01-01-2017, 06:27 PM
|
#41
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Summary of article:
- Carbon tax will be crippling on Alberta and all of Canada
- The US doesn't have one, sad!
- The US will rake in the cash because of no carbon tax
- I studied environmental science so i love the environment too shoutout to my former prof who inspired me to love the environment
- step down!
I think the only new thing here is that he is demanding her to step down.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobHopper
The thing is, my posts, thoughts and insights may be my opinions but they're also quite factual.
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to saillias For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-01-2017, 06:50 PM
|
#42
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Kevin O'Leary has even less credibility as Trump does as a "billionaire". He has gotten lucky on one deal, and rarely seems to do much else without getting sued. His foray into money management was a disaster, underperformed the market. Just another eastern carpetbagger who is sure he has the energy industry all figured out.
Article from over four years ago, long before he was making noises about running for office.
|
|
|
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to InglewoodFan For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-01-2017, 06:54 PM
|
#43
|
Not a casual user
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin
Damn, I read that open letter and thought it might spawn decent discussion here on CP. But I see it's already turned into an "explain business to iggyoi" thread and if it's like the other threads that's all it will be now.
|
This place would be incredibly boring if we all agreed on the same things. Like him or not iggyoi creates good discussion on a variety of topics,
__________________
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Dion For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-01-2017, 08:27 PM
|
#45
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
I would agree that the government could done more to explain the costs to the public, but I don't believe their handling of it gives companies a free pass to gouge, they are just as capable of showing exactly what the breakdowns of their costs will be and making that public, does anyone think they will be making their books public?
|
They didn't just do a poor job of explaining it, they've been blatantly lying about it. A more diplomatic way of putting it would be "spin", but it amounts to the same thing.
No, I don't think companies will be revealing sensitive information to the public at large that would harm their interests vis a vis their competitors and likely breach non-disclosure provisions in the myriad agreements they maintain with many of the parties they do business with on a regular basis. That just doesn't seem all that likely to me, for some reason I can't quite put my finger on. But then, they aren't funded entirely by the tax dollars levied against that same public and have no duty to be transparent. That could be why.
Your pre-existing biases and tendency to give government a pass while treating business as essentially the devil is so unbelievably boring at this point. You opened with a two line post that fundamentally misunderstood basic accounting principles, to the surprise of (I assume) no one at all. Must you ruin all threads tangentially related to the carbon tax?
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|
|
|
01-01-2017, 08:47 PM
|
#46
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Section 203
|
Gas prices rose $0.10/L in Vancouver as well. They were $1.35/L today after being around $1.25/L for a couple weeks.
__________________
My thanks equals mod team endorsement of your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Jesus this site these days
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnet Flame
He just seemed like a very nice person. I loved Squiggy.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
I should probably stop posting at this point
|
|
|
|
01-01-2017, 09:59 PM
|
#47
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
They didn't just do a poor job of explaining it, they've been blatantly lying about it.
|
Well, it's not like there was a specific economic impact study of the "Climate Leadership Plan (TM)" that was undertaken and completed many months ago that the provincial government has refused to release . . .
|
|
|
01-01-2017, 11:28 PM
|
#48
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North of the River, South of the Bluff
|
I just take the pragmatist view. We get Trans Mountain built by 2019 and we get to kick Notley out the same year. The new government will hopefully keep their promise and repeal the tax. Best case scenario.
|
|
|
01-01-2017, 11:38 PM
|
#49
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
No it isn't.
|
Yes it is. I'm just being contrarian I don't actually care.
|
|
|
01-01-2017, 11:43 PM
|
#50
|
Posted the 6 millionth post!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDutch
I just take the pragmatist view. We get Trans Mountain built by 2019 and we get to kick Notley out the same year. The new government will hopefully keep their promise and repeal the tax. Best case scenario.
|
Give me a celebration emoticon if you think the next government is going to be significantly better.
|
|
|
01-01-2017, 11:54 PM
|
#51
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Well, I'm back from BC, and I see gas prices have risen a solid ten cents per litre. What happened to the .04 I was told would be the case?
|
Wow, you're going to spin it too, eh?
|
|
|
01-02-2017, 12:00 AM
|
#52
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by InglewoodFan
Kevin O'Leary has even less credibility as Trump does as a "billionaire".
|
Trump's net worth has plunged to 3.7 billion, very sad. The greatest sadness.
|
|
|
01-02-2017, 12:04 AM
|
#53
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North of the River, South of the Bluff
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
Give me a celebration emoticon if you think the next government is going to be significantly better.
|
Well fair enough if Joe Cici as finance minister is the absolute best this province can do. To me I think we can do better than cow towing to unions and being in over our heads.
