The DumbBrexit / #Wexit thread

[Gurn]

20 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

I have multiple times in multiple threads quoting economists from all over Canada.

I'm done not one of you will change your mind. There is serious superiority complex issues in BC.

Nope, you have not answered this question.

 

'why should Alberta get more than a per capita share back? "

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

It doesn't and never ends.

 

NEP in 1982.  Pipelines and refineries with ports in BC, Newfoundland and New Brunswick with an option in Churchill and Quebec.  Refineries and upgraders in every province.  So we're not landlocked and dependent on other nations for our energy needs and can export outside of North America.

 

Alberta:  What a terrible frigging idea, we have to sell to Canada for cheaper than anyone else?  That's crap why should we lose money.  We're going to go with the NAFTA plan instead, America is a dependable purchaser

 

Alberta 2019:  we need pipelines and refineries with ports in BC, Newfoundland and New Brunswick with an option in Churchill and Quebec.  Refineries and upgraders in every province.  So we're not landlocked and dependent on other nations for our energy needs and can export outside of North America.  Our only purchaser right now is America and they have no interest in buying and when they do they are buying it at below market value

 

The rest of the country:

 

Trudeau senior: Alberta we will give you pipelines to get your product across the country and we will build refineries.

Alberta: Great that sounds awesome.

Trudeau senior:  but we will place huge exporting taxes on any of the product that leaves the country. 

Alberta: So that defeats the purpose of getting the product to tide water, ok but we can still sell to Canadians.

Trudeau senior:  Yeah about that, you will have to sell us the product for a 40% discount from global market rates.

Alberta: But a 40% discount means there will be no profit and in the current economic down turn of oil we will be losing money at that rate.

Trudeau senior: Too bad

 

Alberta moves forward,  unemployment rate shoots up from 4% to more than 13%. Bankruptcies soared 150%. A housing crisis ensued resulting in values collapsing 40% in both Edmonton and Calgary. All foreign investment pulls out, construction and energy projects were nixed overnight, a 22% drop in drilling activity, and a 25% decline in exploration budgets. Overall, industry cash flow and earnings fell 34% to $3.1 billion in 1981 from $4.7 billion a year before. In 4 short years the damage caused Albertans over 97 billion. Recovery took decades was a big reason why the Heritage Trust Savings Fund wasn’t a success.

 

Yet people like hippy wonder why Alberta wasn’t on board.

 

 

Oh and it wasn’t just Alberta that wasn’t just on board, it was Jean Chrétien that began the phased shut down, add in the fact that the rest of the country also was on Alberta’s side when they chose not to reelect Trudeau senior, instead elect In Brian Mulroney to a majority.

 

But I’m the ignorant one…. 

Context, it’s important.

[Ryan Strome]

17 minutes ago, gurn said:

Nope, you have not answered this question.

 

'why should Alberta get more than a per capita share back? "

Have answered it multiple times. But you keep up your attitude. Feel free to jump in the other thread and have a look.

 

[Ryan Strome]

13 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Trudeau senior: Alberta we will give you pipelines to get your product across the country and we will build refineries.

Alberta: Great that sounds awesome.

Trudeau senior:  but we will place huge exporting taxes on any of the product that leaves the country. 

Alberta: So that defeats the purpose of getting the product to tide water, ok but we can still sell to Canadians.

Trudeau senior:  Yeah about that, you will have to sell us the product for a 40% discount from global market rates.

Alberta: But a 40% discount means there will be no profit and in the current economic down turn of oil we will be losing money at that rate.

Trudeau senior: Too bad

 

Alberta moves forward,  unemployment rate shoots up from 4% to more than 13%. Bankruptcies soared 150%. A housing crisis ensued resulting in values collapsing 40% in both Edmonton and Calgary. All foreign investment pulls out, construction and energy projects were nixed overnight, a 22% drop in drilling activity, and a 25% decline in exploration budgets. Overall, industry cash flow and earnings fell 34% to $3.1 billion in 1981 from $4.7 billion a year before. In 4 short years the damage caused Albertans over 97 billion. Recovery took decades was a big reason why the Heritage Trust Savings Fund wasn’t a success.

