income taxes (I think) and no provincial sales tax. Such tax cuts would benefit people with incomes. Cutting property taxes would vary from place to place.

One idea I had was to abolish the GST in Alberta and have the Albertan government pay it instead, using these royalties. That probably wouldn't work because this is a one-off event.

The nice thing about a lump-sum payment is that everyone benefits equally. It doesn't lead to any strange incentives. The only way to get it is to live in Alberta. And it fits well the circumstances.

The worst thing to do would be for Klein to spend this money on some hare-brained scheme. I shudder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One idea I had was to abolish the GST in Alberta and have the Albertan government pay it instead, using these royalties. That probably wouldn't work because this is a one-off event.
Also, the Province of Alberta should not have to pay out more money to the feds.

I still think that they should have reduced taxes for everyone who pays into them. This would reduce (not eliminate) the problem that FTA notes about who should get the money.

Do you think people on welfare, AISH or EI should receive this $400.00 while the business owner also only gets $400.00 August? Don't you think the market should set energy prices?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Health care premiums are the first thing I thought of when this cockamamie scheme was announced. I wonder how many people are gonna have to roll this "prosperity rebate" into that particular tax?

But tax cuts? Alberta already has the lowest tax rates in the country (or so we're told). And in any case, cutting taxes now assumes this current boom is going to be a permanent state of affairs. Should the government cut taxes only to have oil prices fall, that may force a reversal of the tax cuts folks are clamouring for now.

Here's a wacky notion: why not actually re-invest the money in the province, starting with economic diversification or infrastructure funding (Alberta has a $8 billion infrastructure debt)

Or how about a high-speed Edmonton-Calgary rail link?

Cutting property taxes would vary from place to place.

Property taxes are a municipal responsibility.

Do you think people on welfare, AISH or EI should receive this $400.00 while the business owner also only gets $400.00 August?

Should the business owner get more?

*Update*

"All I can say to the rest of Canada is remember that we aren't investing this in ongoing programs and program development,"(Klein) said.

Now that's leadership folks! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Health care premiums are the first thing I thought of when this cockamamie scheme was announced.
Well, I consider that a tax with a fancy name. Premium sounds better than tax even though the same people have to pay them. Eliminating these "premiums" would be my first choice, but given that the Tories are always screaming about taxes, I thought that would be a possibility. It really angers me when Klein gets up there and talks about how they have managed money so well that they have too much of taxpayer's money. That is not good fiscal management, it shows they have taken too much to begin with.
Should the business owner get more?
No, but I don't like them giving it to teens who live at home with mom and pop and I don't like them giving it only to homeowners and not renters. By basing it on "residency", they are sure to screw this up again as usual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the way it's being done either but it had to be done. Mullah McGuinty

is crying for more money because he spent money he didn't have and the feds have made sure they spent their surplus so klien decided to give it to albertans. Before Ont. some how managed to get their hooks on it. All of a sudden surpluses have become hot potatoes but poor McGuinty doesn't have one. He now has to go to the people for more taxes or cut the hell out of spending. Either way, he'll be left holding the bag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I consider that a tax with a fancy name. Premium sounds better than tax even though the same people have to pay them. Eliminating these "premiums" would be my first choice, but given that the Tories are always screaming about taxes, I thought that would be a possibility. It really angers me when Klein gets up there and talks about how they have managed money so well that they have too much of taxpayer's money. That is not good fiscal management, it shows they have taken too much to begin with.

I don't know if "taken too much" is the right way to put it, given Alberta's (on-paper, anyway) low income taxes, etc. (And yes, premiums are a tax, I agree, and a regressive one at that). So if they want to put mor emoney into people's pockets, knock that ridiculous measure on the head. And maybe get out of the education property tax game too.

As for the fiscal management skills of the Klein Tories, well, i think this scheme says it all:

"Ralph! Ralph! It's a gusher! What shoudl we do with all this money?"

"Shit, I dunno. Uh....write some cheques?"

"Great idea, boss!"

No, but I don't like them giving it to teens who live at home with mom and pop and I don't like them giving it only to homeowners and not renters. By basing it on "residency", they are sure to screw this up again as usual.

