Blue Alberta: One of the reasons I've heard for not eliminating health are premiums is that a significant percent are paid by companies, employes, etc. and not individuals. Until recently both my wife and I worked for American based energy companies and they, not us, paid the health premium. I don't know if this is a valid reaon or not but a lot of individuals wouldn't see a benefit (also, some low income individals pay none or reduced rates on health premiums.)
Another round of "Ralph Bucks"?
- Thread starter JonB2004
- Start date
RE: Another round of "Ral
A couple of points.
1) Anything less than 50,000 a year in Alberta is difficult to live on. Not impossible though. Jon, I am not sure if you are aware of real costs of living, since you are so young, i doubt you have any significant debt load. Things like student loans, rent and normal bills, groceries take up a significant part of my paycheque. I am probably better off financially than Mogz because I only support myself and I don't have a car. But thats besides the point.
2) the cost of living has gone up substantially.
3) While i know i would appreciate any rebate money i get, it would be irresponsible for me to take the money when there are so many things that need to be done.
4) Athabaska, to a certain extent i agree with your arguments that we already spend more per capita than other provinces. But with our prosperity comes growth in population. And we are growing population wise at a significantly higher rate, yet our funding is based on old consensus numbers and estimate based on numbers released PRIOR to the oil boom. So the numbers per capita are probably not all that accurate. And we probably ACTUALLY spend less per person because of the skewed measurements.
I think that once the 2006 census numbers are out, the government might have better numbers by which to judge how much to spend.
A couple of points.
1) Anything less than 50,000 a year in Alberta is difficult to live on. Not impossible though. Jon, I am not sure if you are aware of real costs of living, since you are so young, i doubt you have any significant debt load. Things like student loans, rent and normal bills, groceries take up a significant part of my paycheque. I am probably better off financially than Mogz because I only support myself and I don't have a car. But thats besides the point.
2) the cost of living has gone up substantially.
3) While i know i would appreciate any rebate money i get, it would be irresponsible for me to take the money when there are so many things that need to be done.
4) Athabaska, to a certain extent i agree with your arguments that we already spend more per capita than other provinces. But with our prosperity comes growth in population. And we are growing population wise at a significantly higher rate, yet our funding is based on old consensus numbers and estimate based on numbers released PRIOR to the oil boom. So the numbers per capita are probably not all that accurate. And we probably ACTUALLY spend less per person because of the skewed measurements.
I think that once the 2006 census numbers are out, the government might have better numbers by which to judge how much to spend.
Re: RE: Another round of "Ral
Is that addressed to me or Jon. Because I am aware what a Private in the army makes. I was just commenting on his post of $40,000 being alot of money.
EDIT: OK now I just feel stupid, I just reread your post. Forget what I said.
Mogz said:
Is that addressed to me or Jon. Because I am aware what a Private in the army makes. I was just commenting on his post of $40,000 being alot of money.
EDIT: OK now I just feel stupid, I just reread your post. Forget what I said.
Re: RE: Another round of "Ralph Bucks"?
That is true, which is why I support the Ralphbucks over health care premium elimination. The part paid by the employer, though, is a taxable benefit, so you do pay taxes on the amount the employer pays. I also made mention that the lowest income earners pay little or no premiums, as they are subsidized.
athabaska said:
That is true, which is why I support the Ralphbucks over health care premium elimination. The part paid by the employer, though, is a taxable benefit, so you do pay taxes on the amount the employer pays. I also made mention that the lowest income earners pay little or no premiums, as they are subsidized.
RE: Another round of "Ral
Common, do we really have to call them 'Ralph Bucks?' It isn't as if he's personally reaching into his pocket to give the money to us. Its our money, the government has just taken too much of it. When that happened with the feds, the conservatives in this province were more than willing to string the Libs up by their gibblets.
Common, do we really have to call them 'Ralph Bucks?' It isn't as if he's personally reaching into his pocket to give the money to us. Its our money, the government has just taken too much of it. When that happened with the feds, the conservatives in this province were more than willing to string the Libs up by their gibblets.
Re: RE: Another round of "Ral
Okay lets go with what Ralph himself calls them; PROSPERITY CHEQUES. Better?
In any event, I still support any government that wants to give me money back. Funny thing about the last round of cheques. The food banks fully expected to receive a lot of either money or food with the supposed amount of people who opposed the original cheques. After the cheques were disbursed, there was virtually no increase in food banks or any other charity. So, the hypocrites who had a chance to donate their prosperity cheques to a local charity did not, but these same hypocrites now want to stop a proposed future disbursement. How disgusting, IMO. I don't mind the money, but if someone has a problem, donate it to your local hospital, school board, or charity. You get a tax deduction!! But don't be hypocritical, it is beneath contempt.
LittleRunningGag said:
Okay lets go with what Ralph himself calls them; PROSPERITY CHEQUES. Better?
In any event, I still support any government that wants to give me money back. Funny thing about the last round of cheques. The food banks fully expected to receive a lot of either money or food with the supposed amount of people who opposed the original cheques. After the cheques were disbursed, there was virtually no increase in food banks or any other charity. So, the hypocrites who had a chance to donate their prosperity cheques to a local charity did not, but these same hypocrites now want to stop a proposed future disbursement. How disgusting, IMO. I don't mind the money, but if someone has a problem, donate it to your local hospital, school board, or charity. You get a tax deduction!! But don't be hypocritical, it is beneath contempt.
RE: Another round of "Ral
Oh, I agree. I mean, we spent our cheques on rent, but then we're just crazy that way.
Oh, I agree. I mean, we spent our cheques on rent, but then we're just crazy that way.