# Just heard liberals pass their votes on Universal Income plan.



## Fisher (Apr 8, 2021)

Isn't current welfare system not good enough? If UBI come online, how long can we sustain it??? The government is already so loaded with debt and it is only increases. 

I really don't understand this world now.
Everyone is borrowing credit, from all levels of governments to individual citizens. 

Kind of get me worried about my kids what kind of world will they live in when they grow up.


----------



## Bananatron (Jan 18, 2021)

They'll be living in a great world - free money for everyone.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Fisher said:


> Isn't current welfare system not good enough?


Many say that the current system isn't good enough. There's a lot of inefficiency, huge administrative overhead and staff requirements, complicated rules and even some disincentives. This can lead people to doing counterproductive things so that they don't lose their eligibility.

Existing poverty in society is also something that we all pay for. When people are suffering and barely scraping by, we all pay for the resulting healthcare costs, crime, and a general reduction in quality of life (across society).


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Liberals also defeated changes to capital gains taxes and an inheritance tax.

They adopted proposals for a 10% increase in OAS to people over 70 who qualify. Oddly enough, this proposal would simply lower the GIS benefit unless that too was increased 10% for people over 70. They should also lower the income levels for collecting OAS. People earning over $50,000 each don't need senior welfare. OAS should start being reduced for incomes over $40,000 a year and totally eliminated for incomes $50,000 and above.

Universal pharmacare was adopted. It won't likely be a "free" benefit but would likely be paid for by premiums paid by everyone, and would have to include the young and healthy to lower individual costs of premiums. People with their own work pharmacare benefits would likely be allowed to opt out of the pharmacare program. The Federal government could reduce health transfer payments to the Provinces to pay for it, or let the Provinces keep the money they receive and use it to pay for other healthcare costs rising.

The Liberals also passed a motion for minimum standards for LTC homes. I don't know why anyone would be opposed to this considering the debacle we all witnessed in LTC homes. We can't simply ignore the elderly or leave it up to Provinces who cut inspections and refuse to act.

The guaranteed income proposal will be complicated as Provinces control many of the social programs.

But a restructuring of current programs and inclusion of some Provincial programs would be a good thing.

Some programs would likely be left alone.....as examples.

EI program is federal and self sufficient with contributions from both employers and employees, much like the very successful CPP program. Unfortunately in the past, some governments have scooped up any surpluses to balance their books. The EI program should be changed to run just like the CPPIB runs the CPP. It is hands off from the government and can build and invest the contributions to build an enduring fund to pay benefits. Every worker could have a "personal account" they can draw from for those periods they are out of work.

WSIB is Provincial and paid by employers. It should be taken over by the Federal government in order to provide fair and equal benefits across all Provinces. The Provincial governments have a bad habit of making it more difficult for workers who are hurt to collect their benefits. Once again, it could be set up like the CPP and be a hands off from the government program. Invest the contributions to build a fund for the future.

Social benefits (welfare) are Provincially administered and are a hodge podge of different benefits and qualifications. The benefits are funded purely from government revenues. The federal government should take over responsibility and make the benefits and qualifications standard across all Provinces. They should remove the restrictions that don't allow people to go to school or retrain while collecting social benefits. That is a counter productive rule.

So all in all......there will have to be a lot of restructuring that goes into a guaranteed basic benefit. The Provinces won't want to give up control, but it is a good thing to centralize the programs and establish Canada wide qualifications and benefits.

Trudeau and Freeland have both said that during a pandemic is not the time to introduce it, but it is a stretch goal for the government. It is going to take a lot of work to accomplish.

The other landmark election platforms will be climate change initiatives, which are vitally important in a world challenged by the effects and costs of climate change.

I would have liked to have seen some strengthening of the student loan program. There is a hidden problem with foreign students acquiring significant student loans and then leaving the country to avoid paying the debt.

I also would have liked to seen a change to the justice system involving criminal records for minor crimes (summary convictions in Canada). Our current system involves costly and lengthy suspensions of records, while the UK system simply automatically drops such minor crimes from criminal records after a number of years have passed. It costs a lot of money to administer a system more complicated that it has to be...when the end results are the same.

If the desire is to lower the costs of government, we need to make some of the easy changes.

Over all I think the Liberals get high marks for their policies, even if they fall a little short.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> The Liberals also defeated changes to capital gains taxes and an inheritance tax.


Also interesting, Mark Carney (head of the Bank of Canada during the financial crisis, and then the head of the Bank of England) strongly endorsed the Liberal Party.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

The only way UBI could work is if Alberta is churning out the petro dollars Canada is addicted to the last 30 years...not sure it will happen with house flipping...sunny ways!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Federal government receives almost no royalties from oil and gas in Alberta.

In 2019 it was only $320 million in royalties and continuing to decline.

Alberta has paid transfer payments to the Federal government in the past but I believe they are now a "have not" Province and will be net recipients of federal transfers.

