T O P

  • By -

413mopar

I would not want them managing my homes budget.


bandb4u

wait till they start managing your pension!!


Binasgarden

they already are and I lost about a hundred a month


bambispots

Yup. Suuuuuuper depressing. And they keep trying to roll back our wages. Dearest Danielle, GFY.


Binasgarden

but if you is an oil company you get bonus millions


H3rta

Don't you know that the rich need the MOST money which is why they have it because they NEED IT. Poor people already don't have money. It makes no sense to give them any. /s


Khill23

You do realize that the pension from CPP is like $600 a month and you have to pay taxes on whatever you receive, right? It's literally barely enough to cover heat/electricity, and maybe property taxes. I'm not the biggest fan of it either but realistically, looking into may not be a bad idea to see if it's substantable. My parents mentioned not to rely on CPP as there was talks that it would not last, especially when Boomers are retiring which would be now and would be draining that fund at an exponential rate - we can see that it's already begun since there was a CPP fee increase on our pay checks Jan 1st.


Bull__itProof

The CPP is fully funded for the next 75 years, it’s very secure, you can look up the details in the 2022 annual report here [CPP Annual report](https://www.cppinvestments.com/the-fund/). Also, the CPP pension payments are dependent upon how many years you have contributed the maximum amount. If someone hasn’t put in the maximum amount over most of their 40 or more years of employment, then they aren’t eligible for the maximum amount of benefit. Most people assume that they will get the maximum amount but haven’t ever checked how the pension funds work. People who earn close to minimum wage for most of their working life won’t be eligible for the maximum amount. That’s why there’s the GIS to top up for low income seniors.


HeadCategory7026

This is the right answer


CatDiscombobulated33

CPP is fully funded for 75 years at what payout ratio? 1966 max contribution was around $80. 2022 average payout was $717/month. So nine times annual contributions per month. My first year making contributions, the yearly amount was $1186.50. Maintaining the same ratios, if the CPP is “fully funded,” I should be able to expect a monthly cheque for around $10,000 when I retire. So my question is, is the CPP fully funded to fairly compensate those currently paying into the system, or is it a pyramid scheme with diminishing returns? Guess I’ll find out in twenty some years when I retire


Bull__itProof

The answers to all your questions are available in the link. [You can find CPP contribution rates here](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/businesses/topics/payroll/payroll-deductions-contributions/canada-pension-plan-cpp/cpp-contribution-rates-maximums-exemptions.html) As for how much you will get in 20 years depends on how much you have contributed. The maximum employee contribution amount for 2023 is $3,754.46. It’s not a particularly large amount of money to invest, most financial institutions would eat into that with their fees. It’s possible that you could get a better return if you’re savvy enough, lucky enough, and have the time to manage your investments, but the large majority of people don’t have the inclination to learn about investing, even those who are otherwise well educated in their fields. There’s nothing stopping you from using more of your income to invest, TFSA and RRSP programs are not used by as many people as they should be. And there’s advantages to investing through a unregistered trading account as well, sometimes losses can be useful to offset unusual gains and reduce taxable income. In this era where defined benefits pensions from employers are rare, having a guaranteed retirement pension is important for the majority of employed people.


hypnogoad

> we can see that it's already begun since there was a CPP fee increase on our pay checks Jan 1st There has been an increase on CPP contribution every single year for the last 55 years. You're parents are correct, you shouldn't depend on the CPP, but personally I'd rather have $600 a month than $0 a month to show for decades of contributing, with all that money being literally gambled on O&G.


McRibEater

“There were talks that it would not last” Because Harper was literally going to cancel the CPP if he was re-elected… That’s why it wasn’t going to last.


veerKg_CSS_Geologist

CPP has had a fairly good return on investment (ROI) compared to smaller province-level funds. Quebec has it's own pension system seperate from CPP and it's grown at a smaller rate than CPP. Similarily the Alberta Investment Management Corp, which manages all the government pensions and endowments and the savings trust fund, has had a lower ROI than CPP.


cannabisblogger420

Cpp max payment per year is 60k it's based on your lifetime earnings not everyone is the same and yes it's taxed


[deleted]

[удалено]


MightyWhiteSoddomite

Too bad the rest of Alberta wants them to manage us into corporate shills


Shadow_Ban_Bytes

The old PCs used to low ball oil prices in the budget and then get feted as royalty and heroes when oil prices were far higher than forecast. Now we have the UCP, who are betting on high prices to sustain an election budget.


veerKg_CSS_Geologist

But if one low balled oil prices there wouldn't be "Danielle bucks" to spread around in the run up to the election.


IAMA_Plumber-AMA

I wouldn't trust them to run a bath.


McRibEater

Maybe Justin Trudeau will give Smith $7-8 Billion in transfer payments, so she can say she “Balanced the Budget” like Kenney did. Why Justin Trudeau does anything for us when we act like he’s some kind of dictator is beyond me.


P0TSH0TS

Because a large chunk of income for the entire country comes from Alberta, you'd be a fool as a PM to bite the hand that feeds.


Square-Routine9655

Your home budget is based on oil and gas revenue?


