Kevin O'Leary's Letter to Premier Notley - Carbon Tax Discussion

[GGG]

This whole everything will be more expensive drives me nuts.

It's not like the money goes up in smoke. Alberta has been significantly under taxed for the level of service we are provided due to a strong commodity. Given this situation no longer exists tax increases were necessary.

We just need to cut expenditures now and we will be on the right track. When we boot Notley at the end of 2019 the new government will have a nice revenue source to balance the budget with after some significant cuts are taken.

The golden goose is gone, Shale oil caps the long term price. We need to get used to being a province with billions less dollars going through it. Increased taxation is one of these consequences.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

https://www.alberta.ca/climate-carbon-pricing.aspx

Hey, I googled that for you.

"$6.2 billion will help diversify our energy industry and create new jobs:

$3.4 billion for large scale renewable energy, bioenergy and technology
$2.2 billion for green infrastructure like public transit
$645 million for Energy Efficiency Alberta, a new provincial agency that will support energy efficiency programs and services for homes and businesses"

But hey instead of using the internet for a second why not take an easy way out and do a lazy drive by instead?

Well it was someone else who requested you expand on your position before you balked, but thanks for that extremely specific breakdown on how the provincial govt plans to spend their newfound tax revenue.

[Dion]

Notley bucks will be direct deposited or in cheques as early as this thursday.

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/new-carbon...ects-1.3224947

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Well it was someone else who requested you expand on your position before you balked, but thanks for that extremely specific breakdown on how the provincial govt plans to spend their newfound tax revenue.

Ya and you made your ####ty little drive by remark because you're either 1) too lazy to use the googles or 2) think the Notley government is lying and will spend the money to balance the budget or whatever. Either way that's up to you.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

"$6.2 billion will help diversify our energy industry and create new jobs:

$3.4 billion for large scale renewable energy, bioenergy and technology
$2.2 billion for green infrastructure like public transit
$645 million for Energy Efficiency Alberta, a new provincial agency that will support energy efficiency programs and services for homes and businesses"

Tells us almost nothing a bunch of buzzwords and vagaries.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by zamler

Tells us almost nothing a bunch of buzzwords and vagaries.

1) that's not what you think the word "vagaries" means
2) do you want me to call up my member of MLA and do some hard research for you?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

This whole everything will be more expensive drives me nuts.

It's not like the money goes up in smoke. Alberta has been significantly under taxed for the level of service we are provided due to a strong commodity. Given this situation no longer exists tax increases were necessary.

We just need to cut expenditures now and we will be on the right track. When we boot Notley at the end of 2019 the new government will have a nice revenue source to balance the budget with after some significant cuts are taken.

The golden goose is gone, Shale oil caps the long term price. We need to get used to being a province with billions less dollars going through it. Increased taxation is one of these consequences.

Sure, but a new provincial agency for energy efficiency, and tax rebayes for the new tax aren't exactly necessary spending that we would be doing anyway.

I also think lathe scale renewable spending shouldn't be a govt priority in times of huge deficit

[GGG]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Sure, but a new provincial agency for energy efficiency, and tax rebayes for the new tax aren't exactly necessary spending that we would be doing anyway

I'm taking he long view that this is necessary step to getting Alberta
Back on track.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Ya and you made your ####ty little drive by remark because you're either 1) too lazy to use the googles or 2) think the Notley government is lying and will spend the money to balance the budget or whatever. Either way that's up to you.

Or...

3) Pointing out how one of the carbon taxes loudest proponents in this thread has zero knowledge of what it is they are regurgitating other than what they can glean off the govt website, and becomes irritable at anyone having the audacity to call them out for it.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Or...

3) Pointing out how one of the carbon taxes loudest proponents in this thread have zero knowledge of what it is they are regurgitating other than what they can glean off the govt website, and becomes irritable at anyone having the audacity to call them out for it.

I would try and debate this further but it appears you have no interest in serious discussion. I firmly believe there's nothing that can be written to change your mind. Or Zamlers.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

1) that's not what you think the word "vagaries" means

You're right I don't.

2) do you want me to call up my member of MLA and do some hard research for you?

Okay. I'm sure all the details are hammed out they have just not bothered to share.

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I would try and debate this further but it appears you have no interest in serious discussion. I firmly believe there's nothing that can be written to change your mind. Or Zamlers.

Funny how you've already made up your mind (green tax good) without any details at all, but when others ask actual questions you get angry. Why is that?

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Fixed that for ya.

I would try and debate this further but it appears you have no interest in serious discussion. I firmly believe there's nothing that can be written to change your mind. Or Zamlers.

Well at least you will be here to proof read posts.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by zamler

You're right I don't.
Okay. I'm sure all the details are hammed out they have just not bothered to share.