Albertans have paid their "fair share" over the decades and they should be supported fully by the rest of Canada as they deal with their own economic problems. I am not clear on what the Wexit group expects from the Federal government. Trudeau spent billions buying a pipeline and addressing abandoned wells, despite some Liberals opposition to the spending.

Albertans collected CERB and EI benefits just like the rest of Canada. What is it that the Wexit contingent want....or are they simply determined to destroy themselves and their Province? Alberta simply wouldn't survive on it's own.

Alberta collects some of the lowest royalty rates in the world, despite companies earning billions of dollars extracting Alberta's resources. With the current financial situation in Alberta they likely will have to raise the royalty rates.









Canadian Government revenue from oil and gas royalties | Statista


This statistic shows the oil and gas royalties of the Canadian government from 2008 to 2021.




www.statista.com


----------



## Fain (Oct 11, 2009)

Fisher said:


> Isn't current welfare system not good enough? If UBI come online, how long can we sustain it??? The government is already so loaded with debt and it is only increases.
> 
> I really don't understand this world now.
> Everyone is borrowing credit, from all levels of governments to individual citizens.
> ...


Current welfare system is a joke and needs to increased heavily. Universal Pharmacare and UBI is a good start.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> The Federal government receives almost no royalties from oil and gas in Alberta.


And neither do Albertans! The province never charged any meaningful royalties. Instead they let these giant companies (and foreigners) drain all the resources & wealth out of the oil sands.



sags said:


> Alberta collects some of the lowest royalty rates in the world, despite companies earning billions of dollars extracting Alberta's resources.


Simply put, they (the public) got played by the big corporations. Corrupt politicians like Kenney are in place to ensure the corporations get the best deal possible.

Maybe one day, Albertans will wake up and take back control of their province and their resources, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Bit of a stretch , a fanboy of Mr Socks calling a different politician corrupt .


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Also interesting, Mark Carney (head of the Bank of Canada during the financial crisis, and then the head of the Bank of England) strongly endorsed the Liberal Party.


Of course he did, while he is exceptionally capable, he is also all in on the plans to remake society.

The only thing scarier than an malevolent authoritarian dictator, is the authorian dictator doing it "for your own good".

The biggest thing with their "more equitable" society is that they seem to want to break economics. They want to detach labour from the fruits of labour.

You work, but someone else gets paid. "To be more equitable". 
They don't seem to understand how this is fundamentally wrong.

I understand that they feel they're smarter than the rest of us, and we just don't get it, and they think they can play fancy games to make it work.
But they're starting from a fundamentally unfair and immoral premise.

Oh and regarding UBI, the real risk is that it will be a fiscally unsustainable poverty trap. 
If you want to destroy a country, there is no better way than to pay people not to work.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> Of course he did, while he is exceptionally capable, he is also all in on the plans to remake society.
> 
> The only thing scarier than an malevolent authoritarian dictator, is the authorian dictator doing it "for your own good".


Lol, what's evil old Carney up to? Are we going to be fed Soylent?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Lol, what's evil old Carney up to? Are we going to be fed Soylent?


The global elite want to remake society.
I don't think they necessarily have an evil outcome in mind, I think that they, or at least most of them, are honestly motivated to make things better.

However, you can't do a bunch of evil things and expect a good result.
They are working to undo the progress we've already made, and it really doesn't make sense.
Why do they promote racism and divisiveness? 
Why do they want to hurt people so bad?
Why are they so filled with fear and hate?

I just don't get it, I keep holding that maybe they're misguided and they don't see what they're doing. 
But the more I listen to people I start to think they are choosing to be willfully blind to the harms they wish to inflict on others, in the hopes that they'll benefit.

We all know, or should know, UBI done wrong will be destructive at the National and individual levels.
I don't think the government is capable, let alone even intersected in doing it right. The idiots in charge couldn't even figure out how to hand out CERB right, and that was a far less ambitious plan, which would have made a wonderful way to introduce UBI.
If you recall I actually called for it to be a universal handout, because I didn't think the government would be able to create a fair plan.

If it isn't going to be fair, at least make it equal.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Also interesting, Mark Carney (head of the Bank of Canada during the financial crisis, and then the head of the Bank of England) strongly endorsed the Liberal Party.


Maybe he is being offered a well paying position if they win a majority election that we are not aware of.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

newfoundlander61 said:


> Maybe he is being offered a well paying position if they win a majority election that we are not aware of.


Or Carney has gone all in on Green and the Great reset and thinks that the Liberals will hand him and his friends piles of money.

When I say hand them money I think that Trudeau will likely shy away from directly handing them a billion dollars (that didnt' work out well last time)
But he'll push forward regulations that force everyone else to give them money.


----------



## bigmoneytalks (Oct 3, 2014)

I can't believe I'm saying this but moving to America is becoming more attractive. I am tired of this government.


----------



## Thal81 (Sep 5, 2017)

The Liberals won't be there forever, though I wish there was a viable opposition, which is a problem for the upcoming elections.