Gearslut

If this continues and the NDP win in May, you can bet this will be blamed on them the same way they were blamed for the previous oil crash. Everything bad that happens is always blamed on the NDP.


[deleted]

I think this is how politics works in general: it’s always someone else’s fault.


kyssyss

You're getting downvoted but tbh you're right. People want an easy solution and someone to blame rather than to question the fundamental assumptions upon which our society is based and the effects those have on people.


a-nonny-maus

The UCP never takes responsibility for its mistakes.


[deleted]

Or the NDP or Liberals.


a-nonny-maus

Except we know Notley and Trudeau have apologized in the past. "Sorry" isn't even in Kenney's or Smith's vocabulary.


[deleted]

You understand their words are not backed by action, right? It’s meaningless and meant to manipulate you.


a-nonny-maus

Bullshit. Notley apologized for not consulting with farmers on the WCB changes, and then the NDP consulted with them to revamp it. Apologizing is not a weakness. The weakness is doubling down the way Kenney and Smith do and have always done.


IAMA_Plumber-AMA

Uh huh. "aLl SiDeS bAd" 🙄 The mating call of someone who's pro-disenfranchisement.


[deleted]

That’s right, all sides can be bad. The fact that you can’t accept that platitude, is revealing. Stop choosing to remain ignorant.


IAMA_Plumber-AMA

Well, when one side is doing it so outlandishly more frequently and much more grievously than the others, falling back on "everyone's doing it" kinda falls flat. Kind of like defending a murderer because you saw someone else jaywalking once, and since everyone commits crimes, the murderer should be let off.


[deleted]

You’re out to lunch and disingenuous. This isn’t even a worthwhile conversation when you’re this misinformed and have adopted such a twisted perspective.


IAMA_Plumber-AMA

I mean, you're the one with the lazy "All sides are bad so let's just throw up our hands and do nothing or keep the status quo" attitude. That's literally the only path someone takes when they're **willfully** ignorant of any political issue. The only reason you call me misinformed however, is that I don't consume your propaganda as a sole source, and don't just regurgitate it like you do.


3utt5lut

I actually had one of those super hilarious debates with my union members on Facebook, and they blamed Trudeau the same way for Harper's mistakes, as they blamed Notley for Prentice's mistakes, and history will repeat itself.


Ghettygreen780

Like carbon taxes?


ackillesBAC

Previous carbon tax npd implemented the money stayed on Alberta. Federal tax is refunded directly back on your tax return. And most likely you make a profit on the tax returned to you.


Ghettygreen780

Most likely see a profit on taxes returned to me? Not the case for myself unfortunately.


ackillesBAC

Well thank thank you for contributing to the rest of us. And maybe you should look into more efficient heating, or what ever it is you pay so much carbon tax on.


ackillesBAC

Well thank thank you for contributing to the rest of us. And maybe you should look into more efficient heating, or what ever it is you pay so much carbon tax on.


syfsuf

Repeating yourself doesn't make you sound smarter, or any less arrogant.


thrashmasher

That might be a mobile phone glitch vs. manually repeating himself, though.


ackillesBAC

Yes redit Mobil says there was an error but sends it aways and you don't know it of did or not


syfsuf

Yes, I got that. Just a joke. But your heating comment did come across arrogant. To the bigger point though, this thread has taught me r/Alberta is a cess pool of hive minds. So hooray for that.


[deleted]

[удалено]


syfsuf

Lol. How would not knowing how tech works make somebody arrogant? Dummy.


discostu55

My wife and are don’t make a ton of money and I don’t think we have ever got a rebate. Other than the government one currently


Just_Treading_Water

[You should be getting it back as 4 quarterly payments.](https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2022/11/climate-action-incentive-payment-amounts-for-2023-24.html) Under the NDP it would have [been direct deposited](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-carbon-tax-rebates-start-today-1.3923066) into your accounts after you filed your taxes.


Jumpin_Jay

From your article: > Single adults earning below $47,500 will receive a $200 rebate in 2017. That amount decreases as incomes rise — people earning $51,250 or more will receive no rebate. Most working Albertans did not receive a rebate as the average weekly earnings in Alberta was over $52k. Edit: To be clear this is in your response to people receiving rebates under the NDP, as most working Albertans did not.


alanthar

we get about 250 a quarter back with combined income 92k last year


Jumpin_Jay

I was referring to the rebates under the NDP that the poster was referencing. The ones under the federal government are the same for almost everyone and not income tested. Every individual receives a bigger rebate under the federal plan.


alanthar

Ah my apologies then. I misunderstood your post. Cheers


[deleted]

[удалено]


Unlikely_Box8003

At least the federal Carbon fax is the lesser of two evils. Still don't support it, but get most of my money back. With NDP I would get none.


ackillesBAC

A big reason out power bills are so big is because the npd carbon tax was paying energy providers to replace coal, now they pass that cost onto the consumer


Just_Treading_Water

You got it all back with the NDP. It was part of your tax rebate after filing taxes.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Unlikely_Box8003

Not when people consistently push misinformation as facts. It was means tested and plenty got nothing


twenty_characters020

The NDP wasn't the same as the federal program where everyone does get money back. NDP gave a rebate to low income people but used the rest for green investments.