 

Yet people like hippy wonder why Alberta wasn’t on board.

 

 

Oh and it wasn’t just Alberta that wasn’t just on board, it was Jean Chrétien that began the phased shut down, add in the fact that the rest of the country also was on Alberta’s side when they chose not to reelect Trudeau senior, instead elect In Brian Mulroney to a majority.

 

But I’m the ignorant one…. 

Context, it’s important.

Biggest majority in Canadian history and actually PET stepped aside because he seen the writing on the wall. Second worst defeat in the history of the liberal party. Was first until liberals unveiled the great Michael Ignatieff. 

[Gurn]

7 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Have answered it multiple times. But you keep up your attitude. Feel free to jump in the other thread and have a look.

 

If the guy,  Jimmy McGill, who makes his living arguing in court or in paperwork is asking you for your answer, that would be because you have not given it.

[Ryan Strome]

36 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

One thing I've pointed out is that West Vancouver pays more than East Vancouver in taxes. Should West Vancouver be getting more of the pie than East Vancouver does?

I've said it a couple times but haven't gotten a reply, perhaps you have one.

Good question however comparing the two doesn't make sense. Seriously though I met a Russian back like 10 or 15 years ago and he told me there is no land taxes in Russia, really there shouldn't be but I also don't know if that's true or not, never looked into it.

[Ryan Strome]

2 minutes ago, gurn said:

If the guy,  Jimmy McGill, who makes his living arguing in court or in paperwork is asking you for your answer, that would be because you have not given it.

Lmao ya that's it. So because he is a lawyer it means he is right? 

What if I make more annually than him does that make my opinion superior?

I mean I have 20 years in the oil patch yet guys like you and a few others think you know more. See how that works?

Jump in the other thread and have a look. As your boy hip says it ain't my job to do your homework. 

I already had to educate you on a massive environmental disaster in your province that you had no idea about.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

21 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

One thing I've pointed out is that West Vancouver pays more than East Vancouver in taxes. Should West Vancouver be getting more of the pie than East Vancouver does?

Short answer Yes. 
long answer. It’s really depends on your outlook. I’m personally not a fan of where much of my tax dollars go. Personally I would love a system where you were forced to break down in sub groups to where your taxes go. (Not a super thought out idea). call me Scrooge but I don’t like that 7 billion a year goes to healthcare specifically for smoking causes when I and many others don’t smoke  I’m sure many here don’t like seeing tax dollars go into religious/ Christian organizations.

 

i get that your supposed to choose with your vote but I don’t feel votes do enough to allow you be heard. I would love more control personally. 

 

[JM_]

53 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

I'm done, Jim.

Check the other thread.

I have provided links from Ontario news outlets, Alberta outlets doesn't matter, it's dismissed constantly as some how you know better. 

But battle away I'm just not interested. It amazes me how economists are so wrong in your opinion...

We can still be friends 

your choice. Running from the discussion tho....

4 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Lmao ya that's it. So because he is a lawyer it means he is right? 

What if I make more annually than him does that make my opinion superior?

I mean I have 20 years in the oil patch yet guys like you and a few others think you know more. See how that works?

Jump in the other thread and have a look. As your boy hip says it ain't my job to do your homework. 

I already had to educate you on a massive environmental disaster in your province that you had no idea about.

no, if you've notice I haven't published opinions on the basic numbers on purpose.

 

The FACT is - federal taxes are not collected on a provincial basis. "Per Capita" taxation numbers are simply made up. The feds don't collect that way.

 

You and your pal Forsey want our federal system to be based on where you made the money, which leads to all kinds of problems. If we did things that way, why have a federal government at all? Alberta and SK would never have developed the way they have outside of it. 

 

You seem to dismiss all of the federal programs that Alberta has benefited from since confederation really. I've shown you that an obsession with equalization is just a small part of what goes on but you want to run from that discussion. OK man, but you can stick around for the rest of it. I'd love to hear your ideas on how Alberta survives on trade. 

