Chretien begins forming his fascist dictatorship

[RedFred]

This thread is a classic!

[Asher]

RedFred, do you have any light to shed on the situation?

We seem to be going nowhere.

[RedFred]

Yes. You are totally wrong Asher!

BC has a far better quality of life than Alberta.

But aren't you supposed to create a new thread after a couple hundred posts?

[Asher]

Not the quality of life thing, the transfer payment thing.

And the post limit is 500 now, IIRC.

Do you like my sig?

[Tingkai]

Okay Asher, let's try your theory using actual numbers. This will show how mistaken you are.

Originally posted by Asher
2 provinces contributed that $10.7B in transfer payments, right? Alberta and Ontario.
Alberta has a population of 3,064,200
Ontario has a population of 11,874,400
Now, estimating from the graph on the page, it looks like Ontario is what, $300 per capita above the standard?
Now, estimating from the graph on the page, it looks like Alberta is what, $2500 per capita above the standard?
For Ontario's contribution: 11,874,400 people * $300 each = $3,562,320,000.
For Alberta's contribution: 3,064,200 people * $2500 each = $7,660,500,000.
Grand total: $11,222,820,000
Now, tell me if that's not damn close to $10,700,000,000, considering the margin of error when using estimates from the graph?
Are these all coincidences, Tingkai?

Now I know this may be difficult for you to follow, but try to keep up. This is quite simple. Afterall, it is your calculation model.

Your theory is that the fiscal capability of Alberta and Ontario (the "have" provinces) that is above the standard rate represents money that is transferred to have-not provinces. This is of course completely wrong and the following math provides additional proof.

In 1999-2000, equalization payments equaled $9.644 billion.

The fiscal capacity of Ontario was $476 per person above the standard level, population 11,874,400
The fiscal capacity of Alberta was $2,686 per person above the standard level, population 3,064,200
In that year, British Columbia was a "have" province (the right-wing government there has since pushed the province into a "have-not")
The fiscal capacity of B.C. was $119 per person above the standard level, population 4, 028,100

Now look what happens when we multiply the above dollar figures and population using Asher's theory.
Ont: $476 x 11,874,400 = $5.65 billion
Alta: $2,686 x 3,064,200 = $8.23 billion
B.C.: $119 x 4,028.100 = 0.479 billion
Total = $14.359 billion

Now surely you're not going to suggest that $14.36 billion is close to $9.644 billion in equalization payments. Then again, you never cease to amaze me.

The reason for the discrepancy is because the fiscal capacity reflects potential provincial government revenues. It does not represent actual transfers between governments.

In other words, Asher you are wrong.

Data was taken from:
http://www.culip.com.ua/regions/fisc...rities_eng.htm
Note: this page takes a long time to download, once it has click on link for ¡§A breakdown of Equalization entitlements¡¨

Originally posted by Asher
And don't you dare tell me to take Canadian economics courses -- I just took a year of them with more to come next year.

Then you should be able to figure out your mistake. But what do I know. I only have a BA in economics.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
In 1999-2000, equalization payments equaled $9.644 billion.

The fiscal capacity of Ontario was $476 per person above the standard level, population 11,874,400
The fiscal capacity of Alberta was $2,686 per person above the standard level, population 3,064,200
In that year, British Columbia was a "have" province (the right-wing government there has since pushed the province into a "have-not")
The fiscal capacity of B.C. was $119 per person above the standard level, population 4, 028,100

Now look what happens when we multiply the above dollar figures and population using Asher's theory.
Ont: $476 x 11,874,400 = $5.65 billion
Alta: $2,686 x 3,064,200 = $8.23 billion
B.C.: $119 x 4,028.100 = 0.479 billion
Total = $14.359 billion

Now surely you're not going to suggest that $14.36 billion is close to $9.644 billion in equalization payments. Then again, you never cease to amaze me.

Well, quickly looking at it now I can tell you that at least one of the population numbers is wrong (Alberta didn't have 3M people in 1999, let alone 3.064M).

Tomorrow I will look and see where else missteps may have been taken. Perhaps this has to do with my figures coming from Finance Canada's website, and yours coming from somewhere in the United Arab Emirates?