I am all for diversification of the economy but can you explain to me how this carbon tax is exactly going to do that? All I see is they will collect revenue to invest in stuff they think is important and gain some imaginary social license. That doesn't cut it for me. Not sure what emoticon conveys that.
|
|
|
01-02-2017, 12:30 AM
|
#54
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDutch
I am all for diversification of the economy but can you explain to me how this carbon tax is exactly going to do that?
|
The info on the Alberta government is site is vague, apparently we are going to get a bunch more wind farms and maybe increase total output from wind by 5% in the next decade or so. I don't see renewable sources all that viable in Alberta currently it would be smarter (and probably cleaner) to increase use of natural gas short term, long term green tech might be mature enough to work here on a large scale.
If we are going to tax carbon fuels then we should invent in research and production of the so called green tech sector not just buy it from China.
|
|
|
01-02-2017, 12:31 AM
|
#55
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
This is what people should be focusing on, carbon tax is here, we can't change that. But I hope people who attacked the government for implementing it will equally scrutinize companies who raise their prices as a result of it, their should be increases, how big of an increase is the issue right now. And whether or not all increases are legitimately tied to the carbon tax.
I would agree that the government could done more to explain the costs to the public, but I don't believe their handling of it gives companies a free pass to gouge, they are just as capable of showing exactly what the breakdowns of their costs will be and making that public, does anyone think they will be making their books public?
|
We should scrutinize companies for raising their prices because the Government raised their costs? That seems like some serious cognitive dissonance.
The Government could have done more to explain the costs to the public?
Sure, I'd agree with that....except for the part where I'm fairly confident that this gaggle of morons have no idea what they're doing other than 'Carbon = The Devil.'
They're Kathy Bates from 'Waterboy.'
Businesses are fully capable of providing breakdowns of their costs to the public? Really? How do you figure that?
First of all, those breakdowns arent free. Have you ever had to do a Professional Cost-Breakdown? Its hard. Its very complex. Where do you attribute certain aspects of overhead, how do you account for rent increases. They have to be audited, and then they have to be distributed and then...it goes on and on.
All so businesses can spread Government Propaganda? Whats in it for them?
Especially considering the Carbon tax is about as fluid and ethereal as it gets. The people instituting it have no idea as to its effects. Its supposed to cost the wealthiest Albertans a maximum of...well, thats been a bit of a moving target as of late, whats it at now? $480/year?
But again, that doesnt take into account any of the downstream Economic effects that, according to our Fearless Leaders, dont exist.
Face facts, this tax is a boondoggled debacle of epic proportions.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-02-2017, 05:45 AM
|
#56
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
|
Old article but I have to ask for those who might know, where does Forbes get their numbers from? for instance they have the five star Trump Las Vegas valued at $156 million yet it cost $1.3 billion to construct.
They also value his many aircraft at $35 million total yet his Boeing 757 is worth at least 2X that.
Last edited by Snuffleupagus; 01-02-2017 at 05:48 AM.
|
|
|
01-02-2017, 06:22 AM
|
#57
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDutch
Well fair enough if Joe Cici as finance minister is the absolute best this province can do. To me I think we can do better than cow towing to unions and being in over our heads.
I am all for diversification of the economy but can you explain to me how this carbon tax is exactly going to do that? All I see is they will collect revenue to invest in stuff they think is important and gain some imaginary social license. That doesn't cut it for me. Not sure what emoticon conveys that.
|
All hail our cow towing finance minister.
|
|
|
01-02-2017, 07:18 AM
|
#58
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Especially considering the Carbon tax is about as fluid and ethereal as it gets. The people instituting it have no idea as to its effects. Its supposed to cost the wealthiest Albertans a maximum of...well, thats been a bit of a moving target as of late, whats it at now? $480/year?
But again, that doesnt take into account any of the downstream Economic effects that, according to our Fearless Leaders, dont exist.
|
I think the scary thing is that they have taken into account downstream effects...
Quote:
The indirect costs of the carbon levy are estimated to range between: - $50 to $70 per household in 2017
- $70 to $105 per household in 2018
Indirect costs of the carbon levy on Alberta households were calculated using a detailed Alberta Input-Output model, which is based on Statistics Canada data and reflects inter-industry as well as cross-border trade flows that occur while producing a specific good or service consumed by Alberta households. To develop the ranges, it is assumed that businesses subject to the levy pass through 50% to 75% of the related costs to consumers.
|
But they have no intention of accounting for this in their rebates. The $200 bucks poor people get is only for gas and heat plus $9 bucks. And how laughable is assuming business will pass on 50% of the cost to their consumers? Awesome business model there...gross profit - 50% of costs = net loss.
Last edited by OMG!WTF!; 01-02-2017 at 07:25 AM.
|
|
|
01-02-2017, 07:20 AM
|
#59
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
All hail our cow towing finance minister.
|
I think it's time for a kudatah!
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Canehdianman For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-02-2017, 08:16 AM
|
#60
|
Franchise Player
|
I assume it's because "we want to tax businesses not consumers, so we'll assume that is what will happen."
Also, to whoever thinks they should explain it more, I'd like to suggest that you fund the next batch of self-congratulatory radio ads instead of our tax dollars paying for Notely to campaign. I'm sure we could use the money for something more productive. ..
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:06 PM.
|
|