Is accepting equalization payments amoral?
Author Peter Moreira in his book Backwater - Nova Scotia's Economic Decline ($16.95 + $2.20 tax and rising here in Nova Scotia) thinks so.
As he puts it equalization was devised back in the 1950s as a way to make sure that different regions could provide the same basic services. He makes the argument that there was and still is an implicit understanding that each 'have-not' province will work to become a 'have-province' and get off the system. But the three Maritime provinces have drawn equalization payments each year since. Equalization currently makes up almost a quarter of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick revenues and more than 40% of PEIs. It has become a structural item in budgets and provincial leaders are congratulated when they 'go to Ottawa and get a bit more'. How sad.
Unless a provincial government is willing to commit to a hard goal of eliminating the need for equalization payments by a certain date then isn't continuing to accept the payments just abusing the system? As the 'haves' have started to debate after half a century would they be justified in simply cutting us off?
Hmmm. Seems like neo-liberal ideology is slipping through with phrases such as 'tough' choices and 'abusing' the sytem. What will be eliminated, and where will the axe fall, as if we couldn't guess.
These provinces have lagged behind the rest of Canada since at least confederation (I'll see if I can dig up a source for that). I'm not sure whether it's necessary, feasible or desirable to wean them off equalisation.
Do you think that Alberta accepting Cape Breton labour is moral?
Hmmm. Seems like neo-liberal ideology is slipping through with phrases such as 'tough' choices and 'abusing' the sytem. What will be eliminated, and where will the axe fall, as if we couldn't guess.
Slumberjack, would you continue to grow spending at 5% a year with flat or declining population growth?
How big, in terms of the economy, do you want government?
These provinces have lagged behind the rest of Canada since at least confederation (I'll see if I can dig up a source for that). I'm not sure whether it's necessary, feasible or desirable to wean them off equalisation.
We have. The point is what happens when the providers of equalization (Ontario, BC and Alberta) decide they no longer want to fund equalization?
Which of these initiatives would be placed on the chopping block as part of the effort to reduce the size of government?
Nova Scotia's Poverty Reduction Strategy
WTH this ranks close to the most offensive thread in recent times at babble.
The AB dirty oil industry could not function without emigration from the eastern provinces...just as the BC timber industry could not for many years...
WTH this ranks close to the most offensive thread in recent times at babble.
Why, remind?
Which of these initiatives would be placed on the chopping block as part of the effort to reduce the size of government?
Nova Scotia's Poverty Reduction Strategy
Slumberjack, first you answer my question and then I answer your question.
Totally amoral, it definitely falls outside of the sphere of moral judgment.
Because it indicates a willingness to divide peoples and regions across Canada, and to try and infer that the atlantic region peoples are just "lazy welfare bums" who need to be cut off for their own good, or because they are abusing the system..
So what if they get 1/4 of their budget in transfer payments?
...at least a quarter of their young working population, who consider their roots to be there, are spread out across Canada, thereby making sure the Canadian GDP is high as it can be, as well as bolstering the provinces bottom line in which they are living on a temporary basis.
Yes, but it is nice to be faced with a question where one may, in good conscience, answer clearly and succinctly.
:D...........
Indeed. I would agree with you bagkitty that it is neither right nor wrong to accept or reject funds when you are in need. However, I would suggest that it would be immoral for a neighbour who is relatively wealthy to withhold from those who are in need.
Let me turn this question around: Why should I have less services and lower wages because the dinosaurs died two provinces over instead of here?
The answers in terms of priorities can generally be determined by ones choice of language. When equalization agreements are referred to as the generosity of the 'haves,' and eliminating growth becomes an issue of hard choices, the question of 'hard for whom' really needn't be posed when the answer is already obvious.
Indeed. I would agree with you bagkitty that it is neither right nor wrong to accept or reject funds when you are in need. However, I would suggest that it would be immoral for a neighbour who is relatively wealthy to withhold from those who are in need.
