 |
| |
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:19
|
|
Okay Asher, let's try your theory using actual numbers. This will show how mistaken you are.
quote:
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/fis...erities_eng.htm
Note: this page takes a long time to download, once it has click on link for ˇ§A breakdown of Equalization entitlementsˇ¨
quote:
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
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
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?
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:19
|
|
quote:
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 youˇ¦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 ˇ§net equalization payments.ˇ¨ 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
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:19
|
|
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?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:19
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David James
|
 |
Kingston, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:19
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-06-2002 10:22
|