Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this paper is to examine alternative ways of raising government revenue in Alberta. There are several ways to approach this question. One would be to adopt a revenue neutral perspective, which would focus on the design and configuration of the tax system without a view to raising more revenue; a so-called revenue neutral perspective. Another would be to evaluate various options from the perspective of raising sufficient revenue to eliminate or reduce the deficit going forward, or more generally to close the fiscal gap, in order to put the government on a sustainable fiscal path. Neither of these approaches is followed here. While the first approach is in some ways more pure from a tax policy perspective it is possible that at least a modest increase in revenues will be required to put the government on a sustainable fiscal path. Moreover, there are several moving parts to the revenue system, and it is very difficult in this context to accurately take account of the various interactions. In terms of the second approach, it is not clear precisely how much higher revenues should be relied upon versus lower spending to restore fiscal sustainability. As Trevor Tombe puts it in a recent analysis of the sustainability of Alberta’s fiscal policy, “the province has neither a revenue problem nor a spending problem; it has a budget problem.”[1] This problem can be addressed from the revenue side, the expenditure side or a combination of both. I don’t take a strong position on this. Rather I examine some of the key sources of government revenue and evaluate various policy options that would alter the tax mix without imposing a hard constraint of revenue neutrality or the need to generate a given amount of revenue to close the fiscal gap. In some cases I argue for tax reductions and in others for tax increases. The focus is on “first principles”, drawing on what economic research on tax policy has to say about implementing an efficient and equitable tax system within an Alberta context. Of course, as will be discussed, this inevitably involves trade-offs and, also inevitably, some disagreement on the nature of those trade-offs. The net impact on total revenue from the type of changes I discuss in what follows may be positive or negative, but the magnitude of the revenue gains can be scaled up or down by adjusting rates appropriately; the first-principles laid out here provide guidance on how best to go about that. Based on my analysis, and as a preview of my conclusions, I argue the following: Cut the corporate income tax rate as planned. Keep the full provincial carbon tax. Maintain the progressive rate structure in the personal income tax (no flat tax), but consider a “middle class” personal income tax cut. Impose a harmonized provincial sales tax. While it is not the focus of the paper, I also argue for reintroducing systematic contributions of resource revenue to a stabilization fund, and eventually the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. [1] Tombe (2018).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».