My understanding is everyone gets one, whether they rent or own. As for the kids getting it, well, there'll be a lot of kids thanking Uncle Ralph for their new X-Box come Chirstmas time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I consider that a tax with a fancy name. Premium sounds better than tax even though the same people have to pay them. Eliminating these "premiums" would be my first choice, but given that the Tories are always screaming about taxes, I thought that would be a possibility.
I agree completely. First, the premium is just a tax because I suspect it is in no way connected to the behaviour of an individual. Second, it would be easy to eliminate the premium because the Ministry of Health has a ready-made list of Albertans. This avoids the problem of out-of-province relatives suddenly moving into basement apartments in Edmonton.

One reason the "premium" refund might not work is that poor people were probably already exempt from paying it.

Do you think people on welfare, AISH or EI should receive this $400.00 while the business owner also only gets $400.00 August? Don't you think the market should set energy prices?
Firstly, the world market is setting energy prices in Canada - as they should.

Secondly, do you mean that people on welfare should get more? Or less? If they get more, then that encourages people to go on welfare. If they get less, then people don't vote for Klein.

It is a minor philosophical conundrum why, when the government is taking money, it is considered "fair" that it take more from the rich than the poor. (Indeed, some people call it "unfair" and "regressive" if the government takes more from the rich but as a constant proportion of income - the famous flat-tax.)

But when the government is giving money, it is considered "fair" that it give everyone the same. (Logically, the poor should receive bigger cheques than the rich.)

"Ralph! Ralph! It's a gusher! What shoudl we do with all this money?"

"Shit, I dunno. Uh....write some cheques?"

"Great idea, boss!"

Giggle, giggle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear August1991,

(Logically, the poor should receive bigger cheques than the rich.)
Not sure if you are being facetious or not, but I thought you (and the 'right') believed that the 'rich' were the 'creators of wealth', so it would only make sense to give the rich more than the poor, so they could 'create more' for said 'poor'...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alberta's healthcare premiums should not be eliminated. The healthcare premiums remind people that healthcare has a cost; it is not "free". Something perceived to be free is abused. Look at the people who run to the doctor because they have the flu, or because Little Jimmy scraped his knee.

As for lowering taxes, I suspect that Klein may be reluctant to do so because oil prices are already steadying and even dropping some. Perhaps he thinks lowering the 10% flat tax to 9% might be too hasty a move at this time. Moving the tax brackets up is not a good idea because Alberta"s provincial tax brackets are harmonized with the federal tax brackets....and that makes things so much easier for accounting purposes.

What about raising Alberta's basic personal amount from $14,523 to, say, $20,000? This would help every taxpayer, and specifically the lower income people.

Are welfare people eligible for this $400? If so, I disagree with that. However, I have no problem with people on EI receiving the $400; they, at least, paid into the system.

Additionally, Klein did say that $2.6 billion of the unexpected surplus would still be split between capital projects, like schools and health-care infrastructure, and investments into some kind of savings, perhaps endowments, though exactly how hasn't been determined.

"This is one-time only. We'll have to assess it on a year-by-year basis," Klein said of the dividend cheques.

Overall it might not be perfect, but it is nice seeing govts giving the people theirmoney back. Much of that money will flow back into the economy.

What are the odds of the NDP ever doing that? They'd blow it on some govt social programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Ministry of Health has a ready-made list of Albertans. This avoids the problem of out-of-province relatives suddenly moving into basement apartments in Edmonton.

So what does it take for a Canadian to become an Albertan? Is it now necessary to swear an oath of fealty to King Ralph and make a pilgrimage to Fort McMurray?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People on EI, AISH and welfare recieving dividend cheques can become a sticky issue for many Albertan's. I find it hard to believe that anyone in this province can't find employment so I personally would not like to see any of this cash going to long term EI recipients. People in transitional phases of employment yes, EI abusers no. Anyone who has been on EI for 3 or more months in the last 2 or 3 years should be exempt from dividend cheques.

