The DumbBrexit / #Wexit thread

[thedestroyerofworlds]

28 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

All those things I mentioned are the majority of the money.

Funny why both the cpc and liberals believe in lower corporate taxes. Provinces with lower corporate taxes have lower unemployment rates. Pretty obvious stuff.

Wonder who donates all kinds of cash into political campaigns?  Wonder why Scheer had private meetings with oil executives while SNC lavalin was going on.  Money talks and bs walks.  That's why major political parties advocate for tax cuts all the time.  It's because knuckleheads buy into the bs while the rich fat cats run out the back with their extra bags of cash.  And you bought that bs hook line and sinker. 

[inane]

2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Wtf are you talking about? All those things are paid for from and by Alberta/Albertans. Ottawa, BC or anyone else isn't contributing anything into the things I mentioned. It's not greed at all. 

13 minutes ago, inane said:

 

A little self-reflection

 

 

or not lol. so it goes.

Edited January 31, 2020 by inane

[Ryan Strome]

6 minutes ago, inane said:

 

or not lol. so it goes.

Self reflect on how Albertans believe in investing in Alberta and building and growing Alberta? You don't make sense.

[Ryan Strome]

 

 

[inane]

11 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Self reflect on how Albertans believe in investing in Alberta and building and growing Alberta? You don't make sense.

lol you're like a child unable to understand anything beyond what's in your face. just nevermind and keep complaining about how great everything is and how rich you are but that you're still bitter cause either you're not even richer or others get to share in your wealth. not sure what you're actually mad about. I'd wager it's the fact that you hate sharing.

[Ryan Strome]

15 minutes ago, inane said:

lol you're like a child unable to understand anything beyond what's in your face. just nevermind and keep complaining about how great everything is and how rich you are but that you're still bitter cause either you're not even richer or others get to share in your wealth. not sure what you're actually mad about. I'd wager it's the fact that you hate sharing.

While trying to hurt us or block us.

Do you now understand our anger?

[inane]

27 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

While trying to hurt us or block us.

Do you now understand our anger?

No, I don't understand how you can be apparently so rich and have the best everything and still complain that it's not enough or that you're somehow under attack cause you have to share the wealth. 

 

You're like a kid complaining about how instead of getting 100% of the cookie you have to share and only get 90%. LOL 

[Warhippy]

2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

1. This has been proven over and over again, lower corporate taxes creates jobs and makes life better.

 

2.  Higher corporate taxes causes job losses and brings living standards down and directly hurts people. 

 

1.

http://www.faireconomy.org/trickle_down_economics_four_reasons

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelbeccaro/2018/01/04/trickle-down-economics-does-not-exist-the-benefits-of-capitalism-do/#1867fb031acc

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2017/08/24/437625/trickle-tax-cuts-dont-create-jobs/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/letters/ct-trickle-down-economics-doesn-t-work-20171124-story.html

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/proof-trickle-down-doesnt-work/

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/04/warren-buffett-on-the-failure-of-trickle-down-economics.html

https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572

http://brownpoliticalreview.org/2019/11/the-fallacy-and-persistence-of-trickle-down-economics/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trickle-down-economics-is-a-nightmare-kansas-proved-it/2017/06/12/c2d7aae0-4fa6-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html

https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/public-policy/article/22007285/why-tax-reduction-will-not-create-jobs

https://www.afl.org/no_evidence_kenney_s_tax_cut_will_create_any_jobs_or_stimulate_alberta_economy

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/09/27/tax-cuts-the-trickle-down-argument/no-evidence-of-trickle-down-job-creation

https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/29/burying-supply-side-once-and-for-all/

https://www.cleverism.com/why-trickle-down-economic-works-in-theory-but-not-in-fact/

https://www.quora.com/Does-trickle-down-economics-work

https://psmag.com/economics/trickle-down-economics-is-indeed-a-joke

https://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/Sowell_TrickleDown_FINAL.pdf

https://fee.org/articles/we-need-a-new-name-for-trickle-down-economics/

https://money.howstuffworks.com/trickle-down-economics3.htm

 

2.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/06/10/if-high-taxes-in-the-50s-and-60s-produced-good-growth-then-lets-have-high-taxes-again/#4dbe5a414407

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/may/17/bill-gates/bill-gates-high-taxes-and-high-growth-can-co-exist/

 

 

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

Don't like giving freeloaders like you all our money..

