The UCP Alberta Government - Threatens to Turn off Oil Taps

[JM_]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

Yup and given you spent your life in Saskatchewan and BC you received lots of money back. If you're under 60 in Alberta you got nothing back. Make sense yet?

no because again you're working off mythology. You got a ton back in health transfers, more than Ontario per capita even. 

 

Alberta is fortunate, very fortunate, to have a concentration of high paying jobs. And you want to use that to fuel anger and division. Make sense yet? 

[JM_]

1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

Again I guess you also missed the dear leader on the news.

I didn't catch that, but he is correct. A lot of taxes and royalties come out of AB. Lucky for you. 

[Warhippy]

10 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

If you two want to choose words carefully to confuse equalization have at it. Even your dear leader JT said last week on the news that Alberta has supported the rest of Canada a lot. I understand @Jimmy McGill is jealous of Alberta and you well no one ever knows..

No.  I am asking you.  how so.

 

Explain your reasoning.  Don't sit there and go off on a tangent

[Warhippy]

15 hours ago, Warhippy said:

If you want the province to stop sending equalization payments, stop developing oil.  Payments are and have always been based around provincial earnings.  To stop sending them, stop making money

It's been explained over and over and over.  

 

 

12 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

It’s been explained over and over and over. Every Canadian pays into a pot. Then the govt takes all them money and distributes it accordingly to the pronvices they need it (have nots). 

Since it’s inception Alberta has only received 0.02%. And it hasn’t received anything since 1965. Alberta is paying into a pot that it never gets to pull out from. 

 

To put this into perspective. You go into a bar with 4 other buddies. You all drink have a good time and then when it comes time to pay, you all chip in $50 for a $200 total. The waitress then informs you it’s 75% off day and give the table back $150. Your 3 other buddies all take their $50’s back. Who ended up giving the most?

 

[Ryan Strome]

3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

No.  I am asking you.  how so.

 

Explain your reasoning.  Don't sit there and go off on a tangent

I have explained it multiple times I'm sorry you don't understand equalization transfers. Google is your friend, hip.

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

It's been explained over and over and over.  

 

 

 

right a "pot they never get to pull from".... other than the highly skilled workers that can move there and begin work immediately. And be healthy. And the effect of the skill drain on the provinces they left. Thats all free apparently. 

[canuckistani]

1 hour ago, BPA said:

It's not like India and Indonesia can't get any oil.  They have access from Mideast oil.  

 

Perhaps it's to open the market/sources so that they are not solely reliant on Mideast oil.  And for AB to have a more customers than just the US / MEXICO.  

 

So...more oil to newer customers for more profit.  At the expense of potential environmental disasters (on land and on the coast).

You do understand supply, demand and pricing, yes ? the more we try to minimize supply, the greater the demand, the higher the pricing and just like how the carbon tax here affects the poorest the most, this ' dont use what i use'  fake ecological caring of Vancouverites has the same knock-on effect on the poorest in the globe. 

[Warhippy]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

I have explained it multiple times I'm sorry you don't understand equalization transfers. Google is your friend, hip.

I understand it very well.  It appears you refuse to simply read though.  Keeping in mind, the formula changed in 2007 which effectively screwed Alberta over.  Hard.  Who was in power then again?  

 

If you want the province to stop sending equalization payments, stop developing oil.  Payments are and have always been based around provincial earnings.  To stop sending them, stop making money

 

Normally, under the equalization formula, equalization payments normally go down for every dollar increase in a province's ability to raise taxes. So, for example, if a province's economy booms and the provincial government's potential income tax revenues increase, equalization payments decrease.

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4290676/equalization-payments-canada-provinces/

 

https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/200820E

 

 

3.1 Overview

Equalization uses a mathematical formula to determine which provinces are eligible for the transfer and the amount of each eligible province’s payment. Since 2009, the total amount of Equalization payments has grown annually in accordance with a three year moving average rate of growth in Canada’s nominal gross domestic product (GDP); between 2007 and 2009, the total amount was based on a formula.

The basic structure of Equalization is relatively straightforward. On a per capita basis, Equalization assesses a province’s ability to generate own-source revenues and compares that fiscal capacity to the average fiscal capacity for all provinces. With the exception of user fees (fees for the use of public services), all provincial government revenue sources are allocated to one of five categories: personal income taxes, business income taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes and natural resource revenues.