Funny how you've already made up your mind (green tax good) without any details at all, but when others ask actual questions you get angry. Why is that?

Yes, I have made up my mind that a carbon tax is good. Have I made up THIS carbon tax is good? Not yet but I'm going to assume so until proven otherwise. If the AB government spends money raised by this tax to turn our province into a leader of green energy, I'm totally fine with it.

If they use the tax dollars in the general budget that will be a gross misuse of the funds and I would be very displeased with it.

What's wrong with that?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Yes, I have made up my mind that a carbon tax is good. Have I made up THIS carbon tax is good? Not yet but I'm going to assume so until proven otherwise. If the AB government spends money raised by this tax to turn our province into a leader of green energy, I'm totally fine with it.

If they use the tax dollars in the general budget that will be a gross misuse of the funds and I would be very displeased with it.

What's wrong with that?

Because only the almighty invisible hand can tell us what humans should be doing with their resources. It's a law of nature.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Yes, I have made up my mind that a carbon tax is good. Have I made up THIS carbon tax is good? Not yet but I'm going to assume so until proven otherwise. If the AB government spends money raised by this tax to turn our province into a leader of green energy, I'm totally fine with it.

If they use the tax dollars in the general budget that will be a gross misuse of the funds and I would be very displeased with it.

What's wrong with that?

I don't get this concept. The Carbon tax should be treated as any other revenue. It is not special.

If it makes economic sense to invest in green energy then we should do it regardless of the presence of a carbon tax or not. Governments should set their expenditures prudently based on the provinces needs them use various tax measures to garner enough revenue.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't get this concept. The Carbon tax should be treated as any other revenue. It is not special.

If it makes economic sense to invest in green energy then we should do it regardless of the presence of a carbon tax or not. Governments should set their expenditures prudently based on the provinces needs them use various tax measures to garner enough revenue.

Isn't that exactly what's happening here?

You may not agree with the needs, or the measures, but that is what is happening, no?

The province needs diversification, both in energy generation and industry. Those happen to be the same thing here. They are using a tax measure to garner enough revenue to attempt to jump start those needs.

I agree with most that there is very poor timing and some idealism over pragmatism taking place in the short term here. By doing that they could end up creating lag effects that drag the recession longer than it may otherwise be once oil booms again if they had just waited for that to happen again.

Maybe none of this will happen and Alberta will become the soviet wasteland everyone seems to fear/hope for here.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't get this concept. The Carbon tax should be treated as any other revenue. It is not special.

If it makes economic sense to invest in green energy then we should do it regardless of the presence of a carbon tax or not. Governments should set their expenditures prudently based on the provinces needs them use various tax measures to garner enough revenue.

It is special though and it isn't treated like any other tax revenue...at least for the first five years. So the whole bit about needing more tax revenue to off set out lower oil royalties still hasn't been addressed.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Isn't that exactly what's happening here?

You may not agree with the needs, or the measures, but that is what is happening, no?

The province needs diversification, both in energy generation and industry. Those happen to be the same thing here. They are using a tax measure to garner enough revenue to attempt to jump start those needs.

I agree with most that there is very poor timing and some idealism over pragmatism taking place in the short term here. By doing that they could end up creating lag effects that drag the recession longer than it may otherwise be once oil booms again if they had just waited for that to happen again.

Maybe none of this will happen and Alberta will become the soviet wasteland everyone seems to fear/hope for here.

It might be, I am disagreeing with the premise that a good implementation of a carbon tax would only be spent on diversification. It might be prudent right now to spend on diversification but the concept of dedicated taxes to specific purposes is flawed.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by zamler

Tells us almost nothing a bunch of buzzwords and vagaries.

Seems to give you some clear dollar figures that you as a voter could use to hold them accountable for what you would consider poor management of tax dollars if you aren't happy with how they spend it.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Yes, I have made up my mind that a carbon tax is good. Have I made up THIS carbon tax is good? Not yet but I'm going to assume so until proven otherwise. If the AB government spends money raised by this tax to turn our province into a leader of green energy, I'm totally fine with it.

If they use the tax dollars in the general budget that will be a gross misuse of the funds and I would be very displeased with it.

What's wrong with that?

I completely disagree with this. The carbon tax money should be spent on whatever the highest-needs area is. If the biggest priority for AB gov't spending is public transit infrastructure, spend it on that. If its new schools, or more health funding, or plugging the ozone-hole sized deficit, then spend it on that.

Having dedicated funds go to a specific purpose is foolish. It literally can't be any better than spending it on the most needed item, by definition. If that happens to be the most needed item now, then great, tell people that, and if that changes in the future then its easier to switch.