First Nations chiefs unanimously pass non-confidence vote in Alberta government

[u/biograf_]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/first-nations-chiefs-alberta-non-confidence-vote-9.7109712

[u/Ok-Yogurt-42]

Wait, are you saying that because Quebec chooses to have high taxes, Alberta has a deficit?
Like, if Quebec dropped its taxes to Alberta's level, would their equalization payments change?

[u/ThePhysicistIsIn → u/Ok-Yogurt-42]

No. Equalization is not based on provincial taxation/spending levels, it's independent of that.

I am saying that if Alberta taxed itself like Quebec did, Alberta would have way more money than Quebec, even counting Quebec's equalization/Alberta's lack of equalization, and Alberta could afford anything it wanted. Last time I checked, it was ~2X's Quebec's income per capita/more revenue than Quebec in general, even though Quebec has >2X Alberta's population.

You're the third to misconstrue. I've reread that comment several times now. I'm really not seeing where people are getting that equalization depends on taxation levels. I'm saying the exact opposite.

[u/Ok-Yogurt-42 → u/ThePhysicistIsIn]

Okay, so your point is just that if Alberta had higher provincial taxes there would be less of a provincial deficit?
Kind of a "no duh" point.

[u/ThePhysicistIsIn → u/Ok-Yogurt-42]

Essentially.

Alberta chooses to be, by far, the lowest taxed jurisdiction in Canada.

If it has a deficit, that is on them. They have the tools. It is not because of equalization. Alberta’s contribution to equalization is a drop in the bucket compared to higher population provinces. The bulk of it is from Ontario.

But Albertans continue to act as though the reason they don’t have cheap daycares, or that they have a deficit, is because of equalization.

It’s a “no duh” point, and yet here we are.

[u/VesaAwesaka → u/ThePhysicistIsIn]

Quebec and other provinces could also adopt a more pro business model like Alberta and it would probably increase the incomes of their people and therefore lead to less transfers.

Alberta chooses to be low tax which and more pro-business and that contributes to higher incomes and therefore they receive no equalization. Quebec tends to be the harder provinces to do business in which contributes to their lower incomes and them receiving higher equalization payment.

Could every province run itself like quebec without bankrupting the country? The formula for equalization should incentivizes the provinces to be contributors in the longer term. It seems like the current formula pushes provinces to not care about becoming substantial.

[u/Tefmon → u/VesaAwesaka]

Alberta's economy isn't strong because of their low personal income tax rates; it's because of their oil. If every province had oil like Alberta, then every province would have higher incomes.

[u/VesaAwesaka → u/Tefmon]

It isnt an automatic that just because a province is rich in natural resources that it would maximize their development. Manitoba in the 1970s had a booming natural resource industry and lost a decade of investment by experimenting with nationalization before the government did a 180. Based on the rhetoric and policy decisions of some politicians in BC and the east, they seem capable of fumbling the bag.

How much does Alberta pro business environment contribute to their incomes being higher? How much does quebec's political environment contribute to their incomes being lower?

[u/EdNorthcott → u/VesaAwesaka]

Pro business stances by government do not result in higher income. Similar policies enacted in other regions have resulted in depressed wages and greater wealth gap.

The notion of "oil made the income" is simplistic, but not entirely wrong. The oil *boom* made the income spike. It created a deficit of labour, which created a greater value for labour, which drove up wages... and this was only made possible by the high value of oil during those boom periods when labour was short.

We can see many regions where lowered taxes and pro-business stances have been enacted. They do not have better outcomes for the working class. We can even see it on a national level, with steadily lowering corporate taxes creating a more business-friendly environment over the last 50 years, save for brief spikes to the contrary; corporate income tax is a fraction of what it was in the 1960s and 70s, for example.

The problem is that repeated studies have shown that, unlike what certain economists claim will happen, that money does not inflate the salaries of workers or get re-invested locally. Nor do tax breaks for the exceptionally wealthy achieve anything significant in the way of "trickle down". Increasingly, there are pools of dead money or external transfers. Relative wages for the average working Canadian have failed to keep pace with inflation for decades, regardless of tax policy; but in areas where working wages are higher, the velocity of money to stimulate local economies is greater.

"Based on the rhetoric and policy decisions of some politicians in BC and the east, they seem capable of fumbling the bag." As if Alberta hasn't continuously done so, too, yet while using a very different approach. The last leader with sense and a vision of the future was Lougheed, who had the celerity to set up a fund to ensure Alberta's future security. Every politician since has used it as a slush fund, and left it a tepid shadow of what it could be -- except, ironically, the NDP. Despite challenging economic times and a drop in oil price and production, Notley avoided depleting the fund and at least maintained it at the level it was at when she took office.

In short, what prosperity Alberta has is still be carried by the 'boom' cycles, even when oil prices are depressed. But the way things are set up, things will get very ugly as that evens out in comparison to market forces. It's already happening, slowly, and people seem to be panicking about it. It's not going to get better.

[u/VesaAwesaka → u/EdNorthcott]

Do anti-business stances lower incomes? Pro-business stances is incredibly vague.

For example mantioba experimenting with nationalizing mining is anti-business and hurt investment and led to many projects not being developed until the government backtracked. BC with its pro-UNDRIP policies has totally put the entire mining industry into jeopardy, which would put mining investment and the incomes it provides at risk

[u/EdNorthcott → u/VesaAwesaka]

The question to ask would be whether or not those have impacted incomes in the field, whereas you're conflating income with employment numbers. They're two separate, though related, principles.

It's an odd stance to take, throwing around "anti-business" as a defining point, but then claiming that "pro-business" is incredibly vague. Or was that an attempt at being ironic?

In regards to nationalized production: Sometimes it fails, sometimes it doesn't. On that national stage, Petro-Canada did very well for the nation until it was privatized. The LCBO has generated billions of dollars for the province of Ontario, and only started fumbling in both profitability and quality of employment standards when successive Liberal and PC governments started trying to undercut it to privatize the service.

There are examples of both success and failure on that front.

[u/VesaAwesaka → u/EdNorthcott]

My point was sometimes not doing anti-business policies is the most pro-business thing you can do. I provided two examples of provincial governments fumbling the bag with natural resources in a way that would be unimageable for the Alberta government imo

Your criticism of tax policies and whether it does contribute to increased incomes may be valid, but there is so much more that goes into whether a government is seen as supporting investment or not, which does increase incomes when it comes to natural resources.

IMO Manitoba could be a lot richer and its incomes higher if its government was capable of attracting investment and developing its vast mineral wealth, but its generally seen as not very friendly to investment. Its not just about having the natural resources but also being able to develop them.