Alberta Sales Tax ....

[lmtada]

Originally Posted by riden

I saw a chart recently that compared overall taxation per province. Quebec's overall provincial taxation is double what our's is.

We really do have it good.

Why does Quebec receive transfer payments? If they already have a high tax rate? Too much government expenditure. Perfect example why AB should not have PST.
Government is not accountable. In private sector there are market controls.
:fighting007 4:

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by MacLeod

... Words like that ^ could get you 'tarred & feathered', real fast around here!!!

All kidding aside ... over the last 50+ years this province has been through at least three major 'Busts', and every time it happens this dirty subject comes up. Here we are in 2015 and we still don't have a sales tax, thank Gawd!

Any Alberta politician who would openly, seriously consider implementing a sales tax, might just as well pull out a knife and slit his/her own political throat.


Next question

Mac

^^^^^^ This!!!!

[SBE2]

Originally Posted by FishingMOM

1/10 in ahs make 6 figure salaries.
In 2008 that number was 1/25

While this might be true, the ones that should be taking the hit at AHS are the many levels of management. I don't have a problem with doctors and nurses and such making 6 figures, most of the nurse money is on OT if they are hitting that likely anyway. Some people don't seem to understand that the inflation number we are given is a lie, and if you are getting 4-5% raise each year you are pretty much lucky to be making what you did the year before and not losing ground based on inflation. So if you we avble to get even 3% a year and your number started in '08 so seven years ago, its a jump of 21% but that is sort of compounded at each years total grows. So really not a big deal or a shock, they were just able to negotiate it. Likely earn and deserve it more than the vast majority in the private sector that makes similar, and again Im talking about the hands on people like nurses and dr's. Management at AHS as well as all Gov't agencies should have to undergo a serious culling of the herd. Cheers

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by riden

I saw a chart recently that compared overall taxation per province. Quebec's overall provincial taxation is double what our's is.

We really do have it good.

??????

The gov is taking almost half our wages, and not a small part of that is going to idiotic extravagances and wasteful bureaucracies, and you think we have it good? That's like saying I got a smoking deal on a 2015 civic for $150,000, just because the guy down the road paid $185,000.

We have it good compared to a lot of people I'll grant you that, but when it comes to taxes we are getting raped and are not getting good value for our money. You're just accustomed to it. We've become the proverbial frogs in the pot when it comes to taxes. It would have been interesting to see the gov try and implement all the taxes we currently pay all at once in say 1905.

When a provincial government calls selling their FLEET of planes "austerity", it's time for significant government shrinkage.

Pave the roads, treat the sewage, arrest the criminals. Focus. Focus. Focus.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by lmtada

This is part of the problem. To many managers, not enough workers. Every one wants to be the boss. For example. Department of environment, small group maybe 30 members. There are 12 managers, directors. For a total of 30 people. Plus all managers get a parking spot downtown Edmonton @ 600.00 month,paid by you (taxpayer).
In private industry you might have 1, 2 managers for 30 people. There are some provincial public servants ( they are servants to you and me, make sure they know!) that are managers with nobody underneath them?
Every manager wants the biggest budget, they have to spend all that $$. There is no incentive to save $$. They are empire building. Wrong incentives for government. There is no incentive for speed, efficiency or innovation ( which is what industry is about).
I do not favor PST. The market can keep public expenditure a little honest. once a PST is ingrained in the province. We will never loose it.

So many excellent points made in this post.

The gov bureaucracy is an animal that gets rewarded for growing. It exists to milk the taxpayers.

TBD made an excellent reference to the feudal system...exactly what we are...serf's to the crown.

[Iron Brew]

Originally Posted by FishingMOM

1/10 in ahs make 6 figure salaries.
In 2008 that number was 1/25

The 6 figure thing doesn't mean too much. What percentage of tradesmen make that?