Save for natural resource revenues, the Equalization formula estimates fiscal capacity in each of the four remaining revenue categories by determining the amount of per capita revenue that each province could generate if all provinces had identical tax rates. Because of the wide range of natural resources and royalty structures across the provinces, actual resource revenues are used to measure fiscal capacity instead of creating a national average tax rate.

To determine which provinces are eligible for Equalization – and, if so, for how much – each province’s per capita fiscal capacity in all five revenue categories is compared to the average fiscal capacity of the 10 provinces. If, according to the formula, a province has a below-average ability to generate own-source revenues, then it is eligible for an Equalization payment to make up the difference. If a province’s revenue-generating ability exceeds the 10-province average, then it is not eligible for an Equalization payment.

3.2 Other Features of Equalization

With the changes made to Equalization in 2007 and in 2009, the program has become more complex.

3.2.1 Treatment of Natural Resource Revenues

In the pre-2004 formula, 100% of natural resource revenues were included in Equalization calculations, but Alberta’s resources were kept out of the standard against which entitlement to Equalization payments was determined. Since 2007, Alberta’s energy resources have been included in the standard, and eligible provinces receive an Equalization payment based on a calculation that either includes 50% of natural resource revenues or excludes those revenues entirely. Eligible provinces automatically receive payments according to the option that yields the larger per capita Equalization payment.

The decision to have two options in relation to natural resource revenues is the result of a political compromise. On one hand, the federal government accepted the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing, which – in 2006 – called for 50% inclusion of resource revenues in the Equalization formula.3 On the other hand, the federal government considered itself bound by a pre-2006 election commitment to exclude natural resource revenues from the formula.

[JM_]

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

You do understand supply, demand and pricing, yes ? the more we try to minimize supply, the greater the demand, the higher the pricing and just like how the carbon tax here affects the poorest the most, this ' dont use what i use'  fake ecological caring of Vancouverites has the same knock-on effect on the poorest in the globe. 

yeah you have no cause to question peoples motivations or level of concern. Please try to keep it to facts, your posts are far better when you do that. 

[canuckistani]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

right a "pot they never get to pull from".... other than the highly skilled workers that can move there and begin work immediately. And be healthy. And the effect of the skill drain on the provinces they left. Thats all free apparently. 

This is a nonsensical argument. Brain drain intra-province is just as much, if not more significant to brain drain from rural-urban divide. So Vancouver regional area should start paying equalization payments to the interior of BC for stealing their brightest, yes ? 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

You do understand supply, demand and pricing, yes ? the more we try to minimize supply, the greater the demand, the higher the pricing and just like how the carbon tax here affects the poorest the most, this ' dont use what i use'  fake ecological caring of Vancouverites has the same knock-on effect on the poorest in the globe. 

I'll have you know I make a point to hug a tree daily.  I talk to trees too.  

[canuckistani]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yeah you have no cause to question peoples motivations or level of concern. Please try to keep it to facts, your posts are far better when you do that. 

When the top 10% users of oil per capita, while still using the said oil, try to get 'but ecology', i call it for what it is - Mary Antoinette style ' let them eat cake' mentality. There is no caring about Vancouverites in terms of ecology of oil, else they'd not be blocking it while consuming one of the highest per capita consumptions of oil globally. 

 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

This is a nonsensical argument. Brain drain intra-province is just as much, if not more significant to brain drain from rural-urban divide. So Vancouver regional area should start paying equalization payments to the interior of BC for stealing their brightest, yes ? 

Prince George ... brightest?  Ha Ha Ha!!!  

[JM_]

Just now, canuckistani said:

This is a nonsensical argument. Brain drain intra-province is just as much, if not more significant to brain drain from rural-urban divide. So Vancouver regional area should start paying equalization payments to the interior of BC for stealing their brightest, yes ? 

Its quite sensical, and we essentially do. Rural areas often get services e.g., that are out of proportion to population. Prince George General Hospital e.g., could never run on the PG tax base alone. 

 

Equalization is meant to keep the standards of health and education primarily equivalent (of course theres variations) so that things like mobility of labour can happen easily. 