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/will-a-corporate-tax-cut-trickle-down-in-alberta

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Warhippy

[BPA]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/article-why-equalization-is-not-unfair-to-alberta/

 

Have a read.  Some good information in there.

[Warhippy]

20 minutes ago, BPA said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/article-why-equalization-is-not-unfair-to-alberta/

 

Have a read.  Some good information in there.

There is.

 

But in this instance, someone will point out why THIS is an opinion piece but the links they posted previously that were opinion pieces were more credible

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 hours ago, inane said:

funny how you can make the most money and have all the nicest things but still somehow feel like you're giving away all your money and be hard done by. the tiniest violin isn't tiny enough  for that attitude from greedy pigs.

St. Louis blues just won the cup, by your logic them trying to remain cup champs is just greedy.

“Let some one else have a turn“
“why can’t you share”.

 

Haha and that my friend, is why you are on the bottom and will remain on the bottom. 

 

Quote

A little self-reflection on how entitled and douchey you sound is in order. Try your hardest to think beyond your massive entitlement and greed and perhaps give fleeting thought to the benefits you derive from slumming it in Canada with the rest of us before you wexit off in your scrooge mcduck wet dream. 

 

 

 

 

[Ryan Strome]

Bell: Alberta fires back at Trudeau, won't be held hostage

Outrage!!! A three-exclamation-mark prairie fire and it’s spreading.

 

The rage out there in Alberta’s heartland is clear and true and no-holds-barred real, a raw reality unvarnished by layers of Central Canadian politically correct bull and untainted by the self-serving games of those establishment elitists on power trips who play with working people’s lives.

 

Earlier this week, Jonathan Wilkinson, Justin Trudeau’s climate change fighter and point man for all things Mother Earth, read Alberta the riot act. Full stop.

 

 

The man from Ottawa said Alberta needs to take specific actions to get Canada to net-zero emissions by 2050.

He said Alberta’s most recent action has been to fight the Trudeau government in court over the carbon tax Liberal Ottawa imposed on Albertans.

Trudeau doesn’t like that court fight.

The Trudeau government is looking for concrete action on climate change.

Connect the dots. If Alberta wants a Yes to Teck’sgiant job-creating Frontier oilsands mine, the province has to behave.

Jason Nixon is Alberta’s environment minister. Nixon is the kind of guy who doesn’t take it well when the likes of Trudeau are issuing the marching orders. He is also the kind of guy who just can’t suck up to the prime minister.

He’s asked why Alberta doesn’t just give in, drop the court battle against Ottawa, slap on a provincial carbon tax and make Trudeau happy.

“We’re not going to be held hostage by the federal government,” says Nixon.

“We will continue to fight tooth and nail against Justin Trudeau’s job-killing carbon tax. The federal Liberals under Justin Trudeau continue to want to manage and order and boss around the province of Alberta and we won’t accept it.”

 

https://calgarysun.com/opinion/columnists/bell-alberta-fires-back-at-trudeau-wont-be-held-hostage

 

Nixon would make a great premier imo.

 

 

 

 

 

[BPA]

6 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

There is.

 

But in this instance, someone will point out why THIS is an opinion piece but the links they posted previously that were opinion pieces were more credible

From the article, 3/4 of money (healthcare and social services) goes out based on population.   The remaining 1/4 of money goes to equilization (income based on national average).

 

Quebec has 8M citizens while AB has 4M.  So majority of the money goes to provinces with high populations.  There in lies the disproportionate distribution of money. 