AHS has already been pared down pretty slim (no, I don't work for them). What costs money is the CONSTANT reorganizations without time for everything to stabilize from the last one. The cost of each reorg is pretty high, and comes out of operating capital. They need some years of steady supply in order to do a proper evaluation. It takes any major company a long time for things to settle down after a shakeup. Same with AHS. And they never get that time...

Do you think adding the local boards back in as is Wild Rose' plan will save money? I think not. How about maintaining all the little facilities that were politically placed, not strategically? They have started cutting out some of these, but... it's a political bombshell "you can't close our hospital". "Your" hospital is there for political reasons... Oh well.

I'm putting on the flame proof long john's now...

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by sjd

Return to a proper income tax system as used by every other province in Canada where you pay more than 10% tax on incomes of over say 100k.

Originally Posted by riden

Our provincial income tax rate is 10% regardless of income. Here is a link, we do have it pretty good.

Some of us have it good. I forget the exact figure but unless you make > 75,000 your income tax is actually quite a bit higher than it would be in many other provinces. A flat tax will always shift tax burden (as a percentage of income) to those with lower incomes. Ralph Klien's biggest accomplishment was selling this to people and telling them it meant lower taxes for them, it's a stunning lie. It's taken root in a big way though, I bet it will take just a few minutes before a bunch of people jump in here and say it's lower taxes for me, keep your hands off.

Let's look at that for a minute. If we were to adopt a progressive tax scheme and raise taxes on income over 100k it really not that big a burden for someone who makes 120k or so during their peak earning years. Rember that you only pay the higher rate on the money you earn over 100k. Consider those years where you're just starting out or after you retire and you're trying to keep your investment income on pace with inflation without risking it all, that's when you're going to need the relief.

[rottie]

Originally Posted by Iron Brew

The 6 figure thing doesn't mean too much. What percentage of tradesmen make that?

AHS has already been pared down pretty slim (no, I don't work for them). What costs money is the CONSTANT reorganizations without time for everything to stabilize from the last one. The cost of each reorg is pretty high, and comes out of operating capital. They need some years of steady supply in order to do a proper evaluation. It takes any major company a long time for things to settle down after a shakeup. Same with AHS. And they never get that time...

Do you think adding the local boards back in as is Wild Rose' plan will save money? I think not. How about maintaining all the little facilities that were politically placed, not strategically? They have started cutting out some of these, but... it's a political bombshell "you can't close our hospital". "Your" hospital is there for political reasons... Oh well.

I'm putting on the flame proof long john's now...

Iron you make some good points, but AHS is exrtremlly top heavy I work for AHS in the Maint & Engineering end of things. We have more managment above us now than when it was the seperate health boards. AHS needs to be held accountable for your and my tax dollars.

Rigt now nobody is doing that.

[realitysucks]

Let's look at that for a minute. If we were to adopt a progressive tax scheme and raise taxes on income over 100k it really not that big a burden for someone who makes 120k or so during their peak earning years. Rember that you only pay the higher rate on the money you earn over 100k. Consider those years where you're just starting out or after you retire and you're trying to keep your investment income on pace with inflation without risking it all, that's when you're going to need the relief.

sorry dude if I make $150,000 I pay $15000 in taxes, if I make $5000 I only pay $5000, that is a lot less and far.

In your system I get penalized for working hard, getting education etc. That is not fair and regressive. In addition I get to more for all those who have no drive etc. Finally, people on the end of the pay scale lets say $22000 or less do not pay any income tax, which some say is fair but are the ones typically using most of the services that the taxes pay for.

NO INCREASE, show some leadership and cut back, start with the purple monster

[lmtada]

Maybe we should start a new party? AO? Party rule with a 45-70. Everything privatized??? You sell your goods or services for market rate? realizing that there are going to be Cycles in growth, not linear growth.

Education & Teachers Market rate?
Health, Dr & Nurses Market Rate?
Garbage Collection market Rate?
Janitors Market Rate?
Road Maintenance market Rate?
Environment and SRD Market Rate?
Police and Emergency, Market Rate?