I've been on the fence about UBI. I can see the pros, like reforming our convoluted social net, yet I think the pandemic has proven that lazy people will live off handouts if they're allowed to. And when that's not enough, they will beg for more.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Thal81 said:


> The Liberals won't be there forever, though I wish there was a viable opposition, which is a problem for the upcoming elections.
> 
> I've been on the fence about UBI. I can see the pros, like reforming our convoluted social net, yet I think the pandemic has proven that lazy people will live off handouts if they're allowed to. And when that's not enough, they will beg for more.


Which will lead to getting more benefits, until we're all poor, or the system collapses and we have a failed state.
But don't worry, the elites will take care of themselves and be fine.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Fisher said:


> Isn't current welfare system not good enough? If UBI come online, how long can we sustain it??? The government is already so loaded with debt and it is only increases.
> 
> I really don't understand this world now.
> Everyone is borrowing credit, from all levels of governments to individual citizens.
> ...


Don't get too excited. This is just a policy resolution of the party membership. It means literally nothing. If it did, we would have had pharmacare 20 years ago!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Which will lead to getting more benefits, until we're all poor, or the system collapses and we have a failed state.
> But don't worry, the elites will take care of themselves and be fine.


The perhaps shocking thing is that the UBI experiments that have been conducted thus far haven't resulted in societal collapse. People got healthier, earned more market income, became more educated etc.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> The perhaps shocking thing is that the UBI experiments that have been conducted thus far haven't resulted in societal collapse. People got healthier, earned more market income, became more educated etc.


Really I didn't know they had any good UBI experiments.
The one in Ontario for example was specifically chosen massive income hike, then compared to those who got less than welfare.
Guess what someone getting 2.5x in welfare (or 2x as a couple) will do better than the person just getting straight welfare. 
Also the Ontario study was a textbook example of sampling bias. They specifically chose people who'd make the results "look good".

So you take a bunch of people who are likely to do good, increase their welfare payments by double or more, and improve the clawback options.

That's great, and true. I do think UBI is better than welfare, the problem is there are many people who'd rather sit on welfare, or CERB than go to work, it's bad for them, it's bad for the economy.

Lefty politicians LOVE poverty traps, they give them a captive voter pool. 

Before we start with UBI, I'd like to see.
1. Fix the clawbacks on current benefits (welfare, EI, disability, retirement etc)
2. fix the non cash clawbacks. medication coverage is a huge one.

But they won't fix those, because they're expensive, and won't lock in the voter pool like UBI will.

Also tax freedom day is already in June, and we've just taken on multi generational debt. Paying people to stop working isn't going to be good.
This is just so perfect, I wonder if there is a foreign actor trying to destroy the economy through wealth redistribution.


----------



## Bananatron (Jan 18, 2021)

andrewf said:


> The perhaps shocking thing is that the UBI experiments that have been conducted thus far haven't resulted in societal collapse. People got healthier, earned more market income, became more educated etc.


This is going to sound dumb, but I guess I don't.. . believe..... the results of those experiments?

I just can't accept that by disincentifying work, that _no one_ would take advantage of it and work less. I think it would be a nice kick in the *** for Canada's already thriving fentanyl industry.


----------



## rl1983 (Jun 17, 2015)

andrewf said:


> The perhaps shocking thing is that the UBI experiments that have been conducted thus far haven't resulted in societal collapse. People got healthier, earned more market income, became more educated etc.


They were very small experiments at best. I'm willing to bet this would cause hyperinflation to happen the moment its introduced, seriously reducing any benefit of collecting UBI.

I recall here in BC when Christy Clark announced a program to help new first time home buyers, with a government loan up to $30K for a down-payment. Houses for sale went up in price by $30K the next day. Would be expecting this to happen on the larger scale under UBI.

Otherwise I'd be for it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Bananatron said:


> This is going to sound dumb, but I guess I don't.. . believe..... the results of those experiments?
> 
> I just can't accept that by disincentifying work, that _no one_ would take advantage of it and work less. I think it would be a nice kick in the *** for Canada's already thriving fentanyl industry.


Well in Ontario, they specifically chose people who were likely to act in a certain way.
Then they gave them 2k/month, with very little clawbacks.

Look at the "success cases" they promoted.

People who dropped out of school because of lack of money. People working low paying jobs.
You take someone working part time at Tim hortons and give them another $1500month in addition to their job, of course they'll be happy. 

Do you think that person is going to go, switch to 40 hours a week, for only a small increase in income? If you do, you're delusional.

That study, was set up to to provide the politically desired result. From the amounts given, to the people they selected, and even the areas they selected, it was a fraudulent study start to finish.
I don't blame the researchers, this type of political research is well funded.


----------



## Bananatron (Jan 18, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> Well in Ontario, they specifically chose people who were likely to act in a certain way.
> Then they gave them 2k/month, with very little clawbacks.
> 
> Look at the "success cases" they promoted.
> ...