 

So one way AB can get more money back is to double its population size.

 

Plus people with higher income will be paying higher taxes regardless of Province. 

[BPA]

From the few recent posts, I gather that AB is upset about equalization payments.  

 

Getting another pipeline through so AB gets more revenue is not going to change the real problem.   And that is AB doesn't want to send equalization payments.  So even if more money is made, there will still be the complaints of equilization payments.

 

From a few articles I read, only 4 provinces are "Have" Provinces (BC, AC, SK, and NL).  Unfortunately population of all those Provinces combined doesn't even equal ON population. 

 

What really needs to happen is for ON and QU to improve and become "Have" Provinces.

[kingofsurrey]

[Warhippy]

21 minutes ago, BPA said:

From the article, 3/4 of money (healthcare and social services) goes out based on population.   The remaining 1/4 of money goes to equilization (income based on national average).

 

Quebec has 8M citizens while AB has 4M.  So majority of the money goes to provinces with high populations.  There in lies the disproportionate distribution of money. 

 

So one way AB can get more money back is to double its population size.

 

Plus people with higher income will be paying higher taxes regardless of Province. 

It doesn't matter.

 

You get it.  I get it.  Most get it.

 

But firmly entrenched beliefs refuse to accept it as anything but everyone out to get them.  

[kingofsurrey]

29 minutes ago, BPA said:

 

 

So one way AB can get more money back is to double its population size.

 

 

Would Alberta doubline its population size result in a  25 % lower of Canada's average intelligence though...

 

Not sure this is a good strategy unless Canada is looking to raise the calibre of our tractor pull athletes... or our world championship chewing tobacco spitting accuracy team.....

[ForsbergTheGreat]

11 minutes ago, BPA said:

From the few recent posts, I gather that AB is upset about equalization payments.  

 

Getting another pipeline through so AB gets more revenue is not going to change the real problem.   And that is AB doesn't want to send equalization payments.  So even if more money is made, there will still be the complaints of equilization payments.

 

From a few articles I read, only 4 provinces are "Have" Provinces (BC, AC, SK, and NL).  Unfortunately population of all those Provinces combined doesn't even equal ON population. 

 

What really needs to happen is for ON and QU to improve and become "Have" Provinces.

In current transfer payments there’s a lot of rule set up that determines on how much each province gives.  It’s not simply you make the most, you pay the most that people love to parrot so much. 

 

 

First, we have fiscal stabilization that pays up to $60 per capita to provinces that suddenly lose more than 5% of their revenue.  It’s why a province like Ontario still received $1 billion despite being a have province.  Alberta should also fall into that category since lost more than 5% the last few years but here’s the kicker, fiscal stabilization doesn’t count for natural resource revenue unless it loses over 50%.  So Alberta gets next to no benefit for that. 

 

But where Natural resources don’t account for fiscal stabilization, they sure do count for equalization.  With Equalization payments it’s not just the personal income taxes of individuals that so many here love to parrot. There are five different revenue streams taken into consideration,  personal income taxes, business income taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes and Alberta’s biggest stream natural resource revenues.  Because Alberta is able to generate large amounts of revenue from it’s natural resource it will always be on the hook for equalization payments, even if the personal and business income taxes drop below other provinces. 

 

The formula to calculated the “how much” is in place for 3 year segments.  It’s set up this way to allow for changes in the market.  With the way Alberta has been hurting in the down turn of oil the last four years, you would assume this the ideal reason for adjustment.  But Trudeau approved the current plan to remain the same for another 3 years in 2018. 

