Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 10-31-2019, 02:31 PM
JamesB JamesB is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GENINC View Post
Yea about that, I am not sure where you got your sources from but there have been numerous studies and studies of those studies comparing efficiency of the private sector with the public sector, and they paint a different picture.
The largest and most notable study is the PSIRU, which concluded that there is no notable difference in efficiency of the private sector compared to the public one, and most times quite the opposite.

Some notable quotes for the ones that don't want to take the time to read it:

"The consistent conclusion: there is no evidence of greater efficiency.2 So, the best outcome one can hope for is that private-sector ownership or involvement is no worse than what the public sector provides – hardly a turn-up for the books. The largest study of the efficiency of privatized companies looked at all European companies privatized during 1980-2009. It compared their performance with companies that remained public and with their own past performance as public companies. The result? The privatized companies performed worse than those that remained public and continued to do so for up to 10 years after privatization."

"Even in the super-competitive telecoms sector, where customers have benefited from lower costs and increasing variety of services over the years, this result holds. A global survey found that ‘privatized sectors perform significantly worse’ than telecom companies remaining in state hands."

"Healthcare is where this myth is really given the lie. In the US, where healthcare spending is at its peak, with private spending on healthcare exceeding public spending, basic health outcomes are worse than in Cuba – which spends a fraction of the US amount per person in a totally public healthcare system (see table).

Myth 5 table
A 2012 report by the US Institute of Medicine was damning:

‘30 cents of every medical dollar goes to unnecessary healthcare, deceitful paperwork, fraud and other waste. The $750 billion in annual waste is more than the Pentagon budget and more than enough to care for every American who lacks health insurance… Most of the waste came from unnecessary services ($210 billion annually), excess administrative costs ($190 billion) and inefficient delivery of care ($130 billion).’2

That same year government had to step in with the Affordable Care Act (also known as ObamaCare) to try to rectify a bloated system that was clearly failing poor citizens."

Luckily most people side with evidence rather than assumptions. I mean you really don't have to be a genius to see that a private corporation will have one goal only, and that's profits at all costs and the interests of the shareholders. In most cases there is no substitute, let alone better alternatives to the public sector. For the people by the people as they say. Yes, it's not perfect and has shortfalls but everything does touched by human hands.
That report reads like a communist manifesto. What little I did read seems to focus on individual private company failures in the absence of context. For example politicians often set up companies to enrich themselves or their friends at the expense of the tax payer (windfarms in Ontario), to suggest that one of these companies operating to provide a "privatized" service represents the private sector is misleading. To be effective the private sector MUST have competition, and it MUST be allowed to fail. Offering a "privatized" business a monopoly, and backing it up with tax dollars is not the private sector it is cronyism.
Yes private corporations operate to make profit, and that is not a bad thing it is the best thing about the system. Assuming the government does not interfere, allow monopolies, or play favorites, private companies with provide the most efficient and better quality outcomes. Ever wonder why the best electronic devices, customer relations, or vehicles are offered by private companies? If governments came close to providing equal offerings would we not see them leading the way? They have effectively unlimited amounts of taxpayer money after all. Yet what notable products have been produced by truly communist countries?
  #62  
Old 10-31-2019, 02:41 PM
bobtodrick bobtodrick is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
Yet what notable products have been produced by truly communist countries?
The AK-47
But in truth I agree with you 100%
  #63  
Old 10-31-2019, 02:43 PM
GENINC GENINC is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 199
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtodrick View Post
PSIRU definitely has a pro government union agenda (PSI is involved in the movement against privatisation of public services by corporations across the world. PSI also works against tax evasion by multinational corporations and is a founding member of the International Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation.[4] PSI's pro-worker stance has put it at odds with the WTO, World Bank and IMF who predominantly promote market solutions)
Of course they are going to come to conclusions that back their mandate.
Would you blindly accept the conclusions the WTO and World Bank come to?
There is nothing wrong with them representing the public sector and launching said study, if said study and its sources are sound. Who else is going to fund these studies, the private sector highlighting their own inefficiencies? That would be a cold day in hell. It certainly has more merit than that ****ty Wikipedia paragraph that you posted. Oh and while we're at it, the source for why PSI is "at odds" with the WTO is because the WTO is promoting the privatization of water as a resource. I don't need to tell you why that is a bad idea.