I mean, wouldn't even knowing that you're taking part in a study that promotes a social program, skew the results in itself? Of course people are going to act differently when they're being observed.

You want to study UBI? Take a look at CERB. My tenant hasn't worked an hour in the past year.


----------



## scorpion_ca (Nov 3, 2014)

I would quit my six figure salary job and get the UBI that would cover my expenses. Getting tired of paying for others who don't contribute to the society. Why not join the freeloaders party?

I was speaking with one of my acquaintances yesterday who works for a non profit organization. His team has filed around 850 to 900 tax returns of low income people this season in AB. Almost everyone in the household regardless of the age and income received CERB and have been receiving CRB. Even kids are getting the CERB/CRB. This liberal has became a joke even though I voted for them previously.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Before we start with UBI, I'd like to see.
> 1. Fix the clawbacks on current benefits (welfare, EI, disability, retirement etc)
> 2. fix the non cash clawbacks. medication coverage is a huge one.


This is basically UBI. The main difference between UBI and welfare is the clawbacks. We agree that clawbacks are a poverty trap.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Bananatron said:


> This is going to sound dumb, but I guess I don't.. . believe..... the results of those experiments?
> 
> I just can't accept that by disincentifying work, that _no one_ would take advantage of it and work less. I think it would be a nice kick in the *** for Canada's already thriving fentanyl industry.


People like having nice things and providing for their family. Why don't you stop working as soon as you have $20k in annual income?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> People like having nice things and providing for their family. Why don't you stop working as soon as you have $20k in annual income?


I want nicer things, but I actually know a guy who worked about 16hrs/$300/wk because he liked having time off.
For him UBI at $16kyr (Ontario trial rate) would be just fine.

But honestly lets look at my lifestyle today, if I didn't need a job, I'd live in a cheaper city, I'd go down to one car.
Maybe my number isn't $20k, but $40k, I'm there. Right now my money pays for the bigger city items, car, daycare and saving.
Cut that out, and not have to save for the future, I could cash out RRSP, pay the mortgage and chill.

Hey when I was on severance (which they would claw back if I got a job) I didn't look as hard, when that money dried up, I looked harder.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> People who dropped out of school because of lack of money. People working low paying jobs.
> You take someone working part time at Tim hortons and give them another $1500month in addition to their job, of course they'll be happy.
> 
> Do you think that person is going to go, switch to 40 hours a week, for only a small increase in income? If you do, you're delusional.


Maybe you're not thinking about the mechanisms. Maybe a bit more income gives them the means to look for more gainful employment that might require access to a car. Maybe it helps them pay for child care.

Much like homelessness, it might be more useful to think of people as 'experiencing poverty' rather than being 'poor'. Welfare traps people in poverty through punitive clawbacks. UBI would not have the same barriers to work to allow people to escape a rough patch.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I want nicer things, but I actually know a guy who worked about 16hrs/$300/wk because he liked having time off.
> For him UBI at $16kyr (Ontario trial rate) would be just fine.
> 
> But honestly lets look at my lifestyle today, if I didn't need a job, I'd live in a cheaper city, I'd go down to one car.
> ...


This is more a debate about the level of income support. $20k is probably high, when the median Canadian income is around $44k. Ontario works will give an individual $7k per year and require them not to work. I think going to $7k and allowing them to work would be a huge win.


----------



## Fain (Oct 11, 2009)

andrewf said:


> The perhaps shocking thing is that the UBI experiments that have been conducted thus far haven't resulted in societal collapse. People got healthier, earned more market income, became more educated etc.


100%. None of those doomsday forecasts came to fruition and data is encouraging so far. I would vote for this along with Universal Pharmacare.


----------



## spiritwalker2222 (Nov 7, 2017)

Where can one find details to the Liberals UBI plan? All I see is vague statements, that mean nothing.


----------



## Karlhungus (Oct 4, 2013)

james4beach said:


> And neither do Albertans! The province never charged any meaningful royalties. Instead they let these giant companies (and foreigners) drain all the resources & wealth out of the oil sands.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did you forget when the NDP were in power in AB? First course of action was to do a royalty review (at the worst possible time) and after the review the NDP determined that the royalty rates were fair from a global standpoint. You'd think the NDP out of anyone would jack rates if they could...


----------



## Bananatron (Jan 18, 2021)

andrewf said:


> People like having nice things and providing for their family. Why don't you stop working as soon as you have $20k in annual income?


I know lots of seasonal workers that do just enough to qualify for pogey.

Having the ability to buy nice things is great but it doesn't compare to the freedom to go ice fishing and drink whiskey all winter.

I'm sure these folks wouldn't work at all if they didn't need to get the minimum hours in the summer in order to qualify.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Liberals had pledged to raise the OAS for people over 70 in the last election, but got busy with COVID.

The plan was to increase OAS by 10%.....which is $65 a month more for those on full benefits.

If this indicates the amount of UBI contemplated, some people are going to be greatly disappointed with how low it would be.

