Talk:Equalization payments
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Similar Content
The History section (with the exception of the last paragraph) appears to match word for word a CBC News In Depth article. No source is cited. However, it appears that this data was contributed before the articles publishing date.
Fhenning 04:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're right; a lot of it has been copied from the CBC article. The CBC article is dated more than a year before the edits that added the same content ([1]). I'm going to take out the offending paragraphs in the History section. Greyfedora 19:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- That explains it. I messed up the year in the comparison. Though since the CBC article has a lot of good information maybe it should be placed in the external links section. Fhenning 01:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
this article is almost disgusting in that it's very very biased in favour of equalisation payments. I suggest someone redoes it. --Rishiboy 05:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How is it biased? Greyfedora 19:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the sentence, "The payments have the added benefit of promoting national unity," adds bias. The program also harms Canadian unity in have provinces, because the taxpayers there see their federal tax dollars being spent disproportionately in other provinces. --Llewdor 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps changing the sentence to read "The payments are often seen to have the added benefit of promoting national unity," would eliminate concerns about bias? This can be backed up from any number of sources - David Perry's Candian Tax Foundation paper (#106) entitled "Financing the Canadian Federation, 1867-1995", for example. Kvasir42 23:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removing some bias
I removed this misleading sentence: "Contrary to popular belief, it does not redistribute wealth from richer provinces to poorer ones, since money for equalization payments comes from general federal government funds."
Even if the money don't come from the treasory of those richer provinces, at least, it come from larger proportion of its wealty citizen. Anyway, it was in contradiction with "Legislation like the Canada Health Act requires equal levels of care, something the poorer provinces would not be able to provide without aid from the richer provinces.". The sentence "it is paid for most by the individual Canadian taxpayers who pay the most taxes, whatever their province of residence" explain well enough where the money come from.
- That's not actually removing bias; that's making the article imprecise. The paragraph you removed (which I have rewritten hopefully making it better) is pretty critical to understanding how equalization works. A perpetuation of the myth that equalization is theft from the Ontario government to pay for layabouts in Newfoundland really doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Ontario provincial taxes do not go to Newfoundland. The fact that more rich people live in Ontario is immaterial -- the Irving family from New Brunswick pays a lot more into equalization than most Ontarians do. Like equalization payments or hate them -- I think we should strive to be precise about what they are. Equalization payments are an important Canadian policy issue -- if we're going to inform people about it, let's not mislead them. Greyfedora 04:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
-
- A full understanding of how equalisation works requires an understanding of where federal revenue comes from. Assuming no regionally biased taxation programs (like the National Energy Program), revenue is raised equally across the country (in that it's raised using the same formula everywhere - as some federal taxes are progressive, wealthier regions tend to pay more per capita). As such, provincial programs in have provinces are funded entirely by provincial tax revenue in that province, but provincial program funding in have-not provinces is bolstered by federal tax revenue. --Llewdor 00:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I just read this sentence : "However, if a province loses a dollar for every dollar it makes from the sale of its energy resources, there is less incentive to develop those reserves." Why does it only apply to energy resources? --zorxd 22:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Clarity re Canada
Related to the above discussion, it is not fully clear to me what the flow of money is. E.g. take this sentence:
- Thus a wealthy citizen in New Brunswick, a "have not" province, pays more into equalization than a poorer citizen in Ontario, a "have" province.
So who pays what and who gets what? More detail or clarity needed. Ben Finn 10:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I also found that sentence confusing. Maybe it should be changed to something like,
- Thus a citizen in New Brunswick, a "have not" province, who earns the same income as a citizen in Ontario, a "have" province, contributes the same amount to the equalization.
User:carmanahtree 8:27, 15 February 2007
[edit] many vandals
someone ban these people.--Eloc Jcg 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