In any case, you free to post a study proving your point. Governments should not be run like a business, period.
  #64  
Old 10-31-2019, 03:16 PM
teberle teberle is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
You seem to be very invested in big government. There are very few things that only government can provide, and nothing they provide is done more efficiently than the private sector. If you can provide an example I would be glad to argue the point further, but really this is nonsense.
WRT education, I would rather have a lower tax burden and be able to choose an expensive private school. The NDP provided a perfect example of exactly what is wrong with public education. This province spent addition billions on the issue and managed to reduce class sizes by 1! If class size is an important metric why can it not be reduced? Yet the bureaucracy that deals with Education continues to grow at an astounding rate, use up resources that should be directed towards students and generates bureaucratic inertia that maintains the status quo. Why is it that private schools manage to have smaller class sizes?
I also want access to high quality health care, but much of what I have been forced to deal with has not been particularly good quality at all. Furthermore I am never given the option to seek alternate opinions or treatments. It is always take it or leave it. Again I would much rather have lower taxes and pick and choose my medical service provider.
As GENINC has touched upon, for an example of the comparative efficiency of the private and public sectors, one needs look no further than our own healthcare system compared to the American one. They spend around 10k per capita per year on healthcare, while our system costs around half that much, and ours covers everyone, whereas theirs leaves tens of millions of people without insurance, and tens of millions more which coverage that is so limited that it's only good for catastrophic events.

As for your preference to choose a private school while having a lower tax burden, unless you are a wealthy person, I really don't understand this thinking. Take a look at this income tax calculator:

https://simpletax.ca/calculator

If you make 100,000 dollars per year in Alberta, which is well above the median income, your entire provincial tax burden is $7702. Private school can easily cost two or three times that per kid. How could you possibly think you're better off paying up front for schooling?? How do private schools manage to provide smaller class sizes? It's because the parents of the kids are paying HUGE money to cover the costs directly, out of pocket (and also because, for some reason, the government subsidizes those schools). People like to talk about 'efficiency,' but what is overlooked is the VALUE of what an average working person gets from their tax dollars. No, I wouldn't exactly say that I am 'invested in big government.' It's just that I recognize the extremely high value I'm getting from the services the government provides. And yes, in order for us regular people to get that value, the corporations and the wealthy have to subsidize our services through much higher tax rates. They don't like that, and neither does their boy Kenney, and that's why we're having this discussion about cuts.
  #65  
Old 10-31-2019, 05:16 PM
bobtodrick bobtodrick is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GENINC View Post
There is nothing wrong with them representing the public sector and launching said study, if said study and its sources are sound. Who else is going to fund these studies, the private sector highlighting their own inefficiencies? That would be a cold day in hell. It certainly has more merit than that ****ty Wikipedia paragraph that you posted. Oh and while we're at it, the source for why PSI is "at odds" with the WTO is because the WTO is promoting the privatization of water as a resource. I don't need to tell you why that is a bad idea.

In any case, you free to post a study proving your point. Governments should not be run like a business, period.
Ahhhh, spoken like a true liberal...of course your privately funded statistics are more accurate than mine
The one thing wiki has never been accused of is not being non partisan.
  #66  
Old 10-31-2019, 06:27 PM
CMichaud's Avatar
CMichaud CMichaud is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Beijing, Canada
Posts: 1,470
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtodrick View Post
The one thing wiki has never been accused of is not being non partisan.
1. Just a point for clarity (I honestly have no side on this); and

2. Not sure if this was meant with sarcasm or maybe is even a double negative - not-being-non....still trying to untangle this in my head

Regardless, Wiki is incredibly dodgy for sourcing information. Information is submitted by users (often partisan) and supposed to be validated by administrators but this does not always happen.

I am always very careful referencing wiki for anything. Excerpt below from an article on the subject.