I agree with Andrew that replacing basic welfare with UBI and allowing people to work and go to school would be a good start. There are some other poverty trap and costly programs that could be included as well to reduce administration costs for all these programs.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Fain said:


> 100%. None of those doomsday forecasts came to fruition and data is encouraging so far. I would vote for this along with Universal Pharmacare.


What data?

I'm not aware of any proper studies.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The Liberals had pledged to raise the OAS for people over 70 in the last election, but got busy with COVID.
> 
> The plan was to increase OAS by 10%.....which is $65 a month more for those on full benefits.
> 
> ...


I think we mostly agree that they should immediately fix poverty traps.
But they won't, it's not a vote getter.

It's actually quite disappointing, we could make real progress moving forward on issues that are scientifically valid, workable, and would get widespread support.
Instead they seem to want to politicize and create a fight out of these proposals.

We all agree that poverty traps are bad, and the complexity of the various government support programs is wasteful, inefficient and has gaps, and have insufficient supports to actually help people.

I think that welfare/disability program streamlining + anti-povertytrap measures would enjoy wide support.
But calling it UBI brings out harsh opposition, and equally aggressive support. It's actually counterproductive to the goal of helping people.

Heck the lefties freaked when Mike Harris tried to integrate mental health and addiction support into his anti-poverty strategy, despite those being two very significant factors in chronic poverty.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Karlhungus said:


> Did you forget when the NDP were in power in AB? First course of action was to do a royalty review (at the worst possible time) and after the review the NDP determined that the royalty rates were fair from a global standpoint. You'd think the NDP out of anyone would jack rates if they could...


It was just more silly trolling by an anti Albertan...not worth responding Karl.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Karlhungus said:


> Did you forget when the NDP were in power in AB? First course of action was to do a royalty review (at the worst possible time) and after the review the NDP determined that the royalty rates were fair from a global standpoint. You'd think the NDP out of anyone would jack rates if they could...


Actually, the NDP did a royalty review in 2017 and royalties were grandfathered for 10 years for existing projects.

New projects have a different royalty regime.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/alberta-royalty-oilpatch-oilsands-1.3905075



After the NDP were defeated, Jason Kenney lowered corporate taxes, which cost the Alberta government billions in revenue and did nothing to create new jobs. Conservatives continually try to prove lower corporate tax rates create jobs but that policy never has and never will.

It is demand for products that creates jobs.......not corporate tax rates.

Trudeau has been Alberta's pal since he was elected . 

He spent billions on a pipeline and cleaning up abandoned oil wells.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Actually, the NDP did a royalty review in 2017 and royalties were grandfathered for 10 years for existing projects.
> 
> New projects have a different royalty regime.
> 
> ...


The royalties are nice, but really it's just hiking taxes ever higher.

I'd rather cut royalties, pump the oil.
More jobs = more taxes
More profits = more taxes.


----------



## Karlhungus (Oct 4, 2013)

sags said:


> Actually, the NDP did a royalty review in 2017 and royalties were grandfathered for 10 years for existing projects.
> 
> New projects have a different royalty regime.
> 
> ...


What are you going on about? Your link proves my point. The NDP did not change royalty rates after the review. As for the rest of your rambling, im not sure what it has to do with royalty rates.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder said:


> It was just more silly trolling by an anti Albertan...not worth responding Karl.


Can't believe you have the audacity to call anyone else a troll, after all the nasty and insulting material you've posted around here.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

bigmoneytalks said:


> I can't believe I'm saying this but moving to America is becoming more attractive. I am tired of this government.


There's no time like the present.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> The royalties are nice, but really it's just hiking taxes ever higher.
> 
> I'd rather cut royalties, pump the oil.
> More jobs = more taxes
> More profits = more taxes.


Differences between Alberta approach (poor to poor in a matter of years like a lottery winner) vs Norway (generational wealth).


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Differences between Alberta approach (poor to poor in a matter of years like a lottery winner) vs Norway (generational wealth).


Try to convince a Canadian to save for the future, when you can just pile the debt on our kids.
Canadians elect politicians based on their promise to hand out more money.

Chretien/Martin pulled off political magic to get the public to accept it back then.
I don't think we have that kind of leadership at the federal level these days.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I feel as though I am in a box. Not pleased with the current Government but I have little faith or confidence in the Opposition Party. At least with the Liberals I can understand the platform Not certain if it will be followed.

I have no sense that the Opposition even has a cohesive strategy and platform other that simply bashing the Government. In the absence of that, it is hardly enough for me even consider voting for the Opposition. Might have to hold my nose and vote for the incumbents. Not in the least interested in the use law and order bs, help the middle class bs, end poverty bs. That sales pitch is yesterdays stale bread.

We did have one pleasant surprise on our 2020 tax returns this year. We had a $735. credit towards our tax payable attributable to the return of carbon tax. That is for two of us. It would have been more if we had dependent children. Not certain who to thank...Trudeau Government who implemented it or Kenney who did nothing on climate change...thus our credit.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

As a single person, born in Canada, who has no kids, is not poor but also not rich, and doesn't own a house... there isn't any party that represents me. I likely won't even bother voting in the next election.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Differences between Alberta approach (poor to poor in a matter of years like a lottery winner) vs Norway (generational wealth).