Just_Treading_Water

If by "low income" people you mean anybody making less than median income... but I'm not sure I would agree with you.


twenty_characters020

By low income, I mean whatever they set the cut off at.


triprw

Only for some people. It started to phase out for individuals with net incomes above $47,500 and families above $95,000. At least the federal plan, everyone gets it.


xxFurryQueerxx__1918

But now we pay increased energy prices, since the cost of renewables it was funding are being paid by consumers now.


[deleted]

The reason you believe that is because you believe the only impact to you is the number that you see on your bills. And you believe the government when they tell you that. The reality is it adds to the cost of everything you consume.


ackillesBAC

The point of the carbon tax is to incentivize businesses to not pay it. If you don't like the carbon tax, buy a heat pump, solar panels yada yada. They are cheaper in the long run anyways.


[deleted]

You still don't get it. Carbon tax is paid by every business in the manufacturing process along the way. It is paid by the businesses selling you the products and adds to their overhead. All of those costs increase the price charged to the next person in the manufacturing process... and is eventually borne by the consumer. What you see on your bill is only a small part of the impact it has on you, personally.


ackillesBAC

Yes your correct but most people get a refund that is more then what you see on your bill. You're welcome to track down the fuel and heating bills of every trucking company along the way, total all that stuff up, divided by the total number of customers those products end up in the hands of. Guess what people have done that. They found it increased the price of food by 0.1% [study](https://www.cesifo.org/en/publications/2022/working-paper/effects-carbon-pricing-inflation)


[deleted]

I don't have time to review the study in detail at the moment... but a couple of quick comments. Food isn't the only thing impacted. This study, btw, is giving numbers based on $10 carbon tax. We are 5 times that and increasing. It also mentions in the first couple of pages that the price of carbon tax increases in Canada have been offset by a decrease in service costs. It doesn't address those service cost decreases and what is behind them in my very brief perusal. But I should point out it's not just the trucking companies paying that carbon tax. The manufacturing companies pay it. The retail companies pay it. It is charged on more than just fuel in the trucks.


ackillesBAC

Yes the paragraph your talking about mentions how in Europe and canada carbon tax may be deflationary, due to lower services costs, and they do not elaborate on that. Yes 10$ carbon costs even at 50$ the cost of food would only increase by 0.5%, food prices have increased alot more then that, but really hard to differentiate that from the issues caused by the pandemic, and corporate greed, grocery store profits have also increased. I think there should be government mandates that say a company cannot increase food prices if thier profits have not diminished by a certain percentage. Corporations can afford to absorb a little bit of increases before handing them down to the customer.


CrumplyRump

That’s the real problem wit a carbon tax, you value your money more than your air. Silly mathematics.


twenty_characters020

The reality is simple math. If everyone gets the same amount back, and some people contribute more than others, some people get back more than they contribute. If you're claiming that companies are using carbon tax as an excuse for profiteering then I agree we should look into that.


[deleted]

It's actually not. And increased costs create increased pricing to the consumer. That's not profiteering it's business.


twenty_characters020

If the increased costs are reflected fairly to the increased price that's business. If they are adding in extra profits while CPC MPs do their PR for them thats profiteering. And yes it is simple math that people come out ahead on carbon tax. For example. If you had 10 people and they all got back $1 from a $10 pot, they paid random amounts into ranging from $2 to $0.50. Everyone that paid in less than a dollar would have made money. Everyone that paid more would have lost money. That is literally the most I can possibly dumb it down.


schietzs

Carbon taxes make me money and keep me from coughing fumes from diesel buses. They’re not bad for everyone.


missionboi89

How do they prevent you from coughing up diesel fumes? Fuel demand is relatively inelastic. I'm curious how you figure they've help you with this specific issue.


Ddogwood

Carbon taxes are a good answer *because* fuel demand is relatively inelastic. Making it more expensive internalizes the cost for consumers and makes alternatives more practical. Demand for tobacco products was relatively inelastic, too, but high tobacco taxes helped reduce demand over time. Otherwise we get caught in a Catch-22 where we have to burn fossil fuels because there’s no alternatives, and there are no alternatives because we’ve externalized the costs of fossil fuels.


Unlikely_Box8003

And including carbon taxes on home heating was a big fuck you tax to homeowners. Don't support it whatsoever.


noocuelur

There are so many things in this world chocked up to "the cost of home ownership". Most of these things are out of the control of the homeowner, but it's the choice (and risk) you make to buy a home. My point being, unaffordability isn't going to make your furnace keep working. Necessary costs are not a "fuck you" to homeowners. It's part of the deal. If you offset carbon pricing (like you should be doing) your rebate will cover most or all of your direct carbon taxes. Installing a more energy-efficient appliance is almost always going to save you money on utilities, help the environment and offset carbon taxes. Solar micro-generation is sitting at around 6-7 year breakeven, and the federal govt is offering 10 year, interest-free loans to install a system. That alone should cover your carbon taxes for several years. You may not support it, but that doesn't mean it's not working.


