Canadian Election 2011

[sdifox]

Ontario tried an NDP government for a while. How did it work out for them?

Believe it or not, Rae's ideas were not exactly NDP :biggrin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Contract_%28Ontario%29


I don't get the unions, Rae was trying to put off layoffs, but the union were bitching nonetheless.

 

[Kntx]

I loved Ontario's NDP government. Of course I was an elementary school student at the time. Everyone I knew was a huge fan of those Rae days!

 

[desy]

I hope people wake up election day and shake off the NDP hangover, realize hey I might like a beer w Jack but actually in a position of power? Cept if it was a Block vote

 

[yllus]

Much of the NDP's current support will evaporate on election day - they've got a pretty thin operation on the ground in Quebec, where most of their supposed gains are to be made. Still, even if they didn't, this entire election will have been worth it if it means the demise of the Bloc Quebecois.

 

[sdifox]

I like the NDP candidate on vacation in vegas :biggrin:


How dare you people call an election on me? I have a vacation to attend!


On CBC's metro morning today, the NDP candidate also didn't show for a radio appearance. Conservative, Liberal and Green all made it. didn't even respond.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-lack-of-fixed-election-dates/article2000789/

NDP Leader grilled over Quebec hopeful who's been working in Ottawa and vacationing in Vegas

Jack Layton blamed the absence of a Vegas-vacationing candidate [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...id-campaign-vacation-in-vegas/article1999879] on the lack of fixed election dates today, as questions mounted about his slate of Quebec standard-bearers.
Mr. Layton's candidate in Quebec's Berthier-Maskinongé riding, Ruth Ellen Brosseau, had spent the election campaign working in Ottawa, three hours drive away, until she left for a vacation in Las Vegas.
It's a case that highlights questions about the readiness of the NDP in Quebec. Doubts have been raised about the commitment of candidates who were recruited before the party's sudden rise in the polls for ridings where they once had no hope of winning, but who now may well become MPs.
Mr. Layton, who helped trigger the current election campaign by joining other opposition leaders in a vote of no-confidence, said candidates like Ms. Brosseau can't plan for unforeseen campaigns, and blamed it on the rules.
"If we had fixed election dates, then families of candidates could make their plans. Unfortunately we don't even though it's the law. It doesn't seem to happen that way. We've got candidates from all kinds of backgrounds," he said. "We're proud of the team. And they've had to make as many family adjustments as they can. We're hoping to have representatives of ordinary Canadians in the House of Commons. That's our goal."
On Tuesday, the NDP explained that Ms. Brosseau was a single mother who obtained an inexpensive fare to Las Vegas, and couldn't change her plans. But Mr. Layton offered no explanation for why she wasn't campaigning in the riding before she left on vacation, or why the NDP didn't offer to help pay costs so she could campaign.
In fact, Ms. Brosseau's boss at Oliver's, a bar at Ottawa's Carleton University, Rod Castro, said he had no idea that Ms. Brosseau, his assistant manager, was running for office, and that she'd never mentioned politics in the two years they worked together.
Although the NDP has some star candidates in Quebec - like a former MP, a former union leader, and former aboriginal leaders - some ridings have NDP candidates who have barely been seen during the campaign. For Mr. Layton, it is an embarrassing side-effect of a sudden, unexpected NDP rise in the province.
The NDP Leader, who earlier in the campaign attacked Liberal Leader Michael for missing Commons votes by saying that if you're seeking a promotion, you should show up for work, maintained that his candidates are working hard. Only after repeated questions about those missing in action or on vacation did he suggest that it's not an ideal situation.
"Every party's going to have some challenges in this area, but we think that our team is ready to work hard and demonstrates that each and every day as they're campaigning across this country," he said

 

[sdifox]

Oh snap, G&M editorial just picked Harper.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...t-facing-up-to-our-challenges/article2001610/


The Globe's election endorsement: Facing up to our challenges

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Only Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have shown the leadership, the bullheadedness and the discipline this country needs