Academics discredit the website for several reasons: articles can be written by anyone, not necessarily a world expert; editing and regulation are imperfect and a reliance on Wikipedia can discourage students from engaging with genuine academic writing. Vandalism is also common. There are numerous examples of politicians and public figures amending articles about themselves to erase unfavourable material.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...-use-wikipedia
  #67  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:15 PM
GENINC GENINC is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 199
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtodrick View Post
Ahhhh, spoken like a true liberal...of course your privately funded statistics are more accurate than mine
The one thing wiki has never been accused of is not being non partisan.
What are you on about? What statistics? You haven't shown anything. Don't paint me as a liberal or conservative or any other color, none of them make sense, just like your rambling. You may like to sit in a garage with your friends and curse out liberals or whatever political party you seem to dislike at the moment, I don't really care. If I see fact based science I tend to take it seriously whether that aligns with my pocket book or not. This partisan rhetoric is toxic and diverts us from real discussions.

As far as I'm concerned all parties are kinda whack.
  #68  
Old 10-31-2019, 09:00 PM
NinjaHunter NinjaHunter is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Edmonton, Berta
Posts: 221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teberle View Post
It's just that I recognize the extremely high value I'm getting from the services the government provides. And yes, in order for us regular people to get that value, the corporations and the wealthy have to subsidize our services through much higher tax rates. They don't like that, and neither does their boy Kenney, and that's why we're having this discussion about cuts.

And what happens if you try to increase taxes on corporations to fund welfare? Do companies stay and take it? Or do they leave the province and essentially leave people unemployed?

If you believe in the service the government provides, why not have your taxes increase significantly? Not corporations, but you. The taxpayer.



It's amazing, how people think that it is other people's responsibility to give them welfare, with other people's money.
  #69  
Old 10-31-2019, 09:08 PM
brendon444 brendon444 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaHunter View Post
And what happens if you try to increase taxes on corporations to fund welfare? Do companies stay and take it? Or do they leave the province and essentially leave people unemployed?

If you believe in the service the government provides, why not have your taxes increase significantly? Not corporations, but you. The taxpayer.



It's amazing, how people think that it is other people's responsibility to give them welfare, with other people's money.


Exactly, We need corporate investment in Alberta to create jobs. All these companies will be leaving if the province is not competitive.
  #70  
Old 10-31-2019, 09:34 PM
teberle teberle is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaHunter View Post
And what happens if you try to increase taxes on corporations to fund welfare? Do companies stay and take it? Or do they leave the province and essentially leave people unemployed?

If you believe in the service the government provides, why not have your taxes increase significantly? Not corporations, but you. The taxpayer.



It's amazing, how people think that it is other people's responsibility to give them welfare, with other people's money.
Well I'm certainly not the best person to answer this question, but presumably there's a balance to be struck. Here's a page that may be of interest:

https://www.taxtips.ca/smallbusiness...rates-2019.htm

As you can see, our former rate of 12% was basically on par with the lowest rates in the country (a couple provinces are half a point lower). Presumably if it makes sense otherwise to set up shop in Alberta, 12% would have been low enough to be competitive. By that way of thinking, 8% is much lower than necessary in order to be competitive with other provinces.

Since you asked, I'll tell you that personally, I would not object to having my taxes increased, if it was necessary to improve or maintain the level of services. Under the circumstances, I would strongly prefer that to the current government's chosen course of action.
  #71  
Old 10-31-2019, 10:10 PM
amosfella amosfella is offline
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,221
Default

Here's what I think many people are missing in this discussion. In the end, there is only one taxpayer. That is the end user of a product. If you increase the taxes on corps, they just raise the prices of the products to accommodate plus a padding to make sure that they continue on the same profit margins.

Another thing missing from this discussion is that lower corporate tax rates create a better foreign investment climate. Foreign investment in companies and projects is what gets many projects that create real jobs off the ground. In reality, Alberta is not competing with the rest of Canada about a tax rate. We're at least competing with the rest of North America, especially other US states, if not the rest of the world.

When you have an unstable political climate, you have to offer better incentives to get foreign investment. Due to the federal government, there is a very unstable political climate.

Here's a copy of a post from George Clark about that:

Quote:
FOREIGN INVESTMENT CAPITAL ISN'T COMING INTO ALBERTA. AND EVEN WORSE, IT'S ALSO LEAVING AS FAST AS POSSIBLE!

I had a teleconference this afternoon with a capital investment manager who is the Alberta based representative of a $300+ Billion Dollar Global fund.

They are ready to make some major longterm investments with a couple of our proposed projects. But they threw a twist at us.

