Alberta
If I was a Politician I would vote me a raise to cover all these new costs.
If I was a politician, I’d vote myself a top up because the Provincial government is eroding my net income with every new step they take.
Insurance, electricity, education, health care, bussing, licensing, and the list grows every day.
What difference would it make, being a politician? The Federal government used to subsidize the taxes on 1/3 of politicians’ pay and when they announced the end of the subsidy to come into effect, 18 months later, many municipal politicians voted themselves raises to top up their net pay.
Similarly, the Provincial government is announcing removal of caps, subsidies, programs, eligibilities and funding cuts so should we not all get raises?
Alberta has been losing jobs at the rate of 1 job lost every 8 minutes. Will unemployment cover their net pay, or should we top them up too?
I know Alberta is going through a downturn, a very protracted downturn. But, why is it that the non-politicians feel the most pain? A senior loses coverage on medication associated with cancer related issues but our Premier can spend $11,000 for 3 rooms for 3 nights in a Texas hotel, part and parcel of incurring about $34,000 in total expenses.
Locally when a city councillor explained why he was voting himself a hefty raise, said that council brought events like the CFR to Red Deer. The Westerner is now in such bad financial straits that city had to take over. They are renegotiating that deal. The board that made the decisions, leading to the downfall, is still in place but dozens of employees, who only did their jobs, were laid off.
If I was a politician, I would vote myself a raise then donate to charities who will help non-politicians suffering from political down loading, off loading, cuts, denials and other unwarranted decisions.
Hint…..
Click to read more of Garfield’s opinions.
Alberta
Alberta government should eliminate corporate welfare to generate benefits for Albertans
From the Fraser Institute
By Spencer Gudewill and Tegan Hill
Last November, Premier Danielle Smith announced that her government will give up to $1.8 billion in subsidies to Dow Chemicals, which plans to expand a petrochemical project northeast of Edmonton. In other words, $1.8 billion in corporate welfare.
And this is just one example of corporate welfare paid for by Albertans.
According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, from 2007 to 2021, the latest year of available data, the Alberta government spent $31.0 billion (inflation-adjusted) on subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) to select firms and businesses, purportedly to help Albertans. And this number excludes other forms of government handouts such as loan guarantees, direct investment and regulatory or tax privileges for particular firms and industries. So the total cost of corporate welfare in Alberta is likely much higher.
Why should Albertans care?
First off, there’s little evidence that corporate welfare generates widespread economic growth or jobs. In fact, evidence suggests the contrary—that subsidies result in a net loss to the economy by shifting resources to less productive sectors or locations (what economists call the “substitution effect”) and/or by keeping businesses alive that are otherwise economically unviable (i.e. “zombie companies”). This misallocation of resources leads to a less efficient, less productive and less prosperous Alberta.
And there are other costs to corporate welfare.
For example, between 2007 and 2019 (the latest year of pre-COVID data), every year on average the Alberta government spent 35 cents (out of every dollar of business income tax revenue it collected) on corporate welfare. Given that workers bear the burden of more than half of any business income tax indirectly through lower wages, if the government reduced business income taxes rather than spend money on corporate welfare, workers could benefit.
Moreover, Premier Smith failed in last month’s provincial budget to provide promised personal income tax relief and create a lower tax bracket for incomes below $60,000 to provide $760 in annual savings for Albertans (on average). But in 2019, after adjusting for inflation, the Alberta government spent $2.4 billion on corporate welfare—equivalent to $1,034 per tax filer. Clearly, instead of subsidizing select businesses, the Smith government could have kept its promise to lower personal income taxes.
Finally, there’s the Heritage Fund, which the Alberta government created almost 50 years ago to save a share of the province’s resource wealth for the future.
In her 2024 budget, Premier Smith earmarked $2.0 billion for the Heritage Fund this fiscal year—almost the exact amount spent on corporate welfare each year (on average) between 2007 and 2019. Put another way, the Alberta government could save twice as much in the Heritage Fund in 2024/25 if it ended corporate welfare, which would help Premier Smith keep her promise to build up the Heritage Fund to between $250 billion and $400 billion by 2050.
By eliminating corporate welfare, the Smith government can create fiscal room to reduce personal and business income taxes, or save more in the Heritage Fund. Any of these options will benefit Albertans far more than wasteful billion-dollar subsidies to favoured firms.
Authors:
Alberta
Official statement from Premier Danielle Smith and Energy Minister Brian Jean on the start-up of the Trans Mountain Pipeline
-
Education13 hours ago
Support a young reader through the Tim Hortons Smile Cookie campaign
-
Automotive1 day ago
Vehicle monitoring software could soon use ‘kill switch’ under the guise of ‘safety’
-
Business2 days ago
When politicians gamble, taxpayers lose
-
Addictions1 day ago
City of Toronto asks Trudeau gov’t to decriminalize hard drugs despite policy’s failure in BC
-
Opinion1 day ago
Climate Murder? Media Picks Up Novel Legal Theory Suggesting Big Oil Is Homicidal
-
Environment2 days ago
Climate Alarmists Want To Fight The Sun. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day ago
It Gets Late Early These Days: Time To Bounce Biden & Trudeau?
-
Economy1 day ago
Ottawa’s homebuilding plans might discourage much-needed business investment