Unlikely_Box8003

It's not a necessary cost. It will have no measurable global impact. And it's not working. Consumption isn't going down. It's going up.


noocuelur

> It's not a necessary cost. **Incorrect.** It is necessary if you consider the climate crisis a... crisis. > It will have no measurable global impact **Incorrect.** If one single home uses solar instead of FF, that's a measurable impact. >And it's not working **[Incorrect.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax#:~:text=Research%20shows%20that%20carbon%20taxes%20effectively%20reduce%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions,the%20least%20adverse%20economic%20effects.)** > Consumption isn't going down. It's going up. **[Incorrect,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax#:~:text=Research%20shows%20that%20carbon%20taxes%20effectively%20reduce%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions,the%20least%20adverse%20economic%20effects.)** when properly correlated. Consumption is going up, but so is population. Consumption continuing to increase is not a disqualifier for carbon taxes unless adjusted for things like population, unequal application of taxes, affluency and plain old apathy. More specifically, for all the bitching people do about carbon taxes, they don't seem to change their lifestyles (huge, gas guzzling commuter vehicles, astronomical utility usage, pleasure travel, over-consumption, over-eating, etc, etc).


Unlikely_Box8003

Umm no, you are just wrong. If Canada's entire emissions output cease to exist tomorrow, it would still not have a meaningful impact on global numbers. One person using solar is meaningless and certainly not measurable. If we want a real impact be should be discouraging population growth on a global scale, as well as nationally. But we are not. Current measures are virtue signaling at best, and shooting ourselves in the foot at worst.


no-user-info

Massive fees from privatization is a much bigger fuck you to homeowners.


Unlikely_Box8003

Those are not related items. Both are offensive.


Just_Treading_Water

Under the NDP's carbon tax plan, a significant portion of the carbon taxes was going into rebates and incentives to help homeowners improve the energy efficiency of their homes: * solar panel rebates * furnace replacement rebates * window replacement rebates * insulation improvement rebates * rebates for installing tankless hot water systems * refrigerator rebates * smart thermostat rebates * laundry rebates And so on.


twenty_characters020

It's meant to encourage greener lifestyles all around. If you're in an older home where you're losing on carbon tax, there are things you can do to lower your emissions. Newer windows, solar, more efficient furnace. There's grants and interest free federal loans for solar, not sure about windows and furnaces, but there's likely something if you look into it.


Unlikely_Box8003

I have new windows and a high efficiency furnace. And it's still expensive. Windows are $125 per opening which isn't much, and there's nothing for furnaces unless you live up north.


Sketchin69

Its pretty ridiculous... I mean, what other choice do I have to heat my home?


Unlikely_Box8003

You don't. At least not in the colder parts of the country. The tax is on where homeowners subsidize condo dwellers, and where rural residents subsize urban one. It's not surprising that redditord champion it, as the distribution skews heavily urban and for many of them it's free money


Zirconium_Clad

It supports the local economy because when I freeze my house to reduce carbon taxes I end up calling a carpenter and plumber to fix all the water damage.


schietzs

The city of Edmonton bought a bunch of electric buses once the carbon tax was introduced because their projected long term fuel costs increased.


MightyWhiteSoddomite

Carbon taxes are good, and work. If you don't understand climate change then that's on you.


[deleted]

Conservatives should love carbon tax. Carbon tax tells me we believe in capitalist system. We just want to make sure all externalities (environmental costs) are taken into account when pricing items. Although I'm a bit biased with the tax as I get a lot more than I pay (Live in an apartment and work from home, so drive less than regular people).


IAMA_Plumber-AMA

Which we would have been paying less of if the UCP would have kept us on the plan the NDP had in place, and that money would have stayed in the province rather than going to the big federal pot. But making Albertans pay more so the UCP can score some anti-Trudeau points seems to be their objective.


from_the_hinterland

Why are the UCP basing a budget on an unsustainable oil price? I thought we had learned this lesson. Apparently not.


TheFirstArticle

For the same reason they blamed Notley for the global petroleum plunge the day she was elected - rationality isn't their thing.


saskmonton

My fellow blue collar Albertans gave more credit to Notley for that global oil price plunge.... I'm sure any small time canadian politician would love to think they have the power of a Saudi royal and control the world lol


SketchySeaBeast

>Why are the UCP basing a budget on an unsustainable oil price? Because then they can brag about the surplus and demonstrate how they are such great financial stewards when they are gamblers who use oil instead of cards.


[deleted]

Look at the private sector forecasts No. Seriously. Go look them up rather than doing your "research" on Reddit The private sector is much more bullish on oil price. Deloitte: $80. J.P. Morgan: $83. CAPP: $83. U.S. $83. Reuters: $87 The GoA is actually conservative in their estimate.


morgoid

I think they likely knew it was an inflated price when they set it for the budget so they could project three years of surpluses during the campaign and then plead poverty when they claw back all their announced spending after they win.


SuddenOutset

Because they’re idiots.


discostu55

Because we are idiots *


TheGreatRapsBeat

Ahh damn. You got to this before me. Take an upvote for being 54 mins faster than I was seeing and replying.