The reason for the discrepancy is because the fiscal capacity reflects potential provincial government revenues. It does not represent actual transfers between governments.

In other words, Asher you are wrong.

Okay, so please, you've yet to actually show how much each province contributes. I've not seen that at all, and if the charts and graphs I've seen are any indicator, Alberta still contributes FAR more per capita, and most likely more in NET terms as well.

Then you should be able to figure out your mistake. But what do I know. I only have a BA in economics.

If you've got a BA in Economics, I'd love to know what university it's from, considering the quote you've made in my sig...

Edit: And I believe a discrepancy in numbers may occur because the standard is calculated based only on 5 provinces, not all of them. But I still don't see how they get the magic number on where to take the money from to give to the "have not" provinces.

Could you quit dancing around it and come out and say:

How much of the total was given by every province

How those figures were obtained.

Otherwise it's pointless dancing around hoops exercising voodoo.

[Asher]

Some fascinating figures from the site you linked to, Tingkai.

Net equalization entitelements per capita from:
Personal Income Tax:
Alberta: -$295
Ontario: -$289

Corporate Income Tax:
Alberta: -$174
Ontario: -$67

Capital taxes:
Alberta: -$56
Ontario: -$23

Sales taxes:
Alberta: -$291
Ontario: -$43

Fuel/automobiles:
Alberta: -$140
Ontario: -$11

Alcohol:
Alberta: -$15
Ontario: -$2

Logging:
Alberta: -$19
Ontario: +$36

Oil and Natural Gas:
Alberta: -$1,450
Ontario: +$47

Gee, I think I'm starting to see a trend...

It looks like I was incorrect in my methodology in proving this, but I no longer need to prove it anyway since your links prove it for me. Quite clearly, Alberta sacrifices far more per capita than any other province in Canada. Maybe even total, but the damned site is so slow it hasn't loaded all of the different parts where it dings Alberta for money.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Tomorrow I will look and see where else missteps may have been taken. Perhaps this has to do with my figures coming from Finance Canada's website, and yours coming from somewhere in the United Arab Emirates?

You're pretty close. It's actually a University of Alberta website, but don't blame them. They probably can't get enough funding from Klein to buy proper computers.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
If you've got a BA in Economics, I'd love to know what university it's from, considering the quote you've made in my sig...

You still don't get that the joke is on you.

I slag Alberta and you include it in your sig.

Ahh, you just removed your defence. What a shame. It made the slag even better.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
You're pretty close. It's actually a University of Alberta website, but don't blame them. They probably can't get enough funding from Klein to buy proper computers.

No, it's not a University of Alberta website. The UofA doesn't have its own country code ".ua" As Albertans we think highly of ourselves, but not that highly.

Try going to www.culip.com.ua
Obviously not a University of Alberta site.

ANYWAY, the site finished loading.

Net equalization payments per Capita for:
Alberta: $-2,686 (Isn't this strikingly similar to my original figure?)
Ontario: $-476

Total:
Alberta: $7,949,217,000
Ontario: $5,484,805,200



Note that this includes your income tax stuff from before too. It would seem to me that Alberta is shouldering most of the equalization payments, both in total numbers and in per capita numbers.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
You still don't get that the joke is on you.

I slag Alberta and you include it in your sig.

Ahh, you just removed your defence. What a shame. It made the slag even better.

No, the joke isn't on me.

I put it in my sig because it looks like you're serious when you say it. It's very typical for the NDP actually.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Try going to www.culip.com.ua
Obviously not a University of Alberta site.

Mea Culpa.

I made my post after seeing the address for CULIP (Canada Ukraine Legislative & Intergovernmental Project)

CULIP, CIUS, University of Alberta
450 Athabasca Hall, Edmonton, AB
T6G 2E8

But a quick check on google shows that .ua stands for Ukraine.

As I said, my mistake. (some of us know how to admit that we're wrong.)

[Asher]

So from these figures, is it true or is it not that Alberta shoulders the most burden from equalization payments?

I'm seeing the per capita figure, then multiplying them by the capita, and getting a total.

Am I right in thinking that both of these figures give us that answer? In which bother figures are bigger for Alberta?

