Opinion
The city is expending great capital to accommodate a developer while abandoning taxpayers,
The debate over proceeding with the Molly Bannister Extension has raised many questions, left many with a feeling of abandonment.
The recent council meeting after decades of consultation, meetings, polls, requests for input, and with the result always being approximately 57% +/- in favor and 43% +/- against, it was brought as “too close to call”, “even split” requiring more input.
Quebec would have separated if it had achieved 50%+1 votes, and the consensus appears to be if the public had been at any time 50%+1 against the bridge, city council would have jumped at it.
Some have stated that they are against the bridge, no matter what. The poor taxpayer has no chance with these politicians. I was at first against the bridge ten years ago, but I have seen the costs and the damage to many lives, especially along 32 St.
The environment has been used as a scapegoat more often than not. Selective environmental concerns, is how I would put it. Where was the environmental concerns when we could have had the whole parcel on condition on keeping it a park or garden? Nowhere to be found.
Where was the environmental concerns in regard to the North-Connector bridge? Nowhere.
The plan would see 700 houses with the bridge or 750 houses without the bridge. How does adding 50 more houses backing onto Piper Creek increase park space?
We are heading into a public meeting where the council seems determined to abolish the bridge. A developer has lots of money and has an opportunity to make millions more. We are just homeowners and taxpayers trying to protect our homes, enjoy our lives and have everything to lose.
The biggest issue is the sense of abandonment by city hall. They seem to be going to extreme measures for this developer. Widening streets, Traffic circles. Pedestrian Bridge over 19 St. Carving up Sunnybrook to make a second entrance/exit point.
Under the pretense of environmentalism; making thousands of people per day drive an extra 4 kilometres, for generations to come. Burning fuel, and emitting carbons into the atmosphere so hikers, bikers and skaters don’t have to use a crosswalk.
How do we, average people, compete with a developer who socializes with planners and politicians? It is obvious that we will lose at the Public Hearing on October 26, or they will move another motion and extend the game.
I think they are counting on voter or taxpayer fatigue. Don’t count on it.
There is a municipal election and we might find it necessary to find candidates who “truly” represent the taxpayers.
Why do they keep attacking our homes? We don’t want millions in profits. We just want to enjoy our homes.
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
If the Smith government reversed the 2015 personal income tax rate increases and instituted a flat 8 per cent tax rate, it would help restore Alberta’s position as one of the lowest tax jurisdictions in North America
Over the past decade, Alberta has gone from one of the most competitive tax jurisdictions in North America to one of the least competitive. And while the Smith government has promised to create a new 8 per cent tax bracket on personal income below $60,000, it simply isn’t enough to restore Alberta’s tax competitiveness. Instead, the government should institute a flat 8 per cent personal and business income tax rate.
Back in 2014, Alberta had a single 10 per cent personal and business income tax rate. As a result, it had the lowest top combined (federal and provincial/state) personal income tax rate and business income tax rate in North America. This was a powerful advantage that made Alberta an attractive place to start a business, work and invest.
In 2015, however, the provincial NDP government replaced the single personal income tax rate of 10 percent with a five-bracket system including a top rate of 15 per cent, so today Alberta has the 10th-highest personal income tax rate in North America. The government also increased Alberta’s 10 per cent business income tax rate to 12 per cent (although in 2019 the Kenney government began reducing the rate to today’s 8 per cent).
If the Smith government reversed the 2015 personal income tax rate increases and instituted a flat 8 per cent tax rate, it would help restore Alberta’s position as one of the lowest tax jurisdictions in North America, all while saving Alberta taxpayers $1,573 (on average) annually.
And a truly integrated flat tax system would not only apply a uniform tax 8 per cent rate to all sources of income (including personal and business), it would eliminate tax credits, deductions and exemptions, which reduce the cost of investments in certain areas, increasing the relative cost of investment in others. As a result, resources may go to areas where they are not most productive, leading to a less efficient allocation of resources than if these tax incentives did not exist.
Put differently, tax incentives can artificially change the relative attractiveness of goods and services leading to sub-optimal allocation. A flat tax system would not only improve tax efficiency by reducing these tax-based economic distortions, it would also reduce administration costs (expenses incurred by governments due to tax collection and enforcement regulations) and compliance costs (expenses incurred by individuals and businesses to comply with tax regulations).
Finally, a flat tax system would also help avoid negative incentives that come with a progressive marginal tax system. Currently, Albertans are taxed at higher rates as their income increases, which can discourage additional work, savings and investment. A flat tax system would maintain “progressivity” as the proportion of taxes paid would still increase with income, but minimize the disincentive to work more and earn more (increasing savings and investment) because Albertans would face the same tax rate regardless of how their income increases. In sum, flat tax systems encourage stronger economic growth, higher tax revenues and a more robust economy.