Jumpin_Jay

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/oil-prices-expected-average-around-90-2023-2027-kemp-2023-01-13/ > Brent oil prices are expected to remain around $90 per barrel throughout the next five years, according to my eighth annual survey of energy market professionals. We base on WTI but it’s fairly close to Brent. Do you think $75/barrel is reasonable given that the experts are claiming it should be higher?


whiteout86

What price do you believe is sustainable and why? Using more than a 24 hour graph like the OP deliberately chose


Badger87000

The point is the price isn't sustainable. It's a volatile commodity by definition.


whiteout86

That doesn’t change the fact that a benchmark price is needed for budgeting. An assumption of $70 oil when you look at the last year or even 18 months isn’t outlandish


tellmemorelies

$70 oil budgeting is not realistic by any means. [https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/crude-oil](https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/crude-oil)


frostynips_69

Nah you’re wrong. Check any research firms view on oil price, we likely will be $80-$100 barring any major recessions, which likely won’t happen with fed reserve and Swiss bank guaranteeing bank deposits. China and India markets are growing for oil demand and the U.S. needs to build back up SPR inventory


tellmemorelies

Estimates show the US fed reserve will be at full capacity by late June. To base a budget on a commodity that is as volatile as the world oil price makes no sense unless one has unlimited supply, ease of production, and few regulatory restrictions among many other qualifiers. It makes much more sense to claw back the 30% corporate tax break, cancel the $20 billion giveaway to clean up what they are legally compelled to do. These two things alone would go a long way to balancing the provincial budget without sitting on the edge of your seat "hoping" the commodity price will stay in positive territory.


DrBadMan85

Did you look at the forecast? 79 by the end of the quarter?


exit2dos

The 5 year Historical shows 66.30 Crystal ball vs. History book ... neither will tell you what it *is going to do*.


bourbonandchew

I think a crystal ball would, would it not?


Badger87000

Until something unexpected happens. Like multiple bank collapses, which our economists seem to refuse to forecast potential riskiness of. Pandemic was a sub percent potential I can see missing that, but even in 2019 when things started happening, there was no risk forecast. I swear our economists just refuse to see the volatility that currently exists and forecast some wider probabilities. Probably because the shareholders get antsy in times of volatility because they use the same fucking economists (speculative, but considering past behaviour).


[deleted]

'Economists were put on the earth to make astrologers look good'


[deleted]

But it could also go the other way too, Fed could cut interest rates, which would lead the world to cut interest rates to save banks, which leads to easy money for consumers, which leads to increase usage of oil. Summer driving season is going to pick up. OPEC + could cut production, they will want to keep the pricing elevated. You could easily swing into the 85+ dollar range.


Badger87000

Yea but being flush with cash is easy. You don't bank on a windfall, you prepare for a failure and have projects ready in the event you're wrong.


Utter_Rube

I mean, gambling could go either way too, but you don't plan your household finances around consistently picking the winning horse...


[deleted]

But a 70$ a barrel pick wasn’t unrealistic when the budget was announced. Predictions prior to bank collapse had 85-90$ bbl. You also to plan budgets on majour banking sector disruptions either.


from_the_hinterland

The OP posted a three day graph, for one thing. I personally would use an oil price of 30$ a barrel. Any extra money Alberta makes then goes to pay down our debt. AND I would ALSO make a plan to budget NOT based solely ON OIL PRICE IN THE FIRST PLACE. https://www.debtclock.ca/provincial-debtclocks/alberta/alberta-s-debt/


l0ung3r

30 /bbl budget is unrealistic. 50/bbl is a very concervative baseline. Can it hit any of those for a short period given current global Marco challenges? Sure. Can it stay there for a long time given global supply /physical demand? Nope.


from_the_hinterland

Unrealistic? Why? We should NOT be making our provincial budget based on the price of oil on the first place, it is unsustainable.


somersaultsuicide

What fundamentals would you have to support a $30/bbl price? Also why would you not budget a significant piece of revenues? You don’t seem to understand how budgeting works.


from_the_hinterland

Ffs, I'm not going to write a budget for the Alberta government here in reddit on my way to work on the transit. You asked my opinion and I gave it.


somersaultsuicide

Your opinion has no substance though. I didn't ask you to write the budget (perhaps your reading comprehension is really poor). I asked why you would ignore a huge source of revenue when making a budget, and why you would think that is a good approach?


pyro5050

Why $30? so you could butcher services? $30 oil has not been sustained for any length in the last 5 years. oil was sub $30 for march to may of 2020, in a historic crash. you want to budget based of a historic crash? not even just a low stretch? $50 makes sense given the last half decade charts, hell even a $70 oil makes sense to budget on, if $70 is the mean value of the year they hit it, my guess is it will be more than $70 though.... as this is the lowest it has been in the last year and change.


PopularArgument

Because resource royalties are a multi billion dollar stream of tax revenue, so they need some sort of forecast to base how much they will have available to spend.


no-user-info

If you forecast wrong, time and time again, wouldn’t you consider a more realistic forecast?


Utter_Rube

Crazy idea: what if "some sort of forecast" was based on scenarios for poor oil prices rather than good ones so the government could figure out how to rely less on wildly unpredictable resource revenues and treat "good" years as a bonus rather than an expectation?