 

It’s a system that has some major flaws that many of you are not willing to admit.  One example would be A province like Quebec has government owned hydro,  they can technically artificially keep prices low to bring in lows revenue that in turn makes the province look poorer than they actually are = more equalization money.  It’s a win/win for them as lower hydro looks good on a provincial political level but also helps keep their ability to generate revenue lower than it actually should be. 
 

trevor Tombe did a decent job simplifying in that news article to give people who have zero clue a rough idea on how it works. The problem is you got people like hip that take the simplified approach as gospel and are willing to die on that argument Pretending they know how it works.  But if you really enjoy trevor Tombe. He writes a number of blog posts on equalization payments and he goes way more in depth on it far beyond most here’s comprehension. But if you can keep up. One I read a few months ago did a really good job explaining how complex the formula really is, how the formula leaves a lot of grey area in the numbers (aka Ontario last year) and even how some provinces (Quebec) takes full advantage of the system and will never change because it’s in there favor, like I mentioned above. 
 

anyways this is like the 5th times I’ve posted this in this very thread and I’m tired of it when it seems to go on deaf ears. So I’m done with this topic and thread for a while. Take this post for what it’s worth and do what ever you wish with it, I won’t loose sleep over it. 

 

[inane]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

St. Louis blues just won the cup, by your logic them trying to remain cup champs is just greedy.

“Let some one else have a turn“
“why can’t you share”.

 

Haha and that my friend, is why you are on the bottom and will remain on the bottom. 

 

 

 

 

 

/eyeroll 

 

It's crazy for myopic you guys are

[BPA]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

In current transfer payments there’s a lot of rule set up that determines on how much each province gives.  It’s not simply you make the most, you pay the most that people love to parrot so much. 

 

 

First, we have fiscal stabilization that pays up to $60 per capita to provinces that suddenly lose more than 5% of their revenue.  It’s why a province like Ontario still received $1 billion despite being a have province.  Alberta should also fall into that category since lost more than 5% the last few years but here’s the kicker, fiscal stabilization doesn’t count for natural resource revenue unless it loses over 50%.  So Alberta gets next to no benefit for that. 

 

But where Natural resources don’t account for fiscal stabilization, they sure do count for equalization.  With Equalization payments it’s not just the personal income taxes of individuals that so many here love to parrot. There are five different revenue streams taken into consideration,  personal income taxes, business income taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes and Alberta’s biggest stream natural resource revenues.  Because Alberta is able to generate large amounts of revenue from it’s natural resource it will always be on the hook for equalization payments, even if the personal and business income taxes drop below other provinces. 

 

The formula to calculated the “how much” is in place for 3 year segments.  It’s set up this way to allow for changes in the market.  With the way Alberta has been hurting in the down turn of oil the last four years, you would assume this the ideal reason for adjustment.  But Trudeau approved the current plan to remain the same for another 3 years in 2018. 

 

It’s a system that has some major flaws that many of you are not willing to admit.  One example would be A province like Quebec has government owned hydro,  they can technically artificially keep prices low to bring in lows revenue that in turn makes the province look poorer than they actually are = more equalization money.  It’s a win/win for them as lower hydro looks good on a provincial political level but also helps keep their ability to generate revenue lower than it actually should be. 
 

trevor Tombe did a decent job simplifying in that news article to give people who have zero clue a rough idea on how it works. The problem is you got people like hip that take the simplified approach as gospel and are willing to die on that argument Pretending they know how it works.  But if you really enjoy trevor Tombe. He writes a number of blog posts on equalization payments and he goes way more in depth on it far beyond most here’s comprehension. But if you can keep up. One I read a few months ago did a really good job explaining how complex the formula really is, how the formula leaves a lot of grey area in the numbers (aka Ontario last year) and even how some provinces (Quebec) takes full advantage of the system and will never change because it’s in there favor, like I mentioned above. 
 

anyways this is like the 5th times I’ve posted this in this very thread and I’m tired of it when it seems to go on deaf ears. So I’m done with this topic and thread for a while. Take this post for what it’s worth and do what ever you wish with it, I won’t loose sleep over it. 

 

Well that's silly.  Natural resources are still a commodity and should qualify for fiscal stabilization. 

 

I also think Quebec is riding the gravy train as well.  That's probably the main problem for everything.