Canada would hate Albertans?
I miss the cowboy?? " Hang em High"

[79ford]

I think it ll be provincial job cuts or revenue raising..... there is potentially up to a ten billion dollar hole according to prentice depending on how oil plays out.

Even just 6 billion is 60 000 jobs @100k/yr. To get the budget loss back or atleast under control it cant all come out of job cuts.

I think 60ish thousand people work for the gov so going after spending isnt going to go over well for the population or the province. With the private sector chopping jobs it is probably going to really hurt if the government gets the hatchet out.

Another thing people miss with government employees.... unlike private entities the government gets alot of their money back in taxes on the wages lol. A 100k employee gives 10% back to their employer if it is the government

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by realitysucks

sorry dude if I make $150,000 I pay $15000 in taxes, if I make $5000 I only pay $5000, that is a lot less and far.

In your system I get penalized for working hard, getting education etc. That is not fair and regressive.

See this is exactly my point, you take a one year view of this and you say it's fair but if you look at a lifetime it doesn't so good. Most people's earnings will not be flat over their lifetime, it's a bell curve. You need tax relief at the ends of the curve, not in the middle.

[mudbug]

We don't need or want a sales tax here in Alberta
What we need is government accountability!!!

[Don Andersen]

Do sale taxes apply to everything? Things like coal, lumber, oil, gas, beef, manufacturer parts, bitumen, retail items, pharmacy items, illegal drugs and on and on.
And are we not in this problem cause we haven't charged developers the money required to build inforstructure to supply hospitals, roads, sewage & water systems for all the new residents.
It's tough on the population when we're this damn stupid.

Don

[realitysucks]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

See this is exactly my point, you take a one year view of this and you say it's fair but if you look at a lifetime it doesn't so good. Most people's earnings will not be flat over their lifetime, it's a bell curve. You need tax relief at the ends of the curve, not in the middle.

Actually I don't take a 1 year I take a lifetime view, the more I make the more I pay, simple. To be blunt the fairest tax system would be no income tax and just a straight consumption tax.

A variable tax rate only penalizes the so called successful and provides a massive disincentive to succeed.

The only people who take a view year by year are our politicians, we have had several years, probably 7 now of excessive profits. Not 1 cent has been put into savings to buffer us from a down turn and guess what? When the down turn arrives all we get is the talk we have know of increasing taxes, sales taxes , oh the most common, tax the rich bs. The heritage trust fund was establish just for these reason and unfortunately since mr. ed nothing has been done except to pilfer it and buy elections.

[kidd]

Ok, I have two questions.
1) Isnt the "contingency fund" or whatever its called, in place for just this reason, a drop in royalty revenues? If it is, why aren't we dipping in, using it up, putting it toward, etc? I understand if it's a drop in the bucket, but use it, no? Thats why you and I put some dough away, to use in hard times.

2) These Wildrose floor crossers - they need to get re-elected like the rest of them next time round, correct? If so, I wouldnt be holding my breath if I was Danielle and her cohorts.

kidd

[kritz]

I was just thinking this in the Oil Crashing thread and posted this, Then we are all thinking the same and this thread is here.
I agree after the trainwreck the government has been in the past couple of years they push stuff like this to the people.
I just get sick thinking about what happens there and how we just all take it. Not much gets my blood boiling to the extend of what is happening in parliament these days.

Forgive me for being ignorant in regard to this. But please explain?

Why in a economy that is going bad and people are starting to suffer because of it personally in the way of job losses, How can it be possible to have a sales tax implemented in Alberta to help the government? Is this OK with people who are looking at a tough year + already? Hard times for the government implement sales tax , after a year the government was under the microscope for spending way to much? do the people have a say in this? or do we just have to accept and go on our merry ( or not so merry) way.

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by realitysucks

A variable tax rate only penalizes the so called successful and provides a massive disincentive to succeed.

