Rei Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Torino killed any chance for Toronto in 2001 as in the next future.. the IOC can't permit 2 games with such a sound similarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave199 Posted July 28, 2007 Report Share Posted July 28, 2007 Yeah. Sure. Whatever. :rolleyes: Looks like Torontonians is facing EXACTLY what Calgarians are dealing with now. Both mayors are very angry at Ottawa and their respective provincial governments over infrastructure and the monies needed to build them. More so, later on this summer, the Ed Stelmach government here is going to file a report on whether a "high-speed rail link" will be needed between Calgary and Edmonton soon. It will be very scary indeed, if Alberta manages to do this before the Golden Horseshoe area gets its chance to build such a "mega-project." Besides, near my house, the newest and latest C-Train LRT station is about to go on-line. Also, 40 new LRT cars are starting to come into service now as well. Yeah. Sure. Whatever???? What are you trying to convey Guardian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted July 28, 2007 Report Share Posted July 28, 2007 Torino killed any chance for Toronto in 2001 as in the next future.. the IOC can't permit 2 games with such a sound similarity. Yes, the towns of Sucky and the Londumb were both disappointed by recent IOC decisions. But Pairass and Pyongyang are still hopeful for the future! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian Posted July 28, 2007 Report Share Posted July 28, 2007 Dave199, both cities need more infrastructure money from both levels of governments. So far, both Calgary and Toronto just are not getting it because of politics. Both Alberta and Ontario are basically the only provinces that get less in "transfer payments" from Ottawa because of our "have" statuses. Even Ontario could be a "have-not" province soon, if things continue the way it is now. If that happens, there is going to be a lot more resentment in my province over it. That is, if that scenario isn't happening now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Techno Dragon Posted July 28, 2007 Report Share Posted July 28, 2007 Dave199, both cities need more infrastructure money from both levels of governments. So far, both Calgary and Toronto just are not getting it because of politics. Both Alberta and Ontario are basically the only provinces that get less in "transfer payments" from Ottawa because of our "have" statuses. Even Ontario could be a "have-not" province soon, if things continue the way it is now. If that happens, there is going to be a lot more resentment in my province over it. That is, if that scenario isn't happening now. I thought Alberta was still consider a have-not province in terms of federal payments because the payments dont take into account Oil and Gas Revenue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted July 28, 2007 Report Share Posted July 28, 2007 Alberta a half-not province? Maybe as in the taxes they have-not, but they are wealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave199 Posted July 28, 2007 Report Share Posted July 28, 2007 I thought Alberta was still consider a have-not province in terms of federal payments because the payments dont take into account Oil and Gas Revenue... That's what I was thinking. Isn't Alberta the richest province due to the Oil Industry? And from what I hear they don't share that wealth. Why do you think they only pay one tax, the GST, when the rest of Canada has to pay 2 taxes, Federal and Provincial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian Posted July 29, 2007 Report Share Posted July 29, 2007 Alberta has practically been a "have" province since around 1964. What is really scary to me is that Alberta and Quebec are almost "in sync", when it comes to the GDP in each province. Also, it doesn't make any sense, when provinces like Newfoundland are not getting "the same deal" as Alberta, when it comes to oil revenues and equalization payments. No wonder premier Williams is not happy with Ottawa, but sometimes I wonder what is he really trying to portray, in behalf of his province. Besides, if Alberta was to be a "have-not" province, then what would have been the purpose of the Heritage Trust Fund in the first place in the 1970s? The provincial finance minister wants to double its current amount within 5 years and up to, get this, CDN$50 BILLION within about a decade. That could lead to Alberta "getting rid of provincial taxes altogether." In comparison, I do not know how Alaska and Norway has dealt with their oil riches, but their respective such funds are in much better shape than Alberta at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Techno Dragon Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Alberta has practically been a "have" province since around 1964. What is really scary to me is that Alberta and Quebec are almost "in sync", when it comes to the GDP in each province. Also, it doesn't make any sense, when provinces like Newfoundland are not getting "the same deal" as Alberta, when it comes to oil revenues and equalization payments. No wonder premier Williams is not happy with Ottawa, but sometimes I wonder what is he really trying to portray, in behalf of his province. Besides, if Alberta was to be a "have-not" province, then what would have been the purpose of the Heritage Trust Fund in the first place in the 1970s? The provincial finance minister wants to double its current amount within 5 years and up to, get this, CDN$50 BILLION within about a decade. That could lead to Alberta "getting rid of provincial taxes altogether." In comparison, I do not know how Alaska and Norway has dealt with their oil riches, but their respective such funds are in much better shape than Alberta at this time. I remember there being a big deal made about Albertas Oil Revenues. I'm not saying they are a have-not province, just that, because the payments DONT take into account Oil and Gas, if it makes Alberta a have-not. I remember some Alberta PC guy aruging about this, and that the province should still be taking in money. But that was back at the beginning of this decade, so maybe that doesnt apply anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Well, at one time, all the billions that went into the fund disappeared, no thanks to the "corrupt" Tory government of the day. Took almost all of Ralph Klein's tenure to bring it back up. Alaska's fund is just over US$40 Billion: Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation Norway's one is about NOK 106.9 Billion. That is about equal to about over US$18 Billion. No wonder the nation is tops in the UN's HDI index since 2001 and tops in the "sustainability" ranks of the world's nations. Anyway, just imagine if Ontario had that kind of fund? Hmm?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afransen Posted August 2, 2007 Report Share Posted August 2, 2007 Unfortunately, Ontario has the opposite problem, with a debt of about $110 billion. It also has an essentially balanced budget, much unlike the massive surplusses in Alta. Fortunately, Ontario's debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to fall to 17.4% by 2009/10, from 24.3% in 2003/04 and a whopping 31.5% in 1995/1996. On the other hand, given the impressive gains posted by the CPP (13.6% annually over the past four years), maybe governments in this country would be better off borrowing money at something like the 6% effective rate Ontario pays on its debt and invest it for returns well in excess of 10%... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.