Basically they are asking if we would consider basing our operations in the USA for the next 4 years! When I asked what concerned them the most, they said that the federal purchase & ownership of TMX has their principal concerned that Canada is headed towards the nationalization of major industries! He thinks that our talented Alberta management team would be welcomed in the USA and he could fund us without hesitation if we take our talent, technology and equipment south!

ffs, I am growing weary of receiving such pessimistic outlooks for Alberta. I know we live in a highly MOBILE society but I still want to survive & thrive right here at home! I don't want to go create a bunch of employment down in the States, I want my efforts to benefit the hurting Albertans that are currently experiencing the grief & hardships that I personally went thru a few times myself!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's going to be up to us Albertans to direct our collective $750 Billion Dollars worth of savings back into Alberta. Our UCP government is going to have to put in some very Alberta-centric Tax Incentives for Albertans to start funding ourselves! Providing RRSP & TFSA tax deductions to have us send our money to the Big Five Eastern Canada Banks who refuse to invest hardly any of it back here HAS TO END!

Alberta unrest has always ended up being directed back at the Big Banks, this time around it won't be any different. They are responsible for shutting us down, this time using our Alberta money to do it while offering Quebec, Atlantic Canada, Southwest BC and the GTA as much of our savings as they can handle!

And before the Separatists jump at this, keep in mind that Alberta doesn't have to separate to fix this. Albertans with just a bit of encouragement from the UCP government can do this in just a few weeks. In a way that would see at least $100B of our savings flood back into Alberta in 2020!

George Clark, Founder
Albertans First Patriots
  #72  
Old 10-31-2019, 10:46 PM
wildwoods wildwoods is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Location
Posts: 4,961
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teberle View Post
Well I'm certainly not the best person to answer this question, but presumably there's a balance to be struck. Here's a page that may be of interest:

https://www.taxtips.ca/smallbusiness...rates-2019.htm

As you can see, our former rate of 12% was basically on par with the lowest rates in the country (a couple provinces are half a point lower). Presumably if it makes sense otherwise to set up shop in Alberta, 12% would have been low enough to be competitive. By that way of thinking, 8% is much lower than necessary in order to be competitive with other provinces.

Since you asked, I'll tell you that personally, I would not object to having my taxes increased, if it was necessary to improve or maintain the level of services. Under the circumstances, I would strongly prefer that to the current government's chosen course of action.
It has nothing to do with being competitive in our “great” nation. Look a little to the south. That’s where private corps are going.

For all the resources and industries we have in Canada: Ag/oil/soft wood/mining/fisheries/tourism/ the list is miles long- we sure have a lousy economy. We should be the wealthiest nation on earth. We are a joke. We are our worst enemy. I love being Canadian however, it’s frustrating to see her cannibalize herself. Red tape and globalist thinking is getting us nowhere- fast.
  #73  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:03 PM
lmtada's Avatar
lmtada lmtada is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,049
Default

Kenney will need to shed a few pounds to look like this guy.

https://s.abcnews.com/images/Interna..._31x13_992.jpg
Attached Images
File Type: jpg D3F494EF-C22D-4CD1-8263-06E4D7B603B5.jpg (45.3 KB, 47 views)
  #74  
Old 11-01-2019, 06:17 AM
1899b's Avatar
1899b 1899b is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sherwood Park Ab
Posts: 6,279
Default

I can’t support any premier that wants to sell Alberta’s crown land. He’s a dude from Ontario that went to University in San Fransisco, did not graduate and then began work with the Saskatchewan Liberal Party. this clown has done nothing in his career that has impressed me and my feelings of disdain for him will grow more if he takes the easy route to fix the deficit by selling off an Alberta asset like our crown land in the Peace Country.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4943818
__________________
An awful lot of big game was killed with the .30-06 including the big bears before everyone became affluent enough to own a rifle for every species of game they might hunt.

Last edited by 1899b; 11-01-2019 at 06:22 AM.
  #75  
Old 11-01-2019, 08:25 AM
Trochu's Avatar
Trochu Trochu is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildwoods View Post
We should be the wealthiest nation on earth. We are a joke. We are our worst enemy.
Agreed. People say we have it so good, and we do, however if one where to stop for a minute and visualize how much better it could be, most people should get angry.
  #76  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:16 AM
bobtodrick bobtodrick is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMichaud View Post
1. Just a point for clarity (I honestly have no side on this); and

2. Not sure if this was meant with sarcasm or maybe is even a double negative - not-being-non....still trying to untangle this in my head

Regardless, Wiki is incredibly dodgy for sourcing information. Information is submitted by users (often partisan) and supposed to be validated by administrators but this does not always happen.

