[Alta_redneck]

bootlegga bootlegga:

The problem with Alberta is Albertans.

We want the best of everything but aren't willing to pay the taxes necessary to provide them - so our weak-willed government caved in and just funnelled non-renewable resource royalties into general revenues and spent them instead of saving for the proverbial rainy day. Here it is 30 years later and it's pouring outside and we really have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Can you refresh my memory Boot, what do we have the best of, that no one else in Canada has.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Well, firstly, ideology.

Yep, same deal in BC. It's made a total mess of BC ferries, Translink is despised by the people, our Run of River projects cost far more per KWH than a proper dam would, and we are obligated to buy the juice, and so on. There was a time when the private highways contractor was doing a shitty job as well, tho the complaints have died out about that.

Doing things for ideology alone is never a good deal. WAC Bennett showed the way how to be very rightwing and still bring sectors in the government fold where it made sense. BC ferries ran well as part of the highways department, transit had far fewer complaints under BC Hydro.

Whether Alberta should have got involved in the oil industry can be debated endlessly. I note that the person on this board who seems to support that it should't was also making sarcastic remarks about ideology and that Alberta should get involved in refineries and pipelines. But the low tax, low royalty regime certainly doesn't seem to have worked out well for it. And again, some people seem happier to just blame Quebec and Ontario for the lack of fiscal responsibility that Alberta showed. Babies get cranky when you take away their candy, I guess.

[BartSimpson]

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

bootlegga bootlegga:

The problem with Alberta is Albertans.

We want the best of everything but aren't willing to pay the taxes necessary to provide them - so our weak-willed government caved in and just funnelled non-renewable resource royalties into general revenues and spent them instead of saving for the proverbial rainy day. Here it is 30 years later and it's pouring outside and we really have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Can you refresh my memory Boot, what do we have the best of, that no one else in Canada has.

You have the best Bootlegga in all of Canada.

(And, ironically, you also have the WORST!)

[bootlegga]

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

bootlegga bootlegga:

The problem with Alberta is Albertans.

We want the best of everything but aren't willing to pay the taxes necessary to provide them - so our weak-willed government caved in and just funnelled non-renewable resource royalties into general revenues and spent them instead of saving for the proverbial rainy day. Here it is 30 years later and it's pouring outside and we really have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Can you refresh my memory Boot, what do we have the best of, that no one else in Canada has.

I said we want the best but aren't willing to pay for it, hence we don't have the best.

Having said that, we have much better roads, schools and hospitals than most other places in Canada.

[bootlegga]

[quote="andyt"]
But why couldn't Alberta be directly involved in the oil industry like Norway is? Why were oil companies willing to invest in Norway with such a high royalty rate, but not in Alberta? Norway's oil won't last nearly 100 years, yet companies were willing to invest. Norway didn't build the industry on its own, they went partners with private industry. How could Norway, with only a 20% larger population, and not much else going for it besides oil, raise the funds to invest in its own resources, but not Alberta? The oil sands may yield a lower rate of return than Norway's oil does, but I don't see how the difference can be so huge as 1% versus 78%. [/quote]

There are a couple reasons why not.

The biggest reason is that producers in Norway get full price for that oil, while bitumen trades at a discount. And the lion's share of production in Norway is run by the government, not private enterprise.

The other is that when the oil runs out, they can sell or move the offshore rigs somewhere else to keep using them. Oilsands infrastructure only works here in Alberta and it costs far more to build the experimental / one of a kind equipment found in the oilsands than it does something like offshore oil rigs which are all somewhat similar.

[BeaverFever]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

There's no free tuition in Canada but university should be subsidized since most decent jobs require it

Most decent jobs only require dedication, not a University education. I've know more than one millionaire without a University education, and one barely had high school. All it requires is the willingness to sleep in the back of your truck for 10 years, and to hold a welding torch 12 hours a day for 11 months a year.

Most trades could get away with a 2 or 4 year technical diploma, not University.

the first part of your post sounds facetious so I'll take it that you generally agree that most decent jobs require university?

Sure, most trades don't need university or even post-secondary but the whole country can't be tradespeople. Besides, despite the chronic shortage of skilled trades, the jobs are often cyclical (see: oil patch layoffs) or under direct assault by employers (see: employer pay cuts and clawbacks across other sectors)

[DrCaleb]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

There's no free tuition in Canada but university should be subsidized since most decent jobs require it

Most decent jobs only require dedication, not a University education. I've know more than one millionaire without a University education, and one barely had high school. All it requires is the willingness to sleep in the back of your truck for 10 years, and to hold a welding torch 12 hours a day for 11 months a year.

Most trades could get away with a 2 or 4 year technical diploma, not University.

the first part of your post sounds facetious so I'll take it that you generally agree that most decent jobs require university?

No, it was quite sincere. I know, it's a stretch for me, but I think a person could train to be something like a Chef, work hard, build an empire, and do it all just with some skill and a Diploma from a Technical College.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Ram ... ing_career
http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/5 ... -LaFerrari

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Sure, most trades don't need university or even post-secondary but the whole country can't be tradespeople.

No, but most of the country aren't tradespeople. Most are self made business people, and University didn't always get them there.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Besides, despite the chronic shortage of skilled trades, the jobs are often cyclical (see: oil patch layoffs) or under direct assault by employers (see: employer pay cuts and clawbacks across other sectors)

Some jobs are seasonal, like construction or teaching, but the vast majority are full time permanent employment. And any employers that 'directly assault' their employees earn a reputation for being crappy places to work and have trouble keeping skilled people or hiring new ones. See: IBM.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

No, it was quite sincere. I know, it's a stretch for me, but I think a person could train to be something like a Chef, work hard, build an empire, and do it all just with some skill and a Diploma from a Technical College.