We are nearing the end of an unremarkable and disappointing election campaign, marked by petty scandals, policy convergences and a dearth of serious debate. Canadians deserved better. We were not presented with an opportunity to vote for something bigger and bolder, nor has there been an honest recognition of the most critical issues that lie ahead: a volatile economy, ballooning public debts and the unwieldy future of our health-care system.
The challenges facing our next federal government do not end there, of course. The next House of Commons must find new ways to protect Parliament, the heart of our democracy. It needs to reform its troubled equalization program without straining national unity. Relations with the U.S. are at a critical juncture. Any thickening of the border threatens to punish all Canadians, while negotiations over perimeter security have implications for national sovereignty and economic security. Wars in Libya and Afghanistan, climate change, Canada's role in the world, the rapid and exciting change of the country's ethnic and cultural makeup - the list is great, as is the need for strong leadership in Ottawa.
Whom should Canadians turn to?
The Liberal Party's Michael Ignatieff has been an honourable opposition leader; he has risen above the personal attacks launched by the Conservatives, he has stood up for Parliament, and he has fought hard in this election. But his campaign failed to show how the Conservative government has failed, and why he and the Liberals are a preferred alternative.
Jack Layton has energized the New Democrats and the electorate, and seems more able than the other leaders to connect with ordinary people. He has succeeded in putting a benign gloss on his party's free-spending policies, but those policies remain unrealistic and unaffordable, at a time when the country needs to better manage public spending, not inflate it. He has shown that a federalist party can make serious inroads in Quebec, but it has come at the cost of an unwelcome promise to impose provisions of Quebec's language law in federal workplaces.
Only Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have shown the leadership, the bullheadedness (let's call it what it is) and the discipline this country needs. He has built the Conservatives into arguably the only truly national party, and during his five years in office has demonstrated strength of character, resolve and a desire to reform. Canadians take Mr. Harper's successful stewardship of the economy for granted, which is high praise. He has not been the scary character portrayed by the opposition; with some exceptions, his government has been moderate and pragmatic.
Mr. Harper could achieve a great deal more if he would relax his grip on Parliament, its independent officers and the flow of information, and instead bring his disciplined approach to bear on the great challenges at hand. That is the great strike against the Conservatives: a disrespect for Parliament, the abuse of prorogation, the repeated attempts (including during this campaign) to stanch debate and free expression. It is a disappointing failing in a leader who previously emerged from a populist movement that fought so valiantly for democratic reforms.
Those who disdain the Harper approach should consider his overall record, which is good. The Prime Minister and the Conservative Party have demonstrated principled judgment on the economic file. They are not doctrinaire; with the support of other parties they adopted stimulus spending after the financial crash of 2008, when it was right to do so. They have assiduously pursued a whole range of trade negotiations. They have facilitated the extension of the GST/HST to Ontario and British Columbia, and have persisted in their plan for a national securities regulator. The Conservatives have greater respect, too, for the free market, and for freedom of international investment, in spite of their apparent yielding to political pressure in the proposed takeover of Potash Corp.
Even more determination will be needed to confront the sustainability of publicly funded health care in an aging society. Health care is suffering from chronic spending disease. If left unchecked, it could swallow as much as 31 cents of each new dollar in wealth created in Canada in the next 20 years. In spite of some unwise commitments he has made on subsidy increases to the provinces, Mr. Harper has the toughness and reformist instincts to push the provinces toward greater experimentation (in private delivery, for instance) and change.
The campaign of 2011 - so vicious and often vapid - should not be remembered fondly. But that will soon be behind us. If the result is a confident new Parliament, it could help propel Canada into a fresh period of innovation, government reform and global ambition. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are best positioned to guide Canada there.

 

[D1gger]

Whether Conservative, Liberal, NDP or Green Party, I think you'll get a kick out of this!