I am always very careful referencing wiki for anything. Excerpt below from an article on the subject.

Academics discredit the website for several reasons: articles can be written by anyone, not necessarily a world expert; editing and regulation are imperfect and a reliance on Wikipedia can discourage students from engaging with genuine academic writing. Vandalism is also common. There are numerous examples of politicians and public figures amending articles about themselves to erase unfavourable material.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...-use-wikipedia
Don't get me wrong...I'd never accuse wiki of being absolutely correct on anything. My point was that the info shown by GENINC are from a source know to have an agenda. And that (and I can be guilty of it as well) as long as the statistics I'm quoting support my side...agenda or not they must be correct and yours must be wrong.
  #77  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:27 AM
bitterrootfly bitterrootfly is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: South West Alberta and K-Country
Posts: 421
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teberle View Post
Actually, what you describe would have been the exact opposite of the sensible thing to do. There is a time for deficit spending, and that time is during an economic recession. And that's not me talking, that's the conventional wisdom among mainstream economists. The last thing you want to do during bad economic times is cut spending, since government spending is an economic stimulus, and cuts have the opposite effect.

As for your question, I would answer it with my previous paragraph. It is reasonable to expect a government to spend more than it takes in for as long as it takes to complete an economic recovery, within certain debt-to-gdp ratio limits, and we are well within those. This assumes, of course, that during fat times, a corresponding surplus is run, and, as we can see in flatlandliver's graph, the PC government failed to do this in the years preceding the crash when oil was very high.

The UCP obsession with balancing the budget was never grounded in any sound economic theory. It was always a political play to win votes, and to justify the measures they'll be taking as part of a long-term plan to dismantle government on behalf of corporations.
Congenital wisdom amongst Keynesian economists, important to remember the other major economic model under Hayek is to do exactly what the NDP didn’t do which was to cut government programs and control spending. Not saying one is right or wrong, it’s just disingenuous to say that “mainstream economists” support one theory when the reality is across the western world both theories are widely supported.
__________________
Either write something worthy of doing or do something worthy of writing about.
  #78  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:45 AM
RZR RZR is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1899b View Post
I can’t support any premier that wants to sell Alberta’s crown land. He’s a dude from Ontario that went to University in San Fransisco, did not graduate and then began work with the Saskatchewan Liberal Party. this clown has done nothing in his career that has impressed me and my feelings of disdain for him will grow more if he takes the easy route to fix the deficit by selling off an Alberta asset like our crown land in the Peace Country.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4943818
This is definitely the wrong clown leading the circus. Brian Jean would have been a better leader IMO.
  #79  
Old 11-01-2019, 10:20 AM
1899b's Avatar
1899b 1899b is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sherwood Park Ab
Posts: 6,279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RZR View Post
This is definitely the wrong clown leading the circus. Brian Jean would have been a better leader IMO.
I am quite partial to Brian having known him and his family for years in McMurray... he’s a good down to earth Albertan
__________________
An awful lot of big game was killed with the .30-06 including the big bears before everyone became affluent enough to own a rifle for every species of game they might hunt.
  #80  
Old 11-01-2019, 04:44 PM
JamesB JamesB is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teberle View Post
As GENINC has touched upon, for an example of the comparative efficiency of the private and public sectors, one needs look no further than our own healthcare system compared to the American one. They spend around 10k per capita per year on healthcare, while our system costs around half that much, and ours covers everyone, whereas theirs leaves tens of millions of people without insurance, and tens of millions more which coverage that is so limited that it's only good for catastrophic events.