[Warhippy]

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

When the top 10% users of oil per capita, while still using the said oil, try to get 'but ecology', i call it for what it is - Mary Antoinette style ' let them eat cake' mentality. There is no caring about Vancouverites in terms of ecology of oil, else they'd not be blocking it while consuming one of the highest per capita consumptions of oil globally. 

 

Not even the largest in Canada but...whatever

 

https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/nrgsstmprfls/bc-eng.html?=undefined&wbdisable=true

 

• End-use demand in B.C. was 1 165 petajoules (PJ) in 2016. The largest sector for energy demand was industrial at 46% of total demand, followed by transportation at 29%, residential at 13%, and commercial at 12% (Figure 6). B.C.’s total energy demand was the fifth largest in Canada, but the sixth largest on a per capita basis.
• Refined petroleum products, including gasoline and diesel, were the largest fuel-type consumed in B.C., accounting for 447 PJ, or 38%. Natural gas, electricity and biofuels accounted for 346 PJ (30%), 226 PJ (19%) and 140 PJ (12%), respectively (Figure 7).
• B.C. is one of the largest biofuels consumer in Canada – primarily because of its large forestry sector that generates electricity from waste wood.

Refined Petroleum Products

• Most of the gasoline consumed in B.C. comes from Alberta, delivered primarily via the Trans Mountain Pipeline. Gasoline is also produced in B.C.’s two refineries. Less than 10% the gasoline consumed in B.C. is imported via ship or barge from the U.S. Pacific Northwest.
• B.C. is the 4^th largest Canadian market for RPPs, after Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta. Total 2017 demand in B.C. for RPPs was 214 Mb/d, or 12% of total Canadian RPP demand. Of B.C.’s total demand, 96 Mb/d was for motor gasoline and an estimated 79 Mb/d was for diesel.
• B.C.’s per capita RPP consumption in 2017 was 2 578 litres (16.2 barrels), or 11% below the national average of 2 886 litres per capita.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

When the top 10% users of oil per capita, while still using the said oil, try to get 'but ecology', i call it for what it is - Mary Antoinette style ' let them eat cake' mentality. There is no caring about Vancouverites in terms of ecology of oil, else they'd not be blocking it while consuming one of the highest per capita consumptions of oil globally. 

 

but Vancouver also has the highest demand for electric cars in the country. People here want change. Just because they don't have enough alternatives yet it doesn't make them hypocrites. I guess if you could walk to work from North Van to Richmond you'd have a point. 

 

you're equating the reality of reliance on gas and the scarcity of alternatives to motivation, and thats false. 

[canuckistani]

Just now, Warhippy said:

Not even the largest in Canada but...whatever

11% below the national average of 2 886 litres per capita.

we are talking globally, mate. My issue with Vancouverites and their fake 'oil is bad so dont use it' sanctimony, is that we are the top 10% GLOBAL users of it, yet we wanna mess with the supply of a global commodity that affects the poorest in the world the most. I've literally said this a million times already.

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

11 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

It's been explained over and over and over.  

 

 

 

I understand the logic in them. That’s not the point. The point is that they are heavy skewed and not in Alberta’s favor. They are heavily skewed in Quebec favour to the point in where they have received payments every year since its inception. At what point do you cut off that relative with the bad spending habits and force them to learn the hard way. 

[canuckistani]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

but Vancouver also has the highest demand for electric cars in the country. People here want change. Just because they don't have enough alternatives yet it doesn't make them hypocrites. I guess if you could walk to work from North Van to Richmond you'd have a point. 

 

you're equating the reality of reliance on gas and the scarcity of alternatives to motivation, and thats false. 

take the bus, take the skytrain, take the transit. Do what the rest of the developing world does because of your oil denial to them, on a regular basis, on 1/10th the disposable income, before you whine. 

[JM_]

Just now, canuckistani said:

we are talking globally, mate. My issue with Vancouverites and their fake 'oil is bad so dont use it' sanctimony, is that we are the top 10% GLOBAL users of it, yet we wanna mess with the supply of a global commodity that affects the poorest in the world the most. I've literally said this a million times already.

 

and you've missed the point every time. We don't have enough alternatives yet, but the demand is there and it is slowly changing as real alternatives become available.