I'm not bashing community college - most chefs ending up gong to a culinary school. I think all post-secondary education should be affordable and accessible. But that said, people with university degrees tend to earn more than those who don't.

Most of the workforce is neither tradespeople or "self-made business people". Most of the workforce is in fact employed in the services sector, cubicle-dwelling office cogs or latte-foaming burger flippers. The latter has little to no post-secondary and the former has anything from community college to Master's degrees.

I guess the fate of the trade depends on the trade, the sector and the Union but where the tradesman is a permanent employee of the company receiving an hourly wage (as opposed to a contractor or owner/operator) like in a manufacturing plant, the employer always seems to be freezing or cutting back on pay and benefits.

[Alta_redneck]

bootlegga bootlegga:

The problem with Alberta is Albertans.
I said we want the best but aren't willing to pay for it, hence we don't have the best.

Having said that, we have much better roads, schools and hospitals than most other places in Canada.

Which means we have the best roads, schools and hospitals compared to most other places in Canada.

But really I don't hear alot of complaining about our standard of living. I hear whiners, but their usually whining about things like not having one of these $150M community rec centres that are all the rage now.

[Thanos]

For the most part we have built a great province with the money that was spent. There was no justification with that kind of resource revenue to keep Alberta as some 1930's rustic dogpatch, and Lougheed deserves endless credit for getting the vision started. It's not Scandinavia, with endless cradle-to-grave, because we're not wired that way but it's certainly not Alabama either. Yes, more should have been saved and a lot of people should have gone to prison for some of those scandals that happened from Getty through to Refraud. But not spend any money at all and leave the place as an infrastructure and social backwater? I'd like to hear the 'friendly' advice coming from outsiders if the province had been a total skinflint and done nothing at all to build up the place.

I'm taking it on the chin here with losing my house and probably not working until fall at best. But when the recovery comes I'd still rather be here in Alberta than in any other province. Even with the double-whammy of the Stelmach stagnation and then the Redford swindle that brought back a debt Alberta is still in a far better economic position than any single other place in this country.

[Jabberwalker]

No fjords like Norway, though. You'll have to flood the Bow Valley again ... deeper, this time!

[bootlegga]

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

bootlegga bootlegga:

The problem with Alberta is Albertans.
I said we want the best but aren't willing to pay for it, hence we don't have the best.

Having said that, we have much better roads, schools and hospitals than most other places in Canada.

Which means we have the best roads, schools and hospitals compared to most other places in Canada.

But really I don't hear alot of complaining about our standard of living. I hear whiners, but their usually whining about things like not having one of these $150M community rec centres that are all the rage now.

I said most other places, not all other places in Canada.

From what I've seen, Ontario has better roads and hospitals (and more of both) than we do, but we do have it pretty good here in Alberta.

From my POV though, had we followed Lougheed's vision, it would be even better. In that way I'm much like a professional athlete - I always want more...now where's my damned rec centre?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I'm not sure what lessons we can learn from Norway in this matter. Here's why Norway has been able to sock so much away into their fund:
A total tax burden of roughly 45% of the country's GDP
A massive 25% VAT
Personal income tax rates starting at 27% and going as high as 55%
Corporate profits tax ranges from 28% to as high as 78% for the oil industry
Norway even has a direct wealth tax

Further, when you look at the Norwegian economy the state drives nearly all of it with controlling interest in 8 of 10 of the largest employers in the country; Statoil, DNB and Norsk Hydro to name 3 of the largest.

Of course Alberta did itself no favours by deciding to do away with a PST because they were oil rich.

However, with the rest of Canada available, Alberta would have been hard pressed to generate any corporate interest in the province outside of the oil industry if they had supported their Heritage Fund with regressive tax rates like Norway has.

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Of course Alberta did itself no favours by deciding to do away with a PST because they were oil rich.

We didn't 'do away' with a PST, we've never implemented one. We know that such a tax will just encourage more swine to suckle off the public teat. More than we already have, that is.

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I'm not sure what lessons we can learn from Norway in this matter. Here's why Norway has been able to sock so much away into their fund:
A total tax burden of roughly 45% of the country's GDP
A massive 25% VAT
Personal income tax rates starting at 27% and going as high as 55%
Corporate profits tax ranges from 28% to as high as 78% for the oil industry
Norway even has a direct wealth tax

Further, when you look at the Norwegian economy the state drives nearly all of it with controlling interest in 8 of 10 of the largest employers in the country; Statoil, DNB and Norsk Hydro to name 3 of the largest.

Of course Alberta did itself no favours by deciding to do away with a PST because they were oil rich.

However, with the rest of Canada available, Alberta would have been hard pressed to generate any corporate interest in the province outside of the oil industry if they had supported their Heritage Fund with regressive tax rates like Norway has.

Regressive tax rates - practicing Newspeak now, are we?

Norway has a very high standard of living - #1 in HDI. Seems those high taxes aren't a disaster for them.

But that is exactly the difference between Norway and Alberta. Norway didn't use it's oil revenue to live large with a very low tax regime. It kept the discipline of high taxes even as the oil money was flowing in, because they had the wits to realize the oil wouldn't last forever.

Seems that even with that low tax regime, Alberta isn't booming with industries other than oil, hence the current problem. Seems it takes more than low taxes to attract industry.

Somehow, Peter Lougheed managed to fill up the Heritage fund without ruinous taxation levels. The people just decided to vote for leaders who would rather just blow it all after Lougheed.