Or am I missing some magical formula that transforms these numbers into being much larger for Ontario? (This wouldn't entirely surprise me -- Canada's government never was one of functionality and common sense)

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
So from these figures, is it true or is it not that Alberta shoulders the most burden from equalization payments?

The simple answer is no.

You're driving me up the wall on this one Asher. What is the problem. Normally you display a fair amount of intelligence, but on this topic you¡¦re being as thick as a brick.

The numbers you cited reflect potential revenue levels for provincial government. It indicates that the Alberta provincial government could collect $291 per capita in sales tax above the standard rate IF it had a provincial sales tax.

The numbers you cite do not, repeat do not, indicate how much Albertans pay to the federal government! It clearly does not represent ¡§net equalization payments.¡¨ If it did then why do the Alberta, BC and Ontario numbers add up to $14 billion when equalization payments are only $9 billion.

This is proof that you have misread the graph.

[Asher]

I'm still really confused.

If the sites mention that, for example, Newfoundland has a net transfer to their province of $1B, and they also say Alberta has a net transfer from the province of $8B, why are they saying that if it's not true?

I thought the concept behind the equalization is it looked at the theoretical numbers from that graph, and allocates the money from those "have" provinces which are above the standard to the "have not" provinces, thereby making them relatively equal.

So by looking at the charts and data, Alberta's negative numbers in terms of transfer are always far greater than Ontario's.

Therefore I would conclude that Alberta is getting potential money transferred away from Alberta into the "have not" provinces.

How come you still haven't cited any real sources showing the real numbers taken from each province's revenue streams to show how they make up for equalization payments?

If what I'm saying is wrong, perhaps they should label the words correctly they're using, because I'm using what is typically standard vocabulary and interpreting it from there. And why is it so damn difficult for them to come right out and say where the money comes from?

[Asher]

The real question is -- where is the real data for where this money comes from?

Nobody has answered that yet. You've said it comes from everybody -- which is only true in the strictly technical sense. When someone gives you the money right back -- plus some, you're not actually giving the money out.

And since Alberta and Ontario are the only two "have" provinces, all the extra money for the other provinces are coming from these two. And I'm seeing figures like 70 cents out of every dollar in energy revenue being cyphoned off for equilization payments, but I'm not seeing any raw totals aside from those theoretical numbers which you insist are incorrect.

[Asher]

You're driving me up the wall on this one Asher. What is the problem. Normally you display a fair amount of intelligence, but on this topic you¡¦re being as thick as a brick.

It may be a fundamental misunderstanding on the mispolitics of Canada's screwed up economic scheme.

I'm actually quite a dense, arrogant, conceited, rude, little boy. The "fair amount of intelligence" you may have seen was probably because you didn't care enough to look into a matter to see how wrong I am.

If it did then why do the Alberta, BC and Ontario numbers add up to $14 billion when equalization payments are only $9 billion.

I wonder how large Chretien's personal bank account is now.

Or maybe this has to do with the extra billions that Chretien "accidentally" sent to BC and Quebec in transfer payments in the last decade.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
The real question is -- where is the real data for where this money comes from?

The money comes from federal government revenues. To find the provincial breakdown of this revenue you would have to determine how much people in each province contribute to the federal coffers.

The government budget is about $160 billion. About $80 billion comes from income taxes. Of this amount, about 44 per cent comes from Ontario taxpayers. So about 20 per cent of the federal government's revenue comes directly from income tax paid by Ontarians. Therefore, about 20 per cent of transfer payments are paid by Ontario income tax payers.

The remaining 80 per cent of transfer payments are financed through corporate taxes, return on investments, the GST, resource royalties, etc.

If you want the answer, you'll have to dig up a provincial breakdown of income for the federal government.

[RedFred]

Originally posted by Tingkai ...So about 20 per cent of the federal government's revenue comes directly from income tax paid by Ontarians. Therefore, about 20 per cent of transfer payments are paid by Ontario income tax payers.

Well, I like your logic up to the 'therefore'.

...but I don't like it after the 'therefore'.

Perhaps an error, perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I don't see you you can draw that conclusion. Please clarify.

[Asher]

I don't see how he can draw that conclusion either.

By that logic, Quebec also "contributes" probably 10-15% of all transfer fund payments even though they receive it all back, plus some.