[aGENT]

 

I don't know...I'm just some moron from BC, but that sure looks to me like the biggest difference is personal income taxes. AKA - more people, making more money, pay more in income taxes. #rocket science

 

So, as some of us have been saying for a while now...this boils down to whining about being wealthy and having to pay more taxes than less wealthy people do. You'll forgive the rest of Canada for not pulling out their tiny violins or shedding a tear.

 

Funnily enough, BC is just about lock step with the national average there.

 

Anyhoo...carry on folks.

[JM_]

12 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

I don't know...I'm just some moron from BC, but that sure looks to me like the biggest difference is personal income taxes. AKA - more people, making more money, pay more in income taxes. #rocket science

 

So, as some of us have been saying for a while now...this boils down to whining about being wealthy and having to pay more taxes than less wealthy people do. You'll forgive the rest of Canada for not pulling out their tiny violins or shedding a tear.

 

Funnily enough, BC is just about lock step with the national average there.

 

Anyhoo...carry on folks.

No this is an important graph, it provides needed context. The federal government doesn't collect federal taxes based on province, but IF IT DID what would it mean?

 

I pointed out above that if Albertans got back equalization money on a per capita basis, thats about 2 billion. Which is exactly the difference shown on your graph above between the national average and Alberta federal taxes. Its the second piece of evidence that shows that, at best, Albertans would get 2 billion more back if we disregard all other factors. 

 

 

Edited October 29, 2019 by Jimmy McGill

[JM_]

32 minutes ago, gurn said:

If the guy,  Jimmy McGill, who makes his living arguing in court or in paperwork is asking you for your answer, that would be because you have not given it.

I'm also a pain in the ass. 

[Ryan Strome]

20 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

your choice. Running from the discussion tho....

no, if you've notice I haven't published opinions on the basic numbers on purpose.

 

The FACT is - federal taxes are not collected on a provincial basis. "Per Capita" taxation numbers are simply made up. The feds don't collect that way.

 

You and your pal Forsey want our federal system to be based on where you made the money, which leads to all kinds of problems. If we did things that way, why have a federal government at all? Alberta and SK would never have developed the way they have outside of it. 

 

You seem to dismiss all of the federal programs that Alberta has benefited from since confederation really. I've shown you that an obsession with equalization is just a small part of what goes on but you want to run from that discussion. OK man, but you can stick around for the rest of it. I'd love to hear your ideas on how Alberta survives on trade. 

Not running just done with this. Do you see your opinion or mine changing?

15 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

I don't know...I'm just some moron from BC, but that sure looks to me like the biggest difference is personal income taxes. AKA - more people, making more money, pay more in income taxes. #rocket science

 

So, as some of us have been saying for a while now...this boils down to whining about being wealthy and having to pay more taxes than less wealthy people do. You'll forgive the rest of Canada for not pulling out their tiny violins or shedding a tear.

 

Funnily enough, BC is just about lock step with the national average there.

 

Anyhoo...carry on folks.

No one said anything about BC.

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

No this is an important graph, it provides needed context. The federal government doesn't collect federal taxes based on province, but IF IT DID what would it mean?

 

I pointed out above that if Albertans got back equalization money on a per capita basis, thats about 2 billion. Which is exactly the difference shown on your graph above between the national average and Alberta federal taxes. Its the second piece of evidence that shows that, at best, Albertans would get 2 billion more back if we disregard all other factors. 

 

 

How many people retire in BC after living and working in Alberta their whole life?

No nm you're dragging me in again. 

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'm also a pain in the ass. 

Nah you're alright..it's just not going to change each others opinion. We can both provide links, facts, opinions to make our case but of course you're smarter because you're a lawyer. I wonder if bomber lawyer in Innisfail is considered smart?

 

[Duodenum]

36 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Short answer Yes. 
long answer. It’s really depends on your outlook. I’m personally not a fan of where much of my tax dollars go. Personally I would love a system where you were forced to break down in sub groups to where your taxes go. (Not a super thought out idea). call me Scrooge but I don’t like that 7 billion a year goes to healthcare specifically for smoking causes when I and many others don’t smoke  I’m sure many here don’t like seeing tax dollars go into religious/ Christian organizations.