What if the needy receipent never made an honest effort to become less needy despite opportunities, after half a century would it be ok for the wealthy to at least question the arrangement?
When equalization agreements are referred to as the generosity of the 'haves,' and eliminating growth becomes an issue of hard choices, the question of 'hard for whom' really needn't be posed when the answer is already obvious.
I think Mr. Moreira's point is equalization was never pure generosity, it was a economic development plan with certain goals; eventually the 'have-not's become 'have's.
Slumberjack you will have to be more explicit with your second point.
Because it indicates a willingness to divide peoples and regions across Canada, and to try and infer that the atlantic region peoples are just "lazy welfare bums" who need to be cut off for their own good, or because they are abusing the system..
I agree, our equalization system is divisive. That is another of its costs I guess.
What makes you say an honest effort has never been made? Economic development takes a combination of planning, adequate resources, time and often luck. Of course not forgetting to mention a fair growth environment. It is always possible that the so called "have" provinces have intentionally interfered to keep the receiving provinces on the dole. Using their leverage to limit the potential growth of the Atlanic provinces to facilitate their own growth. Furthermore, population, geography and natural resources to name a few things may limit the growth potential of these provinces making equalisation more of an issue of maintaining quality of life over it being an economic development plan.
Oh come on. Nova Scotia always cries poor, and acts like it's out looking for a job every day, but take a look out back of the legislature on any Sunday morning and it's just a mountain of Alexander Keith's cases and takeout boiled dinner containers.
Do not know if others are aware of this or not, but it has only just been the last 10 years or so that Newfoundland/Labrador was legally allow to undertake its own economic development strategies.
And frankly I think they have advanced on this very quickly.
and that is so cute of you atlantic party pretending it was not you who is being the divisive instigator in this thread.
As you can see from the responses to your nonsense thread and thread title, others here do not accept your labelling and attempts to be divisive.
and that is so cute of you atlantic party pretending it was not you who is being the divisive instigator in this thread.
As you can see from the responses to your nonsense thread and thread title, others here do not accept your labelling and attempts to be divisive.
Huh?
No one is trying to be divisive. The reason for asking the question, which is really Mr. Moreira's question, is to suggest that it is reasonable for receipents of equalization payments to consider setting long range goals (say 20 years out) for getting to the point where equalization payments are no longer needed.
Oh really it is just being unknowingly is it!
Try reading a the other posts in this thread to realize that equalization transfers is at best a misnomer.
Setting of long range goals is fine. I don't think that setting an actual date is constructive. Evidence from developing countries receiveing money suggests that external imposing of performance guidelines or attempting to control spending interferes with the ability of a country receiving funds to develop a robust economy.
Oh really it is just being unknowingly is it!
Try reading a the other posts in this thread to realize that equalization transfers is at best a misnomer.
ummm yeah.
What remind is suggesting is that the transfer doesn't in fact equalise anything. The money at best puts the receiving provinces in a less disadvantaged position. However, the transfers may in fact actually make the provinces worse off due to the shift in political leverage associated with them.
I'm just going to go out on a limb here and guess that our friend from down home believes his province is purposely wallowing on the public dole because the province has failed to "get tough" or "make the right choices" or some other value-loaded assessment of his province's fiscal performance. Are they still spending more than you think they should on social services? Are the fat-cat politicians still flying hither and yon, rather than carpooling?
What is it, and please be specific, that you feel your province is doing (but shouldn't) or isn't doing (but should)? Armchair quarterback this one for us.
And I am also stating that other provinces have become have provinces by exploiting the people/labour of those in the so called "have not" provinces, which you p-sto detailed. In essence they owe the provinces they have borroweed their labour pool from, as it is those provinces who are in a deficit in some cases of skilled employees, and it is those provinces which bore the educational and health care costs while said labour was growing up to working age.