My family consists of myself, my wife and 2 children. We do not need the $1600.00 as our combined income is well into the six figure range, so after a family vote we have chosen to give the money to a niece who is presently studying at the U of A.

I agree with M.B. that the Alberta personal exemption amount could be raised to help lower income families.

PS, I would like to continue, but really have to get to work now. Have a great day y'all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Health care premiums are the first thing I thought of when this cockamamie scheme was announced. I wonder how many people are gonna have to roll this "prosperity rebate" into that particular tax?

(shrug) well, for those that do pay healthcare premiums "out of pocket", this be like getting 9 months of premiums for free.

But tax cuts? Alberta already has the lowest tax rates in the country (or so we're told). And in any case, cutting taxes now assumes this current boom is going to be a permanent state of affairs. Should the government cut taxes only to have oil prices fall, that may force a reversal of the tax cuts folks are clamouring for now.

Yes: this is the one prudent aspect of this otherwise imprudent exercise that does make sense. A one time payment, as opposed to annualized tax cuts, means that if circumstances change next year, we don't suddenly find ourselves once again having to raise taxes, cut services, or run a deficit.

Here's a wacky notion: why not actually re-invest the money in the province, starting with economic diversification or infrastructure funding (Alberta has a $8 billion infrastructure debt)

Or how about a high-speed Edmonton-Calgary rail link?

I agree completely. I am told there used to be a popular bumper-sticker in Alberta that read "Lord, grant me one more boom and I promise not to piss it away this time." I guess Ralph never saw that one...

They might as well just give the money directly to the beer companies and strippers. And of course to Kimmy; my tips will no doubt be through the roof the week those cheques come out!

Don't get me wrong, I like cash. I love cash, in fact. No doubt lots of people can really use the cash, and no doubt the economy will benefit from an extra $1.2 billion floating around.

But I'm young and I want to try and think long-term. Handing out money might feel good right now, but is it the best use of the money when we think long term? There are many things that come to mind when I think of other possible uses of the money. Big issues:

-Edmonton is again going to be borrowing money to build infrastructure to keep up with growth. And I expect the same is true in Calgary, though I don't know that for a fact. The price of all this prosperity is that we have to spend more money to keep up with the resulting growth.

-...but Edmonton and Calgary are golden compared to Fort McMurray. Fort McMurray is so vital to our future. And right now Fort McMurray is being completely overwhelmed by the demands of industry there. The poor mayor is tearing her hair out trying to find funding for all the projects that are needed to keep up with the way population is exploding there. One of the key factors limiting Alberta's growth is the shortage of labor in the north, particularly in the oilsands. The Alberta government should be investing money in Fort McMurray above all else, especially right now when they apparently have money to literally give away.

-the highway between Edmonton and the Fort is also now inadequate for the volume of traffic it's required to handle. It should be twinned all the way from here to there.

-a bullet train between Edmonton and Fort McMurray would also probably pay for itself quickly. It would probably be much easier to get people to work in Fort McMisery if it was a 2 hour train-ride from Edmonton instead of a 6 hour drive.

I don't know how much a 450km long high-speed rail line would cost to build-- maybe it would be more than the $1.5 billion or so that Ralph is planning to give away-- but the benefits would probably be more lasting. I expect that if they invested the money smartly today, they'd have bigger surpluses to worry about in the near future.

I don't see a problem. He's essentially reiterating the point you made in regard to tax cuts. If we chose to put this into annualized expenses, then once again we've got a problem if circumstances change.

I'd prefer infrastructure investment to "prosperity cheques", but to me, either use makes more sense than implimenting new programs that create recurring annual costs.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alberta's healthcare premiums should not be eliminated. The healthcare premiums remind people that healthcare has a cost; it is not "free". Something perceived to be free is abused. Look at the people who run to the doctor because they have the flu, or because Little Jimmy scraped his knee.

Except "healthcare" premiums don't pay for health care. They get sucked into general revenue.

(shrug) well, for those that do pay healthcare premiums "out of pocket", this be like getting 9 months of premiums for free.