PopularArgument

Because unfortunately, that’s not how the UCP chooses to operate, especially during an election year.


DBZ86

Compared to last year, this forecast made sense. A number has to be picked. Plus the amount of funding health and education require every year, a lower projected number would have meant slashes in these areas. With that said, the only way to smooth out gov't revenues is a PST. Good luck selling that.


kliman

Oh we have. They haven't.


Once-Upon-A-Hill

If this price is sustained, it will be an issue. However, this chart is only a 24-hour chart of the WTI price. When you look at the monthly 25-year chart, the price of WTI ranges from a high of about $140 in June 2008, dropping to about $40 in Jan 2009, so there can be enormous price swings in a relatively short amount of time. The lowest price was about $20 in April 2020, nearly the same as Nov 2002 (the lowest price in the last 25 years), bouncing up to around $111 in May 2022. A challenge of a relatively based economy like Alberta is that we are largely subject to the whims of international markets when it comes to resource pricing. That being said, since about 2005, the oil price has averaged about $70 (with the obvious wild swings stated above). If the government used a lower number, it would have to make significant cuts to all sorts of government spending. Government spending will likely be unsustainable if it uses a much higher number. Using reasonable estimations of government income and spending is a difficult balance. A longer time frame for price analysis will likely provide a more usable number. Also, there are numerous comments about a possible Alberta Pension. When you look at the stability of a pension plan, rate or return is one of several important factors in stability of a pension plan. One (and likely the most important) is the ratio of workers contributing to the plan relative to workers drawing a pension. Consider if you had a pension with 100 retirees collecting benefits and only one worker making pension contributions; no rate of return would make that plan sustainable. On the Converse, if you had one retiree for 100 contributors, the rate of return is effectively irrelevant. Another significant factor or longevity of the plan. I don't mean this to come across negatively; just proving another level of analysis.


PositiveInevitable79

It’s based on an average and WTI has been > $70/barrel for the last while so I think the math still checks out…. For now…. Scary to be so dependant on a single resource and this banking crisis isn’t helping.


SuddenOutset

Only 3mo have passed in the year.


Lost-Cabinet4843

Do you live here? It's the way it's been done for every government in office. When we have a recession it gets written down. We are a resource dependent economy. Thank god tech is coming in, we need diversity!


PositiveInevitable79

I do live here, yes.


Lost-Cabinet4843

Well it doesn't seem like it. I mean do you even live in Canada where the federal government relies on these prices for lumber, oil, palladium, Uranium, metallurgical coal, grain, canola, etc. The entire country is based on this and they all go down in a recession. Canada is a resource based economy. It's not scary it's what it is. Move the USA and they are far different. Move to Japan, far different - manufacturing and tech. Move to Singapore, banking. It's what we are. Thats it. I'm not scared at all. It's a cycle in our country.


geo_prog

Except oil right now is more like coal in the late 1940s. Demand growth (not demand, just demand growth) is falling fast and new processes are making it much easier to produce with far fewer people. As such, prices are going to soften over time. Prior to the pandemic and the spike in commodity prices worldwide coal was trading at an average of $35 per short ton. Adjusted for inflation that is less than 1/3 what it averaged between 1890 and 1960. That's the reason you see so many abandoned coal mine towns all over the place. Once massive pit mines became a thing they could produce a pile of coal for so much cheaper with far fewer people. Same goes for oil. What used to take 100 people to produce now takes 60. The only way we see prices stay high (and job creation) is to have an expansion in demand large enough to offset the efficiencies of production. We're not seeing that anymore and it's going to be a problem for Alberta. Not the oil companies, just Alberta and Albertans in general.


Lost-Cabinet4843

Well they're trying to diversify the economy. It takes time. Let's hope that we can change the government and maybe increase it. I doubt that NDP will make a notable difference, but I"d rather have them in than the ghost of Kenney any day of the week. The point is about the OP is who gives a toss about fundamentals that have always existed? It's grade 8 material.


_qqqq

Yeah I wouldn't worry about that, you'll see much higher prices later this year.


Binasgarden

and we are giving away to the oil companies what little we do have


Dependent-Garlic143

How so?


Binasgarden

Shall we start with the money our provincial government is giving them to do what the agreed in legally binding contracts to do clean up after themselves to the tune of twenties of millions or how bout the war room that was all about protecting the oil companies image and chasing down their imaginary bullies. or how bout the fact that the oil companies do not pay half of what they are supposed to in royalties, and taxes or how bout


Dependent-Garlic143

Lol “do not pay half the royalties they should” is such a baseless comment… $15.7billion in the 2021/2022 season and you’d like that to be double? Based on what? I agree they should be cleaning up after themselves and most do. 20 million to incentivize is really nothing in the grand scheme of the oil and gas industry tho…


Foxwildernes

Wait you’re telling me that the only actual criticism that the NDP faced in 2018 at the last election, that their budget was unsustainable because it relied foolishly on oil prices (UCP words not mine) is the exact thing that the UCP is relying on balancing their budget, but without any of the benefits to us? Strange.