A little boy goes to his dad and asks, 'What is Politics?'
Dad says, 'Well son, let me try to explain it this way:
“I am the head of the family, so call me The Prime Minister”.
“Your mother is the administrator of the money, so we call her the Government.”
“We are here to take care of your needs, so we will call you the People.”
“The nanny, we will consider her the Working Class.”
“And your baby brother, we will call him the Future.”
“Now think about that and see if it makes sense.”
So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what Dad has said.
Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him.
He finds that the baby has severely soiled his nappy.
So the little boy goes to his parent's room and finds his mother asleep..
Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the nanny.
He gives up and goes back to bed.
The next morning, the little boy say's to his father, “Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now.”
The father says, “Good, son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about.”
The little boy replies, “The Prime Minister is screwing the Working Class while the Government is sound asleep. The People are being ignored and the Future is in deep shit.”

 

[desy]

I know
If you read the comments section somebody mention in 08 they had a huge liberal editorial. . .

 

[sdifox]

Whether Conservative, Liberal, NDP or Green Party, I think you'll get a kick out of this!

A little boy goes to his dad and asks, 'What is Politics?'
Dad says, 'Well son, let me try to explain it this way:
“I am the head of the family, so call me The Prime Minister”.
“Your mother is the administrator of the money, so we call her the Government.”
“We are here to take care of your needs, so we will call you the People.”
“The nanny, we will consider her the Working Class.”
“And your baby brother, we will call him the Future.”
“Now think about that and see if it makes sense.”
So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what Dad has said.
Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him.
He finds that the baby has severely soiled his nappy.
So the little boy goes to his parent's room and finds his mother asleep..
Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the nanny.
He gives up and goes back to bed.
The next morning, the little boy say's to his father, “Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now.”
The father says, “Good, son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about.”
The little boy replies, “The Prime Minister is screwing the Working Class while the Government is sound asleep. The People are being ignored and the Future is in deep shit.”

Never gets old :biggrin:

 

[yllus]

Had to repost this as I was rather taken aback by how directly and savagely it indicts of the NDP's current platform. Yowsers.

The Glove & Mail: Don't let the NDP supersize our pension plan

The good news about this election is that Jack Layton has no chance of becoming prime minister. The bad news is that seven years of a splintered Parliament have granted an unusual level of influence to a man with a talent for making simplistic, ill-considered ideas about the economy sound appealing.

In Jack’s World, there really is a free lunch. The NDP platform is full of them. Subsidized child care, drugs, green energy, elder care—all of it to be paid for with the billions that can allegedly be raised by increasing tax rates on businesses. This is the subtext of any Layton proposal: Somebody else (rich people, corporations, the banks) will pick up the tab.

Most Canadians see through this act, but every so often the disarming man behind the mustache gains a wider audience for a bad idea. Take Layton’s championing of a massive expansion of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) as the solution to the looming retirement crunch. The concept now has enough momentum to live beyond election day.

To the NDP, evil corporations are not merely bottomless sources of tax revenue; they’re also the destroyers of the company pension. Today, only one in three workers in Canada belongs to an occupational pension plan. This is almost entirely a private-sector problem, since most government employees are nicely taken care of and no one dares question the financial sustainability of giving, say, teachers a full pension at age 58 to go bake under the sun in Costa Rica.

So the question is what to do about the other two-thirds of the labour force. Layton has a solution that sounds seductively easy: Just double the size of CPP payments. Where would he get the money? Just increase payroll taxes by 60%, wave a wand and—presto—the maximum CPP benefit, currently $11,520 a year, becomes $23,000 in seven years’ time. Simple.

Cue the rhapsodizing from big labour, which loves the Layton plan and apparently believes that the CPP Investment Board has discovered a magic formula for Profits! Without Risk! But if you read the proposals carefully, you’ll notice a bizarre contradiction. Layton’s union pals think RSPs or other private investment vehicles are no answer because, as the financial crisis proved, stocks are too risky for ordinary folk. Instead, says Canadian Labour Congress head honcho Ken Georgetti, they should rely on the “solid, secure returns” provided by the CPPIB—which has more than half of its money in stocks and took a bath during the crash just like everyone else.