A lot of people don't understand how progressive tax schemes work, I wonder if you aren't one of them. Lets look at this massive disincentive you talk about.

Imagine a very simple scheme where we had 10% tax to 100k and 15% above 100k. Lets say I am making $99k a year and paying $9900 a year in taxes but I'm thinking about getting some certifications so I can get a job that would pay $110k a year. Is it worth it?

Under the flat tax of 10% I pay $11000

With the progressive scale I pay $10000 on my first $100k and then $1500 on the next 10 for a total of $11500.

Are you going to pass on that opportunity over $500? Of course not.

This massive disincentive is an imaginary construct used to influence people who don't understand how taxes work.

[79ford]

The government doesnt have many good choices.... there is a 7-10billion hole to fill

7-10 billion in job cuts even at 200k per year is 35 000 to 50 000 jobs to cut...... or over 10% of the provinces payroll.

Raise taxes? Thats going to be a few thousand dollar drain on every household. Look what happened in japan after their sales tax hike, they went into recession ( also a reason why oil is in the gutter)

Pile up billions in debt? No one seems to like that, took over a decade of hacking and slashing services to get out of debt

Raise corporate royalties and taxes..... on money loosing capex cutting worker firing energy companies? Probably wont help

Use contigency fund? Ya that may delay the inevitable and if prices dont go back up we will be back to square one with no emergency fund and the same decisions mentioned above.


There is no good choice to make, no popular choice. Considering opec is apperantly intent on making high cost oil producers take the production cuts (alberta is highest cost in the world) i dont think our leaders should just cross their fingers and hope for higher prices as a plan of action.

People talk nostalgically about kline but i doubt theyll be happy if the government got the hatchet out and starting laying off thousands of people. Layoffs from private and public would be a heavy blow to housing.

[CanuckShooter]

People hate the idea of a sales tax...they will give you a Carbon tax like they did in BC because it's easier to sell to taxpayers. And it's a lot harder to see what they are taking out of your family budget with it.

[Wild&Free]

axe free trade, raise duties, and make it more appealing to produce goods in Canada, more jobs, more tax base.

Protectionist, sure. Sensible somewhat, practical most likely.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

A lot of people don't understand how progressive tax schemes work, I wonder if you aren't one of them. Lets look at this massive disincentive you talk about.

Imagine a very simple scheme where we had 10% tax to 100k and 15% above 100k. Lets say I am making $99k a year and paying $9900 a year in taxes but I'm thinking about getting some certifications so I can get a job that would pay $110k a year. Is it worth it?

Under the flat tax of 10% I pay $11000

With the progressive scale I pay $10000 on my first $100k and then $1500 on the next 10 for a total of $11500.

Are you going to pass on that opportunity over $500? Of course not.

This massive disincentive is an imaginary construct used to influence people who don't understand how taxes work.

Yup, we're just gonna charge you a little more for working those extra hours than the guy that went home. To quote a famous liberal..."IT'S NOT FAIR!!!"

And what more...under this "income tax" scheme, we're going to employ entire platoons of our friends, and their friends and their friends relatives, to monitor everyone's income, when they earn it, where they earn it, legal system resources, lawyers, judges, accountants, sycophants, and all manner of losers that are otherwise unemployable to harrass and plunder the populace of half their effort so that we can buy a pile of chrome balls to remind people just who is running this show.

Why punish someone for working harder than the guy next to him?? Rhetorical question...the answer is greed.

[Wild&Free]

The more you earn, the more dependent on the system you are for maintaining your earnings which entails more responsibility on your part for maintaining the system.

Doctors and lawyers used to be paid in chickens, I don't think they'd want to go back to that.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

The more you earn, the more dependent on the system you are for maintaining your earnings which entails more responsibility on your part for maintaining the system.

Doctors and lawyers used to be paid in chickens, I don't think they'd want to go back to that.

What? With all due respect, "jklds jklds ujjjdue jdls" makes more sense.