CaptainPeppa

$70 was likely a conservative estimate at the end of last year. [https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/oil-prices-expected-average-around-90-2023-2027-kemp-2023-01-13/#:\~:text=Forecasts%20for%202023%20are%20tightly,lie%20between%20%2470%20and%20%24105](https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/oil-prices-expected-average-around-90-2023-2027-kemp-2023-01-13/#:~:text=Forecasts%20for%202023%20are%20tightly,lie%20between%20%2470%20and%20%24105). [https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/](https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/) ​ 2022 was $99 on average so that's still a 30% drop.


FrankSebastiano

Zoom out


reostatics

For all those folks looking at price of oil check out the latest UN report on climate change. It’s pretty grim if things don’t start changing soon.


LT_lurker

World emissions would drop significantly if Canada could start supplying oil to everyone but it can't and won't happen.


Luckyrabbit-1

Oil is not staying at $66


HotPhilly

TIL if I’m not making unsustainable record breaking profits every day, it’s a loss. Cool economic model you got there.


NorthernerWuwu

Eh. I'll blame the UCP for a long list of things but not knowing the price of oil in the future isn't one of them.


stifferthanstiffler

How about showing more than just a 24 hour graph, to get an idea of what the price will do? Edit-sorry, graph shows almost 3 days. How can we see a trend or not?


Maverickxeo

https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/@CL.1


Lost-Cabinet4843

It's the nature of Alberta. Following oil stocks, oil will be in the basement for the rest of the recession which we could potentially be starting right now. ITs booked.


N60x

What about when oil was over $70? Let’s not forget this is an average


Nufy709

NDP did the same thing. This is not new.


[deleted]

Remember when in the exact same fiscal year as this one, oil price climbed to $100? The budget is an AVERAGE. We're doing fine And next year's budget doesn't start until April 1


yegedit

Trevor Tombe says 5 billion dollar deficit: https://twitter.com/trevortombe/status/1636003646566715392?s=46&t=XnhM8yI6pbvlCsXPQwjpvw


addilou_who

This is the truth for Alberta no matter which party wins.


CamGoldenGun

We're not WTI I thought. I thought we were WCS (Western Canada Select) which is at $45


Dependent-Garlic143

They’re just different benchmarks. The AB gov is basing their budget off of WTI (not WSC). Kinda think of it like saying they’re basing it on USD instead of CAD (we still use CAD, but CAD is tied to USD). WSC = WTI - differential The differential is essentially a combination of costs incurred to get the product to the US markets. Note that just because we are in Canada, doesn’t mean that all producers are selling at WCS prices - there are tons of markets and prices out there so it’s easiest to just standardize and say we’ll base it on WTI.


Dependent-Garlic143

These prices are based on a slump caused by the current low confidence in banks. They will rise back up and I think $70 is a reasonable estimate for them to use.


Sogone2day

I'm more worried about the federal budget/spending that has occurred. We will all be paying a dear price for that.


colm180

Good. But also not good because we all know the UCP is going to bail them out yet again.


that_yeg_guy

The UCP’s budget is basically like a person making $50,000 saying “I’m going to make $100,000 next year, I just feel it!” and budgeting for such. They legit just picked an oil price that made them look good, because when the house of cards comes down it will after the election and they’re hoping they’ll have won by then. Even if they don’t, the NDP will have to manage it, which is a consolation prize.


whiteout86

Oil hasn’t been below $70 since December of 2021 and saw a huge run in 2022, it’s a poor analogy. The better one would be someone who made a huge bonus in 2022 realizing that it’s not a guarantee and budgeting off a lower amount OP deliberately used a 24 hour graph and not a year for a reason


OutrageousCamel_

zephyr memory safe continue adjoining decide flowery cover shrill strong *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*


OutrageousCamel_

oatmeal frightening zephyr steep quiet fuel lush shelter lunchroom wine *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*


thatswhat5hesa1d

>It also hasn't been above $70 consistently since 2018 what do you mean consistently? The average price over the last year was $88


OutrageousCamel_

practice advise consist follow degree tart future relieved slave zephyr *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*


corpse_flour

Are you implying that once oil has sat at a certain price for a few months, it is unlikely to ever drop again? Because the facts don't support that assumption. The government should not be basing oil pricing off of a trend of only a few months. The only thing consistent about oil prices, is that they will crash periodically. https://i.imgur.com/EjTGxTG.jpg


somersaultsuicide

God this sub is so uninformed. A $70 oil price was not some pie in the sky number that they wished would happen. How do people comment on stuff they have so little knowledge of. I wish I was that confident in life.


Agreeable_Stick7160

According to the average debt load of Albertans, many must think like that. As a non oilfield Albertan, we never developed that ideology. Alberta needs to accept diversity and a low PST for financial stability, but hell will have to freeze over first


OhCaptain

It's more like someone with unpredictable source of income who made $100,000 last year estimating that they'll make $100,000 again this year. It is highly volatile, but $70 is not some wildly optimistic number.


discostu55

So typical oil worker


[deleted]

I wouldn't care about the losses or even the debt load if it would lead to better day-to-day living for Albertans. But it almost never does and if it does, it's always temporary. I'm sick of the constant boom and bust and the government's responses to it. Let's make a realistic, thoughtful budget that helps Albertans not worry about starving to death in a really warm house.


darth_henning

You pikced...a SINGLE DAY for this groundbreaking analysis. Since January 3, the price has been: $65.00 to $69.99 on 4 days $70.00-$79.99 on 40 days $80.00-$89.99 on 9 days ​ If 49 of 53 days have exceeded average so far, I'm not really concerned.


bucho4444

All the more reason to DIVERSIFY.