The $140-billion fund hasn’t done that well in the market rebound, either. It earned $6.3 billion less than the market benchmarks it measures itself against in fiscal 2010. It isn’t that the CPPIB is run by poor investors; it employs hundreds of good people, including some of the best talent on Bay Street. It’s just that…well, investing all that money is far more difficult than it sounds. Although the CPP invests around the world, it can rarely move quickly or quietly. It isn’t easy to change your view on gold when there’s a half-billion dollars of Barrick shares on the books.

Size does have advantages. It means lower costs, and that’s one of the most attractive features of the CPP. But at some point you’ve squeezed out all the economies of scale. If it’s tough for the CPP’s managers to be nimble now, imagine what the plan will be like in a decade, when it’s projected to have $275 billion, even with no increase in the payroll tax that funds it. (The entire Canadian stock market is worth $2.3 trillion.)

This is why some wiser minds believe the task of running our treasured national pension might be spread out, to include other large—though equally cheap—fund managers. “Is it really a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket?” says Fred Vettese, chief actuary at Morneau Shepell and one of the country’s top retirement experts. He favours modest changes to CPP benefits, phased in over decades. But he doesn’t think new money has to be invested with the CPP Investment Board.

The overconcentration of financial power isn’t even the biggest flaw with the proposed Mega CPP. Even worse, it will take money away from many of those who need it, and give it to those who don’t. Advocates of a fat CPP insist that it is needed to keep the elderly out of food banks. In fact, poverty among seniors is remarkably low. Fewer than 5% of those over 65 are below Statistics Canada’s low-income cutoff. Thanks to Ottawa’s Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement programs, many seniors actually see their disposable income go up when they retire, says Vettese.

Poverty is a far bigger problem among working-age adults—nearly 10% of them fall below the Statscan line. Yet most of them would have to pay extra taxes to fund the Mega CPP. That’s Layton’s anti-Robin Hood scheme in a nutshell: removing money from the pockets of younger workers, business owners and the working poor to give better pensions to everybody, including those who already have a sweet deal at retirement. I can understand why union leaders like this approach. I just can’t understand why anyone else thinks it’s fair.

 

[ShawnD1]

Had to repost this as I was rather taken aback by how directly and savagely it indicts of the NDP's current platform. Yowsers.

The Glove & Mail: Don't let the NDP supersize our pension plan

Not sure why the author described it as a pipe dream. If anything, other countries actually doing this proves that it's entirely possible. The reason he won't be elected is because we just don't want that kind of a system.

shawn's retirement plan: everyone buy a gun and kill yourself when you run out of money. If your kids or loved ones will take care of you, that's great and I'm happy for you. If not, refer to the diagram on how to effectively fire a shotgun with your big toe.

 

[desy]

Other countries are going broke doing it, GB just laid off 500,000 civic workers over the next 5 yrs
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...der-gentler-approach-to-cutting-deficits.html

We aren't going broke

 

[ShawnD1]

Other countries are going broke doing it, GB just laid off 600,000 civic workers
We aren't going broke

How about Norway? That's as far left as it gets before it wraps around and becomes right again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14frugal.html

Sweden is doing fairly ok, but they're balancing the budget by raising personal income tax. Sweden's corporate tax is still remarkably low, as it should be.


See, that's the NDP's biggest problem. They just don't get it. They think corporations are these evil entities we need to destroy or something. I'm a socialist and I work for a large multinational corporation. Jacking up the corporate taxes and red tape and shutting down our local office would mean I'm out of a job. What kind of stupid fucked up logic is that? This is why Saskatchewan was a barren wasteland for so many years while the NDP controlled it. I vacation there every year because the lakes are beautiful and clean, but the highways are fucking terrible, power cuts out a lot, voltage from the wall is low enough that you need a UPS to prevent your computer from dying after a year, and cell phone reception sucks because there's only 1 phone company. It's like being in the Soviet Union for a couple weeks. When driving from Alberta to Saskatchewan, the roads go from beautifully smooth to bumpy and there is suddenly no shoulder on either side of the road.
Manitoba is another pile of shit that never seemed to develop. Beautiful lakes, but that's where it ends. Manitoba is controlled by a strange mixture of conservative and NDP with the liberal party being a fringe party nobody votes for.
What's common in these wasteland provinces is that they often have lots of red tape. If you want to start any kind of business, you're fucked. If you want to drill a hole to check for oil, you can't. If you want to hire someone, you need to do 30 levels of background checks because you can't possibly fire them even after they admit to trying to murder you.

