Talk:Equalization payments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 ().  I'm going to take out the offending paragraphs in the History section. Greyfedora 19:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Similar Content

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removing some bias 

message: someone ban these people.--Eloc Jcg 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  many vandals 

message: Most of the article is about just one country.  This really should be in an article of its own. Tyronen (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already Canadian Transfer Payments, perhaps it should be merged entirely into that and not have its own article?  TastyCakes (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with TastyCakes. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split section Canada into separate article 

message: I would like to suggest a Simple English language page for Equalization Payments; it's hard enough to understand already.  Pheonex (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple English wikipedia is a completely different project.  If you want to start "translating" this article into simpler language, please do by all means.  I'm a little skeptical that it can all be described without using any big words, but have at 'er.  If things are unclear in this article and you think you can help remedy that, that's of course great too.  TastyCakes (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple English Page 

message: The Barnett formula isn't really a Equalization formula, it is not based on fiscal need (factors such as sparsity of population, cost of travel, unemployment rates, and health). The UK Government's official measures of fiscal need has clearly show that the per capita need in Wales far higher than that of Scotland, yet the Barnett formula allocates the higher amount to Scotland.
The only reson it's still in use is becouse no one has been able to come up with anying less controversial.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK - The Barnett formula? 

message: Dr. Buttner has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Buttner has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Thiess Buettner, 2007. "Equalization Transfers and Dynamic Fiscal Adjustment: Results for German Municipalities and a US-German Comparison," Working Papers 2007-07, University of Kentucky, Institute for Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations.
ExpertIdeas (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Buttner's comment on this article