As you well know from math: -6 + 10 = 4, so Quebec's effectively not giving any money away.

And you once again only seem to be basing this off of income tax -- why?

[David James]

Bah!!!! I hate equalization! Bah!!!!!!!!!!!

Tingkai is correct in saying that the yellow portion of the graph represents the fiscal capacity of each province, which is based on some arcane formula representing numerous real and potential revenue sources. Anyway, so this is calculated for each province. Then the weighted average of the fiscal capacities of the 5 "middle" provinces is taken (how Ontario is considered middle I do not know). This average defines the $5,800 or whatever line (and because it is a weighted average that includes Ontario and BC the line is actually quite high). The blue areas then represent the actual transfer from the federal government to each of those provinces per person.

As to where this money is coming from is a different question. I'm not entirely sure myself. I can see why Tingkai thinks it comes in the ratio as the tax contribution of each province, which would see Ontario paying for a significant chunk (~44%) and Alberta paying for about 11% of it. The problem I have with this is that equalization is supposed to be a transfer from have to have-not provinces through the federal tax-and-transfer system. There is another reason I don't like this way of looking at it but I can't clearly explain what it is but it has something to do with the transfers being per capita in nature.

[David James]

One of the reasons (I think) that Asher and I don't like the idea that equalization comes out of general federal revenues is because it is not an expenditure that can be argued to benefit all Canadians equally. Ontario and Alberta get nothing, everyone else gets something. This is unlike defense for example, where it is arguable that everyone benefits equally (we still don't pay equally of course, but in the ratio of tax contributions).

One way of resolving this might be to take the per capita tax contribution by each province and deduct the per capita equalization payment to that province from this amount. With the possible exception of Nfld, you'll probably still have a positive number. Then what you do is find the national per capita (average) amount that the Federal government spends on all other things (including debt servicing). Compare this number to the tax contribution per capita by province and you'll be able to find out a truer picture of who is "paying" into the system and who is "taking" from it. I am certain you'll find that Ontario is footing the bill for almost 50% and Alberta for something like 15%, despite being 35% and 10% of the population, respectively. You could even separate the calculation to include direct programme spending in each province (CHST transfers, non-administrative Public Works*, regional development, etc.) and nation-wide spending (defense, justice, environment, foreign ministry, debt servicing, etc) - the results would skew still further to Ontario, Alberta and BC paying the lion's share.

I think this way of looking at things is reasonable because equalization is constitutionally mandated. In other words, if the feds do absolutely nothing else, they have to equalize. This means that equalization is at the top of the list and so the feds would "rebate" (sort of) the amount to each province that the formula dictated from the revenue it got from that province's taxpayers. This done, the tax contribution mix by province would be altered for all other expenditure items.



* office space in Ottawa and elsewhere kind of has to be excluded - you might not like it, but it doesn't make sense any other way. It's part of the cost of running a government, as opposed to things that the government actually chooses to spend money on.

[RedFred]

A different criticism from me, but the transfers reward provinces who chronically underperform, penalize those that overperform, and (along with the regional unemployment calculation of EI) inhibit migration to job rich provinces from job poor provinces.

[Asher]

This thread is starting to make too much sense.

Where are the socialists?

[DinoDoc]

You confused them with facts and scared them away.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher
This thread is starting to make too much sense.

Where are the socialists?

I got bored of it somewhere around page 5 or 6...

[DanS]

Geez, it must be like a spasm of eroticism after years in a convent. Don't you guys ever talk politics up North?

[KrazyHorse]

We're too busy sniping at Americans to bother with domestic squabbles...

[Asher]

Originally posted by DanS
Geez, it must be like a spasm of eroticism after years in a convent. Don't you guys ever talk politics up North?

It happens a lot in Alberta.

I'm not sure politics are too popular in other provinces. If they actually paid attention to what their elected government is up to I'm pretty sure they would stop electing them.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by David James
The problem I have with this is that equalization is supposed to be a transfer from have to have-not provinces through the federal tax-and-transfer system.

I never said I agreed with the current system. I was just trying to explain how it works.

Does the current system make sense? Well, it was created by negotiations between Ottawa and the provinces so of course it doesn't make sense.