 

[Sureshot324]

I'm ok with Layton's corporate tax increases. I think tax increases on individuals would be better (or just the ultra rich, but no party is going to do that), but increased corporate taxes is better than simply not balancing the budget, which is exactly what the conservatives are doing.

Even with Layton's increases, Canadian corporate tax will be well below US corporate tax, so we'll keep our competitive edge. Layton is also proposing a tax break for every new employee businesses hire to counter the effect of the increase.

The Canadian economy is doing well and there is no excuse not to balance the budget.

 

[Howard]

Even with Layton's increases, Canadian corporate tax will be well below US corporate tax, so we'll keep our competitive edge.

Even though the US has less incentive to import from us with the dollars being the way they are?

 

[ShawnD1]

Even with Layton's increases, Canadian corporate tax will be well below US corporate tax, so we'll keep our competitive edge.

If I'm not mistaken, USA has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. Saying we beat the US is like saying we beat we beat the blind kid at taekwondo.
wiki graph

The good European countries like Belgium, Germany, France, Sweden, Austria, Finland, Denmark have much higher personal taxes than business taxes. The people want free shit like subsidized day care, public education, and old age pension. Understandably that money comes from the people. You get what you pay for. When it comes to business taxes, there's an invisible wall at 40%. Germany, USA, and Japan are right against the wall and Canada is very close to it. If you put that corporate tax too high, it discourages investment. People in Germany and Belgium are not retarded; they have figured out that if you want more tax money, the rest of it must come from the people.

This is where the NDP plan fails. We're already balls to the wall and they're talking about raising corporate taxes so they slam head first into the wall.

Layton is also proposing a tax break for every new employee businesses hire to counter the effect of the increase.

This just doesn't make any sense. If hiring new people cancels out the added tax burden, why are you raising the taxes? So now they have an incentive to fire senior employees and hire new ones? How is this supposed to work? It's probably one of those things where they jack your taxes 10% (relative to current tax rate) then give you a 5% tax break. Sorry but that still adds up to higher taxes. If our corporate overlords get pissed off, they'll just say fuck it and they'll leave. There's nothing physically tying my job to my city; I work on a computer at a desk and it could be done by any qualified person in any city. That person might be in UK. They could easily relocate my office to the UK and fire all of us. I mean "lay off" all of us. It's different from fired because lay off sounds like you're having sex when really you're just getting fucked.

The Canadian economy is doing well and there is no excuse not to balance the budget.

Balance it as long as it doesn't anger our corporate slave masters. It affects me a great deal if they relocate the office to Alabama and hire some hillbilly to do my job. It does not hurt me at all if Quebec is kicked out of Canada permanently and we no longer need to give them endless welfare payments. We could also kick out Nova Scotia since wikipedia says about 20% of that province's entire budget comes from equalization (welfare) payments.
edit: or just end those welfare payments. No need to kick them out since people from NS always seem so friendly.

 

[Sureshot324]

If I'm not mistaken, USA has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. Saying we beat the US is like saying we beat we beat the blind kid at taekwondo.
wiki graph

The good European countries like Belgium, Germany, France, Sweden, Austria, Finland, Denmark have much higher personal taxes than business taxes. The people want free shit like subsidized day care, public education, and old age pension. Understandably that money comes from the people. You get what you pay for. When it comes to business taxes, there's an invisible wall at 40%. Germany, USA, and Japan are right against the wall and Canada is very close to it. If you put that corporate tax too high, it discourages investment. People in Germany and Belgium are not retarded; they have figured out that if you want more tax money, the rest of it must come from the people.