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Yup, we're just gonna charge you a little more for working those extra hours than the guy that went home. To quote a famous liberal..."IT'S NOT FAIR!!!"

We were talking about how much it really meant to an individual. In the example I illustrated above it was $500 or .0045% of the new income.

Now is that a good idea? I'm not convinced either way but the idea that I can pay that $500 now when it's not really going to make a huge difference rather than when I'm retired and trying to make sure my investment income will last is compelling. I have to think about it some more.

I made the post to make sure that everyone understood the hypothetical progressive increase that has you screaming "It's not FAIR" while stomping around with your drawers all twisted up would be something like .0045% of your income.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

We were talking about how much it really meant to an individual. In the example I illustrated above it was $500 or .0045% of the new income.

Now is that a good idea? I'm not convinced either way but the idea that I can pay that $500 now when it's not really going to make a huge difference rather than when I'm retired and trying to make sure my investment income will last is compelling. I have to think about it some more.

I made the post to make sure that everyone understood the hypothetical progressive increase that has you screaming "It's not FAIR" while stomping around with your drawers all twisted up would be something like .0045% of your income.

Yeah, I'm well aware of the argument that "It's only a little, teeny-weeny bit more money." I think that was what they said when they brought in the income tax...and that it was temporary.

Why should I give $500, which is a month's worth of groceries for a lot of families, to a wasteful government that is going to throw it away on some crappy self-indulgent piece of art, or taking their kids on joy rides to France, just because I decided I am going to work harder than the guy that makes $99,000.

That $500 quickly becomes $5000 or $10,000 when you start talking about someone that is willing to work away from home, away from his family, to give them a better life vs someone that wants an easy job inside, home every night, no education etc. If someone takes the time to get their journeyman's ticket or degree or whatever education, and take on a difficult job, and work long hours over someone that smoked dope all through high school and didn't get their grade 12, and stays at home with mommy and daddy working part time at MacDonalds, why punish the guy that works his butt off??

[lmtada]

Originally Posted by lmtada

This is part of the problem. To many managers, not enough workers. Every one wants to be the boss. For example. Department of environment, small group maybe 30 members. There are 12 managers, directors. For a total of 30 people. Plus all managers get a parking spot downtown Edmonton @ 600.00 month,paid by you (taxpayer).
In private industry you might have 1, 2 managers for 30 people. There are some provincial public servants ( they are servants to you and me, make sure they know!) that are managers with nobody underneath them?
Every manager wants the biggest budget, they have to spend all that $$. There is no incentive to save $$. They are empire building. Wrong incentives for government. There is no incentive for speed, efficiency or innovation ( which is what industry is about).
I do not favor PST. The market can keep public expenditure a little honest. once a PST is ingrained in the province. We will never loose it.

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Why should I give $500, which is a month's worth of groceries for a lot of families, to a wasteful government that is going to throw it away on some crappy self-indulgent piece of art, or taking their kids on joy rides to France, just because I decided I am going to work harder than the guy that makes $99,000.

Again it's a different issue. Don't think for a second I don't agree with you but the fact is that if you totaled up all of the money Redford spent and every penny spent on stupid art projects in the last decade you still wouldn't be able to build half of one overpass on the Anthony Henday.

Our infrastructure problems are huge and the gov is going to have to get the money somewhere. OR pull a slash and burn al a King Ralph.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by rugatika

What? With all due respect, "jklds jklds ujjjdue jdls" makes more sense.

about as much sense as taking as much as you can out of a system with returning as little as possible.

[Iron Brew]

Originally Posted by rottie

Iron you make some good points, but AHS is exrtremlly top heavy I work for AHS in the Maint & Engineering end of things. We have more managment above us now than when it was the seperate health boards. AHS needs to be held accountable for your and my tax dollars.

Rigt now nobody is doing that.

Now on that I can't speak to. The people i know working fot the system are front line workers. I'm sure there are efficiencies to be gained there, but things have been changing too rapidly and too often for a proper evaluation.