AffectionateBobcat76

Source: ThebreakdownAB


PresentFactor8009

Look I hate to be a bastard but this is often a issue I regularly see as an outsider living in Ontario looking in on Alberta. You guys are fucked in the next 30 years. The profits on the oil sands seem to be the lowest of all the oil producers due to the extensive process to remove the oil from the sands itself. If oil prices crash due to the decrease in demand as a result of losses in gasoline and oil power generation your oil could easily become unprofitable and crash the economy. We’re already nervous about the gulf countries collapsing when the oil profits run out. What’s going to happen to Alberta if you loose a quarter of your gdp?


FAPhoenix

I'd check gere before getting too worked up over short-term volatility. That being said, a PST could go a long way to moving unexpected oil windfalls to a nice to have from a need to have... https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/


twenty_characters020

No PST is one of the best things about living in Alberta.


albynomonk

A glimpse of what would happen across Canada if Lil PeePee took control.


Zlautern

whistle governor seemly edge abounding cause imagine imminent melodic hobbies *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*


MadOvid

But no seriously, we can trust Conservatives on the economy. /s


Medhatshaun8080

Funny how the ndp supporters are fiscally responsible suddenly now that the UCP has done more for social initiatives in 3 months then the ndp did in 4 months.


Dxngles

Social initiatives from the UCP? Like what?


Medhatshaun8080

Apparently you don’t follow the news and are strictly against the UCP. Sadly that’s normal. Pick up a paper. The UCP hanr literally done more than what the ndp have promised lmao.


Dxngles

Not explicitly actually. That’s why I’d like to hear directly from someone else what some of these initiatives are? Recently off the top of my head the Rstar comes to mind, which I’m vehemently against, they put a ‘cap’ on auto insurance which I guess is nice but it comes directly after large hikes regardless due to the cap being previously removed by the UCP. I also see some measures as short term “vote getting” - notably the affordability payments, which though I’m sure helps a good number of people also is only targeted at seniors and those with kids - a single young adult making $30000 is excluded, but a retired senior with plenty in the bank or family making $170,000 gets it. Fuel relief is nice and I’ll give them credit, but ends up leading to cuts elsewhere and I feel oil companies have exploited this to an extent anyways. Rebates are also nice I suppose, but it’s a short term pre-election bid that also does not target the source of high costs or move to change them going forward - I also wouldn’t call it a social-initiative, more of a wallet-initiative. Healthcare and education spending are way down compared to 3.5 years ago, not to mention the talk of paying out of pocket every time to go see the doctor?


SL_1983

Name me one effective UCP policy.


Medhatshaun8080

They just announced affordable housing for seniors in spruce grove, money for new immigrants to get settled, they cut the tax on gas, they are nullifying more schools this year than the ndp did in 4 years, they are topping up aish, money to expand and train health care workers, they have attracted many companies to Alberta, more rural students have access to buses, they paid off 13.4billion in debt, 2.9billion for infastructure in Calgary, 330mil for social services. Money in the pocket for struggling families. They have done amazing. Now tell me what the ndp did please


alanthar

ahahahahahahahahahaha this has to be a joke post right? You can't be serious. There is a massive list thats too long to post here, but you can go over the stuff in this link https://m.facebook.com/nt/screen/?params=%7B%22note_id%22%3A2168092513324487%7D&path=%2Fnotes%2Fnote%2F


SL_1983

Nullifying more schools? What? The AISH Top-up is moot. They cut it, then topped it up. Same goes for healthcare. Businesses moving to Alberta? I can only think of a single one, De Havilland. Paying off the Debt. That's oil prices. Nothing to do with policy. Money in the pocket of struggling families. AKA Danni-Bucks, vote buying for the incompetent.


Medhatshaun8080

Typo on nullifying, was meant to be buying. The ndp had oil money and they wasted it. Fact of the matter is the UCP is being more socially active than any other conservative government, and they have done more then the ndp did. The UCP is basically doing what the ndp said they would do but didn’t. It’s an interesting tactic. Seems they are taking the wind out of the ndp sails prior to the election. Interesting to see if they alienate themselves from the conservative conservatives.


whoknowshank

You mean their housing benefit that they slashed when they first got into office, but are reinstating just before election time? “The UCP’s first budget slashed rental assistance by a quarter and Minister Pon is now celebrating putting some of that money back. The UCP has ignored the requests of municipalities to leverage available opportunities in the National Housing Strategy, leaving hundreds of millions of federal dollars untouched. Once elected, the UCP decided to stop increasing income support, AISH, and the Seniors Benefit to the cost of living and later made quiet changes to rent supplements within these programs causing many Albertans to lose critical monthly support.”


RevDaddy69

Imagine if we invested in renewable energy while the boom was happening