Really all province get transfer monies from the feds, from a variety of ministries, only in some cases they like to label and thereby stigmatize it as some sort of 'welfare', when it isn't.'
What remind is suggesting is that the transfer doesn't in fact equalise anything. The money at best puts the receiving provinces in a less disadvantaged position. However, the transfers may in fact actually make the provinces worse off due to the shift in political leverage associated with them.
I think that is very true. Also equalization payments in fact weaken the economy and economic growth since they create an incentive for 'have-not' provinces to increase spending.
What is it, and please be specific, that you feel your province is doing (but shouldn't) or isn't doing (but should)? Armchair quarterback this one for us.
Hi Snert,
I'll assume your question is directed at me.
All I am suggesting is that it is reasonable for receipents of equalization payments to consider setting long range goals (say 20 years out) for getting to the point where equalization payments are no longer needed.
New Brunswick has, both Nova Scotia and PEI have not.
that is quite the claim.....how about answering the questions asked of you....
Why is it an arbitrary goal? You make the statement, you try. It shows that you are trying, even if you only get half way it is still better than nothing.
It increases spending this way.
Suppose NS gets 1/3 of its revenue from equalization. The federal government also sends regional development monies to NS
and says let build a rink 50:50. Regional development puts up 50% and NS puts up 50% (1/3 of which is equalization). So the
local politician gets a $1 of political capital (look a rink! or look jobs!) but the local tax base only pays 2 of 6 or 1/3
(others pay 3/6 + 1/6 = 2/3). So what is the incentive for the local politican. Spend! Its free money. There is a disconnect between services and
the local cost. So you end up with more spending and on politicized development (pave secondary roads, fish plants in ghost towns,
billions to dead industries like coal and steel, hand outs to politically connected firms). Equalization actually weakens the the economy.
This is the definition of arbitrary. But why the hell not give it a try. Let's set the deadline for tomorrow, then the day after and so on. Trying is trying regardless of deadline. Unless you have a reason to beleive it can or should be done in twenty years I'm not sure what the point is.
As for the rest of that post all you've proven is that equalisation increases spending capacity, which is pretty much the point. As for misspending and dead industries and so forth, this is a problem for any government expenditure whether it's "free money" or not. If the public feels the waste is too high they can give another party a try. At this point in time that's the nature of the beast.
It goes back to that old cliché : "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for life.' Nova Scotia will NEVER reach its true potentail as long as continues to suck on Ottawa's teat. I agree wholeheartededly with setting a target date to get off equalizatoin like Shawn Graham did in New Brunswick.
There is a disconnect between services and the local cost... Equalization actually weakens the the economy.
Not really. Equalization has little to do with remedying real economic inequality across provinces or maintaining the laziness you are cartoonishly depicting in all Atlantic Canadians. It's a band-aid to fiscal disparities. It equalizes (or intends to equalize) fiscal capacity.
That's why Newfoundland and Labrador, which has been a net recipient of equalization transfers since 1957, is now a "have" province, one which just so happens to have the highest unemployment rate in Canada and of any constituent unit of 5 other comparable federations including the U.S., Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Australia.
There are many problems with the current equalization formula, and there are many reasons why the federal Liberals and Conservatives have deliberately kept Atlantic Canada poor, but the straw man you're creating has little to do with either.
May I ask if you are working on behalf of the Atlantic Institute of Market Studies by any chance? Such blither blather can only come out of the Fraser-Institute-of-the-east.
For those who might be interested, the same topic is being discussed at EnMasse.
is atlanticparty a member there too?
Do they have proto-fascist, poor-bashing, quasi-economic snake oil peddlers recycling garbage there as well?
I believe so, Slumberjack.
is atlanticparty a member there too?
Yes, under the same name I think.
Do they have proto-fascist, poor-bashing, quasi-economic snake oil peddlers recycling garbage there as well?
:D............
One more p in that sentence would have made it superb.... ;)