This is where the NDP plan fails. We're already balls to the wall and they're talking about raising corporate taxes so they slam head first into the wall.

As per my previous post, I agree that a tax increase on individuals would be better, but I still think increased corporate taxes would be better than running a huge deficit like we are now. There are times when a large deficit can be justified. Now isn't one of them.

The US, Germany, and Japan have done just fine with considerably higher corporate tax than us. Even WITH Layton's corporate tax increases, Canada's corporate tax will still be about 6% lower than the US's. He is also proposing to lower small business tax, not raise it.

This just doesn't make any sense. If hiring new people cancels out the added tax burden, why are you raising the taxes? So now they have an incentive to fire senior employees and hire new ones? How is this supposed to work? It's probably one of those things where they jack your taxes 10% (relative to current tax rate) then give you a 5% tax break. Sorry but that still adds up to higher taxes. If our corporate overlords get pissed off, they'll just say fuck it and they'll leave. There's nothing physically tying my job to my city; I work on a computer at a desk and it could be done by any qualified person in any city. That person might be in UK. They could easily relocate my office to the UK and fire all of us. I mean "lay off" all of us. It's different from fired because lay off sounds like you're having sex when really you're just getting fucked.

Yes it still adds up to an increase, just an added incentive to create jobs. And also yes, the increase makes Canada slightly less attractive to corps, but we are still very competitive. The US may be the worst example high corporate tax, but the US is by far the worlds largest economy. The GDP of the US is almost as much as the entire European Union. The fact that Canada's corp tax is considerably lower than the 800 pound gorrilla to the south makes it a very attractive place for corporations.

 

[desy]

You have to look at the whole tax profile for the US
Their tax free day is earlier than ours but even as such its different. Norway does great because they are an oil exporter if it wasn't for that they'd be in a hard way

You also can't compare Sask and Alberta economies becuase they are fundamentally different farmer vs rancher huge amounts of infastructure has to be built around farming but not so for ranching Sask has 10X the roads per capita than Alberta because every mile there is a road to transport farm equipment, you don't need that for ranching just throw up fences. Sask's economy is actually stronger and growing faster than Albertas right now, brings me to the last point about transfer payments. All provinces can use a leg up from time to time its why we joined confederation to be collectively stronger and with a country as huge as ours all sectors won't be firing at the same time.

 

[ShawnD1]

You have to look at the whole tax profile for the US
Their tax free day is earlier than ours but even as such its different. Norway does great because they are an oil exporter if it wasn't for that they'd be in a hard way

Canada has the same natural resource exporting model Norway has. We sell trees, minerals, oil, fish.

You also can't compare Sask and Alberta economies becuase they are fundamentally different farmer vs rancher huge amounts of infastructure has to be built around farming but not so for ranching Sask has 10X the roads per capita than Alberta because every mile there is a road to transport farm equipment

Can you guess why Saskatchewan's population is so low? It's because anti-business attitudes pushed all the jobs away. As I said a few posts up, my dad's entire family moved from Sask to Alberta to find jobs. 7 siblings, only 1 of them stayed behind. There just weren't any jobs in Sask. Oil and gas exploration was totally dead in that province because of how much red tape was involved every step of the way.

I had a job interview for an electrical engineering company in Lloydminster, which is a city where half is in Alberta and half is in Saskatchewan. The company said that all of their work was on the Alberta side because private industry is only allowed to operate on the Alberta side. 100% of the electrical infrastructure in Saskatchewan is owned by Saskatchewan and maintained by Saskatchewan. If a guy wants to build a shop on the Saskatchewan side of town and he needs lots of power for this shop, he can't hire us and let us build/design it for him even though we'd be located in the same city and could be closely involved in the whole project. Instead, he would need to call some government dickhead and hope the government is eager to start building a bunch of new electrical infrastructure just for him. Yeah, good luck with that.