As for your preference to choose a private school while having a lower tax burden, unless you are a wealthy person, I really don't understand this thinking. Take a look at this income tax calculator:

https://simpletax.ca/calculator

If you make 100,000 dollars per year in Alberta, which is well above the median income, your entire provincial tax burden is $7702. Private school can easily cost two or three times that per kid. How could you possibly think you're better off paying up front for schooling?? How do private schools manage to provide smaller class sizes? It's because the parents of the kids are paying HUGE money to cover the costs directly, out of pocket (and also because, for some reason, the government subsidizes those schools). People like to talk about 'efficiency,' but what is overlooked is the VALUE of what an average working person gets from their tax dollars. No, I wouldn't exactly say that I am 'invested in big government.' It's just that I recognize the extremely high value I'm getting from the services the government provides. And yes, in order for us regular people to get that value, the corporations and the wealthy have to subsidize our services through much higher tax rates. They don't like that, and neither does their boy Kenney, and that's why we're having this discussion about cuts.
It's really nonsensical to compare country to country as there are always other contributing factors involved. Is private care more or less effective than public in the US? In Canada? In the UK? In France? In Switzerland? I can say with certainty the Canada provides great emergency care but the wait times for joint repair/replacement are nuts. Our private system takes care of these types of procedures much more quickly and less expensively than the public system. I have several friends that have used private clinics across Canada when they had finally given up on public care.

As for private schools, if you can afford them they are better. They are better because they are not controlled by politicians and unions. No matter how much money the government pours into public schools, they will never provide the quality of private schools. Again I would rather pay lower taxes and source my own medical and education services. You like "free" stuff, great. Some, regardless of economic standing, like quality stuff. It's great that you think you are getting value or quality or both from public services, however I am certain there will come a time when you will decide otherwise. Dealing with government agencies never ends up a positive experience in the long run.

As for tax cuts, we are having this discussion because high tax rates affect economic development, job creation and pay scales. The NDP just finished ruining Alberta's economy proving just this. More of the same results in less tax money available for programs and less effective programs. Thinking that we can just keep increasing taxes to make sure everyone gets exactly what they want for "free" is the surest way to end up with exactly nothing, but at least we can all share the misery.
  #81  
Old 11-09-2019, 10:10 PM
fishnguy fishnguy is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 3,658
Default

Province cancels funding contracts to Parent Link programs

More of the same. Many most vulnerable parents/kids, as well as “normal” average families, benefitted greatly from the programs these places have to offer. The place and staff in Peace River are really great. Hopefully, they will figure something out.

Edit:

While this is OK because it’s just ”hospitality” and “building relationships”:
Alberta premier chartered $16K flight to fly 3 premiers to Saskatoon after Stampede event

Last edited by fishnguy; 11-09-2019 at 10:17 PM.
  #82  
Old 11-09-2019, 10:51 PM
Glion Glion is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teberle View Post
As GENINC has touched upon, for an example of the comparative efficiency of the private and public sectors, one needs look no further than our own healthcare system compared to the American one. They spend around 10k per capita per year on healthcare, while our system costs around half that much, and ours covers everyone, whereas theirs leaves tens of millions of people without insurance, and tens of millions more which coverage that is so limited that it's only good for catastrophic events.

As for your preference to choose a private school while having a lower tax burden, unless you are a wealthy person, I really don't understand this thinking. Take a look at this income tax calculator:

https://simpletax.ca/calculator

If you make 100,000 dollars per year in Alberta, which is well above the median income, your entire provincial tax burden is $7702. Private school can easily cost two or three times that per kid. How could you possibly think you're better off paying up front for schooling?? How do private schools manage to provide smaller class sizes? It's because the parents of the kids are paying HUGE money to cover the costs directly, out of pocket (and also because, for some reason, the government subsidizes those schools). People like to talk about 'efficiency,' but what is overlooked is the VALUE of what an average working person gets from their tax dollars. No, I wouldn't exactly say that I am 'invested in big government.' It's just that I recognize the extremely high value I'm getting from the services the government provides. And yes, in order for us regular people to get that value, the corporations and the wealthy have to subsidize our services through much higher tax rates. They don't like that, and neither does their boy Kenney, and that's why we're having this discussion about cuts.
Government only provides funding for facilities at private schools btw. Also side note average income of those sending kids to private schools is lower than pubic schools so the higher income argument there is wrong. And contrary to what ndp was pushing private schools for the vast majority are not set up for the rich. And who better to control the education than a childs parents rather than the Gov't. Who loves the child more and wants what is best for them more? Not saying Public doesn't offer that I just think we all pay taxes and parents should be allowed to choose where to educate their children and have the full funding follow the child.
  #83  
Old 11-09-2019, 11:15 PM
artie artie is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,936
Default communist

