Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reliance on Carbon Tax, royalties, or a PST, etc - which is best for Alberta

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Could be Getty. Have to check. Either way, royalties should go to the HF and the principal shouldn't be touched.

    Comment


    • #17
      Just my opinion but I feel if the HF exceeded 20 billion the federal government would raid it.
      Just enjoying another day in paradise.

      Comment


      • #18
        There is no legal way for the feds to raid it. None. Zero. That said, the HF could be used for loans to other provinces for various projects. Alberta could use it for the benefit of the entire country. However, as long as it's stuck at a measley $15 billion, it's really not enough to do anything with without depleting it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by kkozoriz View Post
          There is no legal way for the feds to raid it. None. Zero. That said, the HF could be used for loans to other provinces for various projects. Alberta could use it for the benefit of the entire country. However, as long as it's stuck at a measley $15 billion, it's really not enough to do anything with without depleting it.
          i'm not as sure about your underlying assumption here as you seem to be...

          i seem to recall that the feds were contemplating amending the equilization calculations to include the amount of the fund and the monies earned by the fund in what would have been even more negative from alberta's perspective than it already was/is and some of alberta's previous decisions regarding the fund and contributions to it were made to minimize that potential.
          "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

          Comment


          • #20
            And it didn't come to pass because? If the feds could do it to Alberta, they could do it to every province with resource revenue. The provinces wouldn't stand for it.

            The primary reason for shifting the royalties to general revenue was for the phoney "Alberta Advantage", keeping taxes lower than other provinces. Which doesn't work particularly now because the royalties are so low. Add to that, the volitility of oil markets and all it manages to do is make Alberta even more susceptible to swings in the world price. Which was one major reason the HF was founded to protect against.

            And, as I suggested, if the HF was put to work across the country, it would lessen any attempt, doomed may it be, from going after the HF.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by kkozoriz View Post
              And it didn't come to pass because? If the feds could do it to Alberta, they could do it to every province with resource revenue. The provinces wouldn't stand for it.

              The primary reason for shifting the royalties to general revenue was for the phoney "Alberta Advantage", keeping taxes lower than other provinces. Which doesn't work particularly now because the royalties are so low. Add to that, the volitility of oil markets and all it manages to do is make Alberta even more susceptible to swings in the world price. Which was one major reason the HF was founded to protect against.

              And, as I suggested, if the HF was put to work across the country, it would lessen any attempt, doomed may it be, from going after the HF.
              I think it was in 1987 under Getty. Not sure that the Alberta advantage slogan existed then. However, sure, it might have been shifted to support the pre-slogan concept of the same.


              Ok here’s a seemingly factual summary. It’s well worth reading the entire article:




              Alberta's 1980s-style fiscal karma is back | Fraser Institute

              “The 1980s/1990s decline in Alberta's fiscal fortunes was the result of politicians who didn't face the fact that boom-time energy prices would not soon return, nor the accompanying boom-time tax revenues.

              So they first tried everything else to balance the books. Alberta's political leaders reduced and then entirely stopped resource revenue transfers to the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund; then they re-directed the fund's earnings to general revenues; and in the 1987 budget, taxes were raised by $1 billion, about a 12 per cent tax hike overall. “

              “...in a comparison of the 1981 and 1986 fiscal years, program spending was 85 per cent higher in that latter year (the first deficit year) when compared to 1981. In contrast, revenues were only 49 per cent higher.” ...

              “When spending increases continually run ahead of revenue growth for half a decade, inevitably, budgets will bust and end up in red ink. It is akin to increasing personal spending every year beyond one's wage increases. That was the lesson of the 1980s, learned late and hard with spending cuts post-1993.

              That lesson has now been...”

              https://www.fraserinstitute.org/arti...-karma-is-back
              Last edited by KC; 30-10-2018, 07:28 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                I hurt my arm in the summer, going to the hospital to see if it was broken I was seen by about 5 people over 3 hours. This really could have been done by 2, (perhaps 3 for a clerk or triage assessment) the X-ray tech and the doctor. I know there are tons of inefficiencies, we can find solutions if we look and be creative.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by sundance View Post
                  I hurt my arm in the summer, going to the hospital to see if it was broken I was seen by about 5 people over 3 hours. This really could have been done by 2, (perhaps 3 for a clerk or triage assessment) the X-ray tech and the doctor. I know there are tons of inefficiencies, we can find solutions if we look and be creative.
                  So? Are you saying keep the same taxes and cut costs but not services?

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X