Being in Lloydminster is very strange. There's literally a divide in the middle of town between "old" Lloydminster and "new" Lloydminster. The Alberta side is rapidly expanding west because that's where private companies operate. On the far west side of town there was a very large shopping area that had just been built. Totally new building for Staples, Future Shop, Safeway, and many smaller stores. The east (Sask) side of town was totally dead. It was the low income housing side of town where there were older houses and duplexes. Cars on that side of town tended to be shittier as well because people in low income housing tend to have low income cars.

If you're ever passing through, make sure you stop in Lloydminster. It's one of those towns you need to see at least once before you die.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloydminster

 

[desy]

Been to Loyd many times, worked in Loyd as a matter of fact and yes its a good example of what Alberta did w oil money. You weren't there for the bust days in the 80's or 90's though? I was and it was a sh1thole, both sides.
Saskpower is one of the things that I think govt should be involved in, essential service just ask California how deregulation worked out for them, rolling blackouts? never experienced one.
I have family and friends who live and lived in both provinces for decades so I think I understand the economics and history pretty well.

You can look at any midwestern state and their declining or stagnant demographics I don't think they have NDP governments, they experienced the exact same phenominome of people moving to the coasts.
You need a history lesson, the reason is farming went from labour intensive to machinery intensive we went from rural population to city population over the last 100 yrs where cities in Sask were setup to support farming, not build cars as per Central Canadas design. Read up on the homesteders act the FEDERAL government put in, in order to move to Sask and farm you HAD to live on the home quarter which meant tons of rural infastructure had to be built 'expensive' then machines and larger farms changed the scale and economics of farming, Sasks dominant economy.
Alberta DIDNT have to do this, their land is sh1tty and suitable only for cattle so they never historically had the same issues. Their is a lot more to this than the NDP gov'ts my friend, short time frames and anecdotal evidence from a few people hardly describes the long term trends.
Like I said you can't compare Alberta and SASK they are entirely different on many levels
Sure Sask NDP gov'ts have made blunders but so have the Conservative govt's in this province, I'm afraid Federal NDP's seem to want to repeat history. However our last NDP gov't turned this into a HAVE province where we send transfer payments instead of receive them.

 

[ShawnD1]

Been to Loyd many times, worked in Loyd as a matter of fact and yes its a good example of what Alberta did w oil money.

How does any of the development on the Alberta side relate to oil? We're talking about things like Staples building a store on the west side instead of the east side. It's the exact same city with the exact same jobs and the exact same people, but all of the development is on the west side.
The real reason is because the Alberta side has no provincial sales tax. Sales tax is extremely regressive, and that's why we don't have it. If we desperately needed money, raising the provincial income tax would happen first
What's interesting is that the conservatives are the only ones on the national level who want to lower the sales tax even though it was conservatives who created GST. The liberals and NDP want to push it back up and hurt poor people for some perverted reason.

Saskpower is one of the things that I think govt should be involved in, essential service just ask California how deregulation worked out for them, rolling blackouts? never experienced one.

Why do they need to own the whole thing? Alberta's power generation is private, the power grid is private, all of the maintenance and construction is private. According to a report made by Manitoba Hydro, Alberta's power is cheaper than Saskatchewan. That doesn't mean the government is fucking up, but it shows that having the government own it did absolutely nothing to bring prices down.
Manitoba Hydro report

Notice how Edmonton and Calgary are both cheaper than Saskatoon and Regina.

 

[desy]

Again, Albertas is cheaper because they don't have to run a powerline to every farmhouse scattered across the countryside. You don't understand economies of scale and geography it has nothing to do with whom owns the utility.
Its can never, will never be apples to apples comparison, Manitoba is also cheaper because of HOW the power is generated HYDRO is dirt cheap which is why Quebec is also cheap and why Ontario is expensive in comparison being nuclear and coal.

There is nothing wrong with Sales taxes if there were no other taxes consumption taxes are the most fair tax around really, consume more pay more. Alberta had luxury of oil and gas revenue to eliminate taxes thats how it relates. Ever heard of the Alberta Heritage fund, no? look it up. Remember when Ralph Klein gave everybody a 5% pay reduction? Thought not, unless you look at the whole and appreciate history and time scale this is over your head

 

[ShawnD1]

Again, Albertas is cheaper because they don't have to run a powerline to every farmhouse scattered across the countryside.