To stimulate strong economic growth and leave more money in the pockets of Albertans, the Smith government should go beyond its current commitment to create a new tax bracket on income under $60,000 and institute a flat 8 per cent personal and business income tax rate.
Author:
From LifeSiteNews
By Matt Lamb
“Care work remains undervalued and underpaid. The monetary value of women’s unpaid care work globally is at least $10.8 trillion annually, three times the size of the world’s tech industry”
Stay-at-home moms, and mothers in general, are victims of “gender inequality” and “gender-based violence” because of their dedication to their children, a far-left United Nations commission claimed.
The 68th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women reportedly focused heavily on “unpaid care work,” according to journalist Kimberly Ells, writing at Mercator.
“I spent a week listening to an endless parade of events focused almost exclusively on ending poverty by eliminating ‘unpaid care work,’” Ells wrote.
“What is ‘unpaid care work,’ you might ask? It is work done in the home without specific monetary payment. Most people would call that kind of work simply being alive,” she wrote. “It could also be called running your own castle.”
The United Nations’ 2023 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals lists “unpaid care work” as something that needs to be addressed.
“But the forces that converged at the United Nations this spring called it an atrocity,” she said. “To be an ‘unpaid care worker’—especially if you’re a woman—was seen as an affront to human decency,” she said. “And because on average women worldwide do more labour in the home than men, people in UN circles call this ‘gender inequality,’ ‘gender injustice,’ and even ‘gender-based violence.’”
Ells reported that the commission members wanted taxpayer-funded daycare, an idea she pointed out has Marxist roots.
While Karl Marx is most famous for being an opponent of capitalism, he was supportive of getting women working and out of the home, as was Friedrich Engels, who continued his advocacy after Marx’s death.
“In The Family, Private Property and State, Engels reiterated Marx’s argument that women could only achieve equality when ‘both possess legally complete equality of rights,’” International Socialism previously wrote.
“‘Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry and that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society,’” an article at the communist website stated, quoting Engels.
A 2019 United Nation’s Children’s Fund news release has demanded “universal childcare,” stating, “Universal access to affordable, quality childcare from the end of parental leave until a child’s entry into the first grade of school, including before- and after-care for young children and pre-primary programs [should be provided].”
The United Nations’ entities regularly push the idea that women are victims of “unpaid care work,” backing up Ells’ reporting for Mercator.
“On average, women spend around three times more time on unpaid care and domestic work than men,” a March 7 story at UN News stated. “The gendered disparities in unpaid care work are a profound driver of inequality, restricting women’s and girls’ time and opportunities for education, decent paid work, public life, rest and leisure.”
“Care work remains undervalued and underpaid. The monetary value of women’s unpaid care work globally is at least $10.8 trillion annually, three times the size of the world’s tech industry,” the UN blog claimed.
A November 2023 report suggested “climate change” is linked to this problem.
“The gender gap in power and leadership positions remains entrenched, and, at the current rate of progress, the next generation of women will still spend on average 2.3 more hours per day on unpaid care and domestic work than men,” a September 2023 UN report warned.
Women don’t want to be out of the household full-time
However, while the UN sees women at home taking care of their children and domestic duties as a problem – and daycare as a solution – moms do not.
“Only 32% of mothers prefer full-time work,” the Institute for Family Studies wrote in 2020, summarizing other polls.
Massive government subsidies for family leave and daycare do not appear to change the numbers, according to IFS’ report.
In Ireland, for example, 61% of mothers said they prefer part-time work, while another 12% said they prefer to not work at all.
Only 23% said they want to work full-time. Yet Ireland offers 45 hours per week of subsidized childcare.
Children being raised by a stay-at-home mom has also been linked to better school performance and fewer emotional problems.
Deborah Birx Gets Her Close-Up
CDC Quietly Admits to Covid Policy Failures
Japanese study shows disturbing increase in cancer related deaths during the Covid pandemic
Conservative MP testifies that foreign agents could effectively elect Canada’s prime minister, premiers
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
Deborah Birx Gets Her Close-Up
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoWhy Are Canadian Mayors So Far Left And Out Of Touch?
-
Alberta24 hours agoCoutts Three verdict: A warning to protestors who act as liaison with police
-
Justice2 days agoOntario Court of Justice says participants must state their ‘preferred pronouns’ during introduction
-
Business2 days agoTrudeau gov’t pledges $42 million to the CBC to promote ‘independent journalism’
-
Business2 days agoCanada’s economy has stagnated despite Ottawa’s spin
-
Alberta2 days agoMaxime Bernier says it’s ‘astounding’ Alberta is ‘pushing’ COVID boosters, tells Danielle Smith to stop it
-
Alberta24 hours agoAlberta moves to protect Edmonton park from Trudeau government’s ‘diversity’ plan