I didn't see Norway paying the rest of Scandinavia 650 billion ...or Norway being refused pipeline access to every coast, etc etc...cheap thoughtless comparison trying to strengthen predetermined bias. Nothing new.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

nathan79 said:


> As a single person, born in Canada, who has no kids, is not poor but also not rich, and doesn't own a house... there isn't any party that represents me. I likely won't even bother voting in the next election.


IMO your apathy is success, things are good enough that you don't need to care.
I honestly was always a bit interested in politics, but when I started seeing how things work, and how toxic policies and unfairness run rampant, it became important.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

While Alberta contributed $600 billion in equalization payments, Ontario contributed $800 billion.

Alberta's politicians need to stop dwelling in the past and mulling over past grievances.

They need to work towards a different economy and future.

The Notley NDP government recognized the need to diversify and end the continued economic reliance on fossil fuels, but lost the election to Jason Kenney.

Given Kenney's current poll numbers it looks like Albertans realize they made a mistake voting for Kenney and are getting ready to vote the NDP back into office.









Alberta NDP would win provincial election if held today: poll


LETHBRIDGE, AB - A new survey from the Angus Reid Institute shows that support for the United Conservative Par...




lethbridgenewsnow.com


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I would suggest that if a person's personal beliefs don't align well with a government that wins easy re-election by the general population, they will be perennially unhappy with the end results.

Such is life in a democracy.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> While Alberta contributed $600 billion in equalization payments, Ontario contributed $800 billion.


Exactly, that's why they're furious!

They're paying so much more than Ontario, much of it to subsidize Quebec, which is actively sabotaging their economy.

Really Quebec should be an economic powerhouse, but bad policy holds them back.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Maybe the people who are furious should do some research on equalization transfers.

_Alberta’s large deficit also does not entitle it to equalization. *After all, Alberta chooses to have low taxes and high spending*, made possible by the luxury of high oil and gas royalties, which have now been reduced. Alberta’s politicians need to come to grips with the fiscal reality, not look to Ottawa for help. *And while Quebec may be running a surplus, its taxes are double those in Alberta. *_





__





Why equalization is not unfair to Alberta | The School of Public Policy







www.policyschool.ca


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eder said:


> I didn't see Norway paying the rest of Scandinavia 650 billion ...or Norway being refused pipeline access to every coast, etc etc...cheap thoughtless comparison trying to strengthen predetermined bias. Nothing new.


Alberta ran its economy very hot with low taxes and resource revenues paying for current consumption. It all got blown on big trucks and toys (or up workers noses in camps). Had Alberta banked more of the resource wealth into financial assets, they would have less toys but also less money sent to Quebec. Having a financial endowment would make Alberta a permanently attractive place to live rather than just boom/bust--looking like terminal bust for now.


----------



## Fain (Oct 11, 2009)

Eder said:


> I didn't see Norway paying the rest of Scandinavia 650 billion ...or Norway being refused pipeline access to every coast, etc etc...cheap thoughtless comparison trying to strengthen predetermined bias. Nothing new.


Alberta isn't its own fiefdom. Lots of countries have Oil producing regions support the tax Revenues of the rest of the country, Iraq, Russia, Scotland, Saudi. Alberta should take steps to diversify. There's always next election for disappointed Alberta voters.


----------



## Fain (Oct 11, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Alberta ran its economy very hot with low taxes and resource revenues paying for current consumption. It all got blown on big trucks and toys (or up workers noses in camps). Had Alberta banked more of the resource wealth into financial assets, they would have less toys but also less money sent to Quebec. Having a financial endowment would make Alberta a permanently attractive place to live rather than just boom/bust--looking like terminal bust for now.


100% they should have created a fund with a lot of the royalty money received.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Fain said:


> Alberta isn't its own fiefdom. Lots of countries have Oil producing regions support the tax Revenues of the rest of the country, Iraq, Russia, Scotland, Saudi. Alberta should take steps to diversify. There's always next election for disappointed Alberta voters.


 I agree with you...I don't agree comparing Norway to a province. Its as unfair as comparing Texas Covid response to Canada's.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Fain said:


> 100% they should have created a fund with a lot of the royalty money received.




Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund2020-21 Second Quarter September 30, 2020



https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/ee01fe55-ac45-4bc9-b46e-34259ae6e3b9/resource/4f0084c9-775a-4457-becd-7f9ebfe5a1a7/download/2020-21-2nd-quarter-report-heritage-fund.pdf



Now lets see any other province's fund?


----------



## Fain (Oct 11, 2009)

Eder said:


> Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund2020-21 Second Quarter September 30, 2020
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Doesn't seem like the fund made an impact in the standard of living or diversified their reliance away from oil.