Kenny is running a communist type government. trying to take control of the teachers pension fund a fund that the teachers had to pay into with a big deduction from every pay check. Kenny is going to take that money and let his government invest it and blow it all. The teachers will be left with nothing in the fund and this government will be broke. How can he just say I am going to take control of the fund and there is nothing you can do. we will see.
  #84  
Old 11-09-2019, 11:30 PM
bsmitty27 bsmitty27 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: East of the big smoke
Posts: 1,496
Default

They are ending the rap attack fire fighting crews. This is going to be very short term savings. This move is going to cost tax payers millions to save thousands.
Poor accounting, poor planning. I think we will get them back 3/4 of the way through the 2020 fire season.
Brad
  #85  
Old 11-09-2019, 11:56 PM
PartTimeHunter PartTimeHunter is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Drayton Valley
Posts: 1,251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigwoodsman View Post
What he’s done so far he’s s ok, with me including last weeks budget. What concerns me is I see him waffling with sparkle socks. Playing politics with a clown is never a good idea as far as I’m concerned. His 2 years to see results is WAAAAAYYYYY to long.
Cancel bill c69 and 48 in 90 days or we’re having a referendum to deal with separation. He needs to be aggressive in his approach and walk his talk.

BW
Exactly!
  #86  
Old 11-10-2019, 08:02 AM
Glion Glion is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artie View Post
Kenny is running a communist type government. trying to take control of the teachers pension fund a fund that the teachers had to pay into with a big deduction from every pay check. Kenny is going to take that money and let his government invest it and blow it all. The teachers will be left with nothing in the fund and this government will be broke. How can he just say I am going to take control of the fund and there is nothing you can do. we will see.
Take a look at what communism truly is, he is very very far from communism. As for the pension fund does the Gov't match your contributions to it or no? Honest question. A great thing to happen would be for the corrupt Teachers union to dissolve and disappear, that would be good for our province
  #87  
Old 11-10-2019, 08:34 AM
liar liar is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ft assiniboine area
Posts: 1,392
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jstubbs View Post
Lots of threads on other levels of politics. Lets talk about the Kenny UCP government.

What do you think so far? What do you think of the released budget? Any policies or legislation you like or dislike?
since he took power , Houston oil and gas , trident exploration ,many smaller oil and gas service companies and drilling companies have closed their doors . belatrix filed for ccaa , encana is getting out of ab , husky cut some 600 jobs , all in 6 months .
what do i think so far? epic fail .
like JT , kenney is a career politician who seems out of touch with reality , he was shrouded in controversy before he even took office . i think brian jean would of been a better choice .
  #88  
Old 11-10-2019, 09:51 AM
amosfella amosfella is offline
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by liar View Post
since he took power , Houston oil and gas , trident exploration ,many smaller oil and gas service companies and drilling companies have closed their doors . belatrix filed for ccaa , encana is getting out of ab , husky cut some 600 jobs , all in 6 months .
what do i think so far? epic fail .
like JT , kenney is a career politician who seems out of touch with reality , he was shrouded in controversy before he even took office . i think brian jean would of been a better choice .
I think that has more to do with the Turd, and the Turd not being flushed, then with Kenney.
  #89  
Old 11-10-2019, 10:04 AM
thumper's Avatar
thumper thumper is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Canmore
Posts: 4,740
Default

Steady as she goes Kenny. I'm glad you're at the helm.
__________________
The world is changed by your action, not by your opinion.
  #90  
Old 11-10-2019, 10:12 AM
lmtada's Avatar
lmtada lmtada is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by liar View Post
since he took power , Houston oil and gas , trident exploration ,many smaller oil and gas service companies and drilling companies have closed their doors . belatrix filed for ccaa , encana is getting out of ab , husky cut some 600 jobs , all in 6 months .
what do i think so far? epic fail .
like JT , kenney is a career politician who seems out of touch with reality , he was shrouded in controversy before he even took office . i think brian jean would of been a better choice .
Get off this forum. . Go to your doghouse for some SLAPS 👋.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.