Right. I can also put it towards my credit card debt or a go on a shopping spree. But I expect the government to have some sort of fiscal plan, one that guarantees sustainability. Not help me update my wardrobe. Eliminating premiums altogether would give every Albertan an extra $500 a year, every year, which would surely be of greater benefit to the economy than a one-time present from Uncle Ralph.

Yes: this is the one prudent aspect of this otherwise imprudent exercise that does make sense. A one time payment, as opposed to annualized tax cuts, means that if circumstances change next year, we don't suddenly find ourselves once again having to raise taxes, cut services, or run a deficit.

I agree that it would be silly to cut taxes only to raise them if things go south. However, I think healthcare premiums are the exception. I'd also like to see them get the province's infratruructure to a level where, if the economy somehow does tank, we don't slide any further into debt.

Think of it this way: its best to spend money you have on things you need when you have the money to spend.

I don't see a problem. He's essentially reiterating the point you made in regard to tax cuts. If we chose to put this into annualized expenses, then once again we've got a problem if circumstances change.

I'd prefer infrastructure investment to "prosperity cheques", but to me, either use makes more sense than implimenting new programs that create recurring annual costs.

What got me was that it seems kind of ridiculous to make the total lack of vision or tforethought the program's selling point. Throwing money at people may work for Ralph when he's door crashing the Bissel Centre, but it's not a substitute for policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of coming up with some screwball way of whimsically handing out taxpayer’s hard earned cash, how about ...

"Jealousy, thy name is Canada" is the heading of Don Martin's article today in answer to your calling it screwbally & whismical . "Canada is bloody jealous!" he goes on to say.

I agree!

Tha Alaskans have enjoyed this whismical distribution of excess oil revenues among all it's citizenry ever since 1982. And I'm not talking a piddly $400 apiece here. This year they'll get over $1100. 2000 was their banner year, that's when they all pocketed a whooping $2400 plus.

Now that's something to write home about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of coming up with some screwball way of whimsically handing out taxpayer’s hard earned cash, how about ...

"Jealousy, thy name is Canada" is the heading of Don Martin's article today in answer to your calling it screwbally & whismical . "Canada is bloody jealous!" he goes on to say.

I agree!

Tha Alaskans have enjoyed this whismical distribution of excess oil revenues among all it's citizenry ever since 1982. And I'm not talking a piddly $400 apiece here. This year they'll get over $1100. 2000 was their banner year, that's when they all pocketed a whooping $2400 plus.

Now that's something to write home about.

Don Martin...isn't that the fella from MAD Magazine?

Oh, and noobie: most of the people on this thread who are saying this is a bad idea are Albertans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also from Alberta (Calgary) and while I echo kimmy's thoughts

Don't get me wrong, I like cash. I love cash, in fact.
I must agree with the oft held notion that raising the exemption level for income tax would do more than a one-time 'feel-good-and-vote-for-me' cheque.

High speed rail from Calgary to Edmonton? Crazy. Few would use it, certainly not me, at least until public transportation on both ends became vastly improved. An 'Autobahn' lane would do more than a rail line for generating a more viable link.

Edmonton To Fort McNewfoundland? It is not a dire need, at least for the time being. The cost would be large, and would not generate more production or increase profits. In effect, it would just be a subsidy to the cost of doing business up there. Why not just send all those rebate cheques to Ft. Mac now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

most of the people on this thread who are saying this is a bad idea are Albertans.

Yeah, many wish Ralph cut health premiums instead.

"TO HELL WITH THE NEEDY!", eh?

Is Ralph stopping you from applying your 400 bucks towards medicare?

Of course not!

And how, pray tell, is one suppossed to apply one's $400 to medicare?

"Excuse me Mr. Klein sir, I would like this $400 you've alloted me to go into medicare."

"Sure, I'll get right on that, just as soon as I finish up at the casino..."

Healthcare premiums don't have anything to do with medicare.

High speed rail from Calgary to Edmonton? Crazy. Few would use it, certainly not me, at least until public transportation on both ends became vastly improved. An 'Autobahn' lane would do more than a rail line for generating a more viable link.

Yeah, just what both cities need....more cars. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...