----------



## Fain (Oct 11, 2009)

Eder said:


> I agree with you...I don't agree comparing Norway to a province. Its as unfair as comparing Texas Covid response to Canada's.


Their government will take steps to diversify their economy or they won't. I'm sure they'll find another industry. So far they've not had luck in convincing neighbors to build pipelines.


----------



## Karlhungus (Oct 4, 2013)

sags said:


> While Alberta contributed $600 billion in equalization payments, Ontario contributed $800 billion.
> 
> Alberta's politicians need to stop dwelling in the past and mulling over past grievances.
> 
> ...


How did the NDP diversify exactly ?


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

Eder said:


> Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund2020-21 Second Quarter September 30, 2020
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here you go: The Generations Fund | Ministère des Finances


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

off.by.10 said:


> Here you go: The Generations Fund | Ministère des Finances


"The Generations Fund is a fund dedicated exclusively to repaying Québec’s debt."

Massive debt is the exact opposite of a wealth fund.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

That fund sounds like Quebec renamed a portion of their general revenue to pretend they are addressing their debt.


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

Eder said:


> That fund sounds like Quebec renamed a portion of their general revenue to pretend they are addressing their debt.


That's pretty much what is is, yes. Although as long as the returns are better than the cost of borrowing, we at least come out ahead. And the debt isn't as bad as it once was.

It's politician rhetoric. A bit like "not increasing taxes" but adding new fees instead. Or "not running a deficit" but borrowing for infrastructure. You learn to get over it and look at the global picture.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think it is prudent for countries to have SWFs, even if they have debt. If you think of CPP as a sovereign wealth fund, it has created an enormous amount of value over the past couple decades. I would be quite supportive of the government using the financial resources available to it (low cost borrowing) and using that to build a financial endowment similar to CPP. I would almost prioritize it over repaying debt as a gift to future generations. I would wan it to be structured similar to CPP to minimize to opportunity for political meddling in asset allocation. Government debt provides a useful function for the economy providing low/no risk rate of return for savers.

Norway's fund has USD$1.3T in assets and returned 6.3% since 1998.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

A Norway model of socialism in Canada would quickly be the end of confederation. Looks like we may be on the way.


----------



## robfordlives (Sep 18, 2014)

In the discussion around UBI and previous experiments, how can they be deemed successful? One of the components of UBI is that it eliminates duplication of programs and safety nets so they have only tested one side of it with obvious outcomes. In my opinion you cannot actually implement UBI without massive layoffs (hundreds of thousands of social workers for example) hence why it is impossible to test on a small scale

I do many tax returns on the side and there are so many families with middle of the road income but multiple kids collecting $2000 or more tax free monthly from the child tax benefit that they really do not pay any taxes at all when factored in to the total amount. I would argue for these families they already have a form of UBI. 

I don't understand why someone who has no dependents needs a perpetual money tree unless they are disabled and in those cases we should increase their support. Sign me up with others in that I would quit my high stress corporate job, structure my investments so they kick off no interest or dividends and I would live off the UBI until I die and not touch my $1.8Million saved to this point.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Hopefully like CPP the UBI can be forwarded to Mexico. That would prove popular. I might even pretend to rejoin the work force.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If people wanted to quit work and live off a small government allowance they could be doing it already.

Most people wouldn't be content with a "social assistance" benefit lifestyle though.

Lining up at the food bank because the rent takes all your money kind of sucks.

Not being able to go anywhere or do anything isn't much fun either.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eder said:


> A Norway model of socialism in Canada would quickly be the end of confederation. Looks like we may be on the way.


Norway-style socialism is completely unrelated to SWFs. Saudi has a big SWF and is, I would say, rather conservative!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eder said:


> Hopefully like CPP the UBI can be forwarded to Mexico. That would prove popular. I might even pretend to rejoin the work force.


You already get your UBI. It's called OAS, and it's far more generous than any UBI contemplated for non-retirees (in terms of clawback). I call it welfare for old people, except you are still allowed to work and collect OAS.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I don't already get OAS. Some of us retire young. UBI would be open to abuse just like CERB.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Given the excesses of CERB, I doubt that the government would prevent similar problems with UBI. If you add up all the handouts including OAS, GIS and disability payments, we could come up with a unified scheme that did not allow abuses that are there today. But it would need a different government! Maybe a body like CPP but with strict pay-for-performance rules. All requests for handouts would go through it, including all the current waste handed out indescriminantly by our rulers.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I like the idea of having the CPPIB administer a "social benefits" type of fund that includes everything as much as possible from social benefits to OAS/GIS, EI and WSIB. Employers and employees can continue to contribute as they currently do and each person has a "personal account".

People could draw from their personal account without a bunch of qualifications, investigations and caseworkers. There would have to be special circumstances for people who are disabled and unable to work and other situations but we can figure that out.

Let the fund grow via investments and keep government hands off.

"Self sustaining" should be the goal of as much government spending as possible in the future.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The CPP is such a huge success, I don't know why we haven't copied the idea in other avenues of government spending.