 

i get that your supposed to choose with your vote but I don’t feel votes do enough to allow you be heard. I would love more control personally. 

 

I think that's where you and I differ. I think tax brackets that increase as we increase in wage is a good thing, and that high earners should prop up the lower earners in society. Otherwise, we'd get a huge divide between the rich and poor which would result in a lot of issues in society. Taxing the top to support the lower/middle class and improve everyone's quality of life is a staple in all stable countries. The more income inequality, the higher the crime rate and corruption, usually. Hard to keep a stable democracy when the rich are allowed to get richer unabated. Without the transfer of some wealth from the rich to the poor, The rich get too powerful, and society/democracy starts to crumble. 

 

What I did like, was your post regarding the natural resources and how the revenue derived from that must decrease 50% before any alterations to equalization is made. I do think that could be reviewed and revised to be less restrictive because, while Alberta is rich, sudden downturns in their economy will result in strife still, and the province should be given a reprieve when they need it. 

[JM_]

9 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

 

How many people retire in BC after living and working in Alberta their whole life?

 

thats a good point - how would we make sure people access good services and maintain that kind of mobility choice with no equalization? 

[Gurn]

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

I already had to educate you on a massive environmental disaster in your province that you had no idea about.

Nope, in a thread from years ago, you mentioned an "environmental disaster". That  disaster occurred in BC,  months before you mentioned it, and  then you got all hissy that Hip and I didn't automatically know just which disaster you were talking about.

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

49 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

I think that's where you and I differ. I think tax brackets that increase as we increase in wage is a good thing, and that high earners should prop up the lower earners in society. Otherwise, we'd get a huge divide between the rich and poor which would result in a lot of issues in society.
 

Im ok with taxes increasing, I just wish I had more say/choosing to where my taxed income goes.

 

Quote

Taxing the top to support the lower/middle class and improve everyone's quality of life is a staple in all stable countries.
 

while that’s true there’s a fine line between support and becoming the crutch that people rely on. We need to teach people to be able to support themselves. Not to teach them to walk around with there hands out. When the focus becomes less about how can i improve and more about how can I maintain/take more advantage of that safety net. The people being used as support really start to feel the weight. there needs to be incentive for self improvement not dependance on others. 
 

That’s the line many albertans feel has been crossed. The line is the discussion. Take your own house hold  Most people accept the overall goal of taxes but, what’s the ceiling. If you be ok with 80% of your income taxed? Probably not. 
 

 

Quote

The more income inequality, the higher the crime rate and corruption, usually. Hard to keep a stable democracy when the rich are allowed to get richer unabated. Without the transfer of some wealth from the rich to the poor, The rich get too powerful, and society/democracy starts to crumble. 

I do think it’s important and it’s why I donate money to charitable causes.  but I also think we’re turning to a society where people are making rich people seem evil. That it’s immoral to want to gain and maintain wealth. Most people can comprehend large incomes and relate it to their own environment believing it’s unfair. 

 

Quote

What I did like, was your post regarding the natural resources and how the revenue derived from that must decrease 50% before any alterations to equalization is made. I do think that could be reviewed and revised to be less restrictive because, while Alberta is rich, sudden downturns in their economy will result in strife still, and the province should be given a reprieve when they need it. 

I agree and there is a reason why re-evaluation was added into the agreements. MarketS change, provincial economies fluctuate up and down. 

[Ryan Strome]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

thats a good point - how would we make sure people access good services and maintain that kind of mobility choice with no equalization? 

You missed my point. I think deliberately. 

53 minutes ago, gurn said:

Nope, in a thread from years ago, you mentioned an "environmental disaster". That  disaster occurred in BC,  months before you mentioned it, and  then you got all hissy that Hip and I didn't automatically know just which disaster you were talking about.

 

No, it was this year lol and hip had nothing to do with it.

[Warhippy]

Hahahaha

 

Breathe

 

Hahahahahahahahahaha

 

If you can't laugh at this you take life to seriously and are probably a Leafs fan

 

 

[kingofsurrey]

 

Alberta is all Salty............... 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by kingofsurrey