So you're saying Alberta and potentially other provinces have farms with no electricity? It's always a possibility but I've never actually seen or heard of this.


There is nothing wrong with Sales taxes if there were no other taxes consumption taxes are the most fair tax around really, consume more pay more. [/quote]
????
Poor man works at McDonalds and makes $15,000 per year. He spends every penny of that because he's poor. At 10% sales tax, his effective taxation rate is 10%.
Wealthy man earns $100,000 per year. While he certainly loves spending money, he is also wise enough to save 20% of it. He only pays that 10% tax on the $80,000 he spent, so effective tax rate on him is 10% * 80k / 100k = 8%. The rich man pays a lower percentage of his income to sales tax simply because he's rich enough to be able to save money. Poor people don't have the luxury of being able to save money. The wealthy man is getting slammed by income tax (because he can afford it) but the poor guy is getting fucked by sales tax.

Alberta had luxury of oil and gas revenue to eliminate taxes thats how it relates.

And how is that any different from Saskatchewan? Saskatchewan has oil. LOTS of it.
http://www.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=4a57f37e-88de-4da5-b6a8-411793a739d5
"Saskatchewan's oil production is second only to Alberta among Canadian provinces, and provides about 20% of all Canadian production. The province's daily production was 425,000 barrels/day in 2001; in comparison, the world's largest oil exporting country, Saudi Arabia, produced on average 8.5 million barrels/day in 2001. "

Now keep in mind that while they produce 20% of Canada's oil, Saskatchewan only has about 3% of Canada's population. That's a huge amount of money spread over a very small number of people. Why they need a sales tax on top of that, we will never know.

 

[D1gger]

How does any of the development on the Alberta side relate to oil? We're talking about things like Staples building a store on the west side instead of the east side. It's the exact same city with the exact same jobs and the exact same people, but all of the development is on the west side.
The real reason is because the Alberta side has no provincial sales tax. Sales tax is extremely regressive, and that's why we don't have it. If we desperately needed money, raising the provincial income tax would happen first
What's interesting is that the conservatives are the only ones on the national level who want to lower the sales tax even though it was conservatives who created GST. The liberals and NDP want to push it back up and hurt poor people for some perverted reason.

The Saskatchewan side of Lloydminster has a special exemption and businesses don't have to charge PST. There are other disadvantages, since Saskatchewan doesn't have the same oil dollars to subsidize other services, but the PST arguement doesn't fly for this specific case.

 

[desy]

I can go at this all day
Saskachewan has 50% of all the airable acres in Canada, EVERY other province has way less agriculture period when talking thin crops like pulses grains and oilseeds
http://www.buyric.com/news/2010/01/saskatchewan-2010-strongest-economic-rebound-in-canada-011/


The oil your mentioned is the Bakken field THEY JUST DISDCOVERED IT and have figured out a way to get it. My dads and sister house prices have tripled in the last 5 years because of it as they sit at the doorstep of that field. 10 years ago oil was $18 a barrel is took over 20 to get it out of the ground guess how much oil was being pumped out then? Oil is great when its good and crap when it busts, its only been since 2005 that oils been a steady riser.

Sales tax is fair because if you are poor you can be rebated if you fall below the poverty line and yes, guess what life isn't fair, and those who earn the 100k does so because they are either smart or hard working or sometimes lucky and all the combinations in between. If you want to live where all humanity is equal go to where they have tried it in China or the Soviet Union but I'm guessing you are enjoying the benefits of our society. Even the poor person in this society typically enjoys enough to eat, clothing and shelter don't believe it ? Look how the poor in Africa and India live in relation to ours.

EX I can buy a car for 10 G or 40G If I choose the more expensive car I'm paying 4X as much tax for the same basic utility.

I can buy Oatmeal for 60 cents or Caviar for 20 bucks so I'm paying 33X as much tax for the same basic utility of a full belly