Look at how that fund has increased beyond what was forecast. It could be debated if the fund should pay higher benefits, but there is no doubt it is sustainable and provides one part of people's retirement and many don't even think that they are "saving" every week. I retired at age 55 and collected CPP at age 60. Even at the reduced rate, I collect 20% of my working income from it.

It just comes off their paycheque........like EI, union dues, and everything else.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The CPP is such a huge success, I don't know why we haven't copied the idea in other avenues of government spending.
> 
> Look at how that fund has increased beyond what was forecast. It could be debated if the fund should pay higher benefits, but there is no doubt it is sustainable and provides one part of people's retirement and many don't even think about "saving" every week. I retired at age 55 and collected CPP at age 60. Even at the reduced rate, I collect 15% of my working income from it.
> 
> It just comes off their paycheque........like EI, union dues, and everything else.


What is your definition of a huge success?

CPP is an investment plan that is unfair and provides only decent returns. It's relatively good, but I wouldn't voluntarily increase my participation rate.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think you fit well into the "negative" Conservative mind set.

Everything is terrible if it moves the country forward.

Better to go back in time and pump oil, strip mine for coal, pretend environmental damage and climate change doesn't exist, cut taxes for the wealthy, throw everyone in prison, defend brutal police tactics, deny there is any racism, despise welfare benefits, and generally dislike any hint of progression forward as a country.

I think the 1970s are calling you and want you back.........


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I think you fit well into the "negative" Conservative mind set.
> 
> Everything is terrible if it moves the country forward.
> 
> ...


Actually I think it's terrible if it moves the country backwards.
It's because I'm a liberal and conservative.
Nope, I don't generally like strip mining, though because I understand science I don't mind coal.
I am critically concerned about environmental damage, but much less so about climate change.

I want to cut taxes for the poor, not the wealthy.
I also want to cut the poverty traps that keep poor from becoming wealthy.

I want to throw dangerous criminals in prison.
I oppose brutal police tactics, I want them to spend more time training, I've posted I think that they should have regular de-escalation refreshers etc at least a few days a month.

There is lots of racism, we should fight it. I'm unequivocal on this.

I want working welfare systems that aren't poverty traps, and actually work to help people. I also want them to be fair, remember I was the one calling for CERB to be Universal.

I'm all for progress, and totally against the regressive policies being pushed by the Liberals & NDP. They are literally promoting racial and sexual discrimination. I can't think of any more regressive mainstream policy than systematic racism.


I think the problem with my "negative" mindset, is I have a broader understanding of UBI, and it's consequences, both positive and negative. I think the negative impacts shouldn't be ignored, instead they should be understood and addressed or acknowledged.
Really every policy is going to have trade offs, I can't think of any policy without at least some negative impacts. Lets be honest and admit UBI isn't perfect and will have problems, and IF we go forward, we should do our best to minimize them.

If you can't accept that UBI will have negative consequences.. there's no point talking about it, because you're being willfully ignorant.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> CPP is an investment plan that is unfair and provides only decent returns. It's relatively good, but I wouldn't voluntarily increase my participation rate.


Just curious, why do you consider CPP unfair?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Spudd said:


> Just curious, why do you consider CPP unfair?


It is possible that 2 people, the same age, could contribute different amounts yet end up with the same benefit.
If you contribute more (time adjusted) you should get a bigger benefit.
Also if you die, your heirs don't get your contributions back.
I think it is unfair that you contribute $5k/yr for 40 years, die and your family gets $2500, the government seizes the rest.
That's not fair.


It's really a forced & partially shared group savings plan, it's far better than a simple national wealth redistribution plan like EI.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> It is possible that 2 people, the same age, could contribute different amounts yet end up with the same benefit.
> If you contribute more (time adjusted) you should get a bigger benefit.
> Also if you die, your heirs don't get your contributions back.
> I think it is unfair that you contribute $5k/yr for 40 years, die and your family gets $2500, the government seizes the rest.
> That's not fair.


True enough, I suppose. However, the same rules are applied to all, so it's fair from that respect.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Spudd said:


> True enough, I suppose. However, the same rules are applied to all, so it's fair from that respect.


They're taking money, and created rules so they don't have to give it back. 
That might be "in accordance with the rules", but it isn't fair or just IMO.

But I'm a liberal, not a socialist


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Spudd said:


> Just curious, why do you consider CPP unfair?


In some ways, CPP is unfair because it strongly favours women by allowing them to drop years out of the labour market as well as collect benefits for longer (longer life expectancy).


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> It is possible that 2 people, the same age, could contribute different amounts yet end up with the same benefit.
> If you contribute more (time adjusted) you should get a bigger benefit.
> Also if you die, your heirs don't get your contributions back.
> I think it is unfair that you contribute $5k/yr for 40 years, die and your family gets $2500, the government seizes the rest.
> ...


This is just defined benefit pensions in general. You take the good with the bad.


----------

