Alberta Politics Thread

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by GGG

The concept is that the private sector is cyclical so the government should try to plan their spending counter to that to level out the peaks and Valleys

Instead of spending like crazy in a valley to create jobs, why not lower taxes on every big and small business so they can create jobs and growth themselves. Those are long term jobs that fund themselves instead of short term jobs that are funded by the taxpayer.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Snip

As for information and context gaps, I wonder what your take is on my posts from earlier today when I brought up the fact that the Humpty's owner's letter complaining about the extra costs to his business made no mention of how much his business was making. Only to have it shrugged off as useless information since apparently all that matters is the fact that it is costing him money. Yeah I guess that information would be useless, unless of course you're trying to put the other info he's providing into a context to determine exactly how badly it will affect his business.

This is the fundamental problem. You merely assume, if they're a business owner, they make money. Then you suggest they need to prove real losses before they get your sympathy.

In other posts you've suggested that if a restaurant can't afford the new minimum wage they're not worth being in business anyway.

What if, you made a business starting in the 1970's, grew it, and now you have both a negative economy and new taxes with increased costs, and it pushes you out of business. All while you have supported a 1000s of employees over the years, or more, and now it may all go away.

The responses to you are not bullying as Red has suggested. There is a huge shift happening in the economy and a lot of people are hurting as a result.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Instead of spending like crazy in a valley to create jobs, why not lower taxes on every big and small business so they can create jobs and growth themselves. Those are long term jobs that fund themselves instead of short term jobs that are funded by the taxpayer.

In theory that is logical. In practice though, when you are in a recession as we are now, businesses are taking losses, by offering them tax cuts you are not guaranteeing they will create new jobs, and there is no way of enforcing that they do create jobs rather than just use the break to reduce losses. A rebate or some other sort of incentive for businesses to reward job creation is something that could be looked at but I have no idea how something like that would need to be administered without a lot of potential loopholes.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

In theory that is logical. In practice though, when you are in a recession as we are now, businesses are taking losses, by offering them tax cuts you are not guaranteeing they will create new jobs, and there is no way of enforcing that they do create jobs rather than just use the break to reduce losses. A rebate or some other sort of incentive for businesses to reward job creation is something that could be looked at but I have no idea how something like that would need to be administered without a lot of potential loopholes.

Wow. Cutting edge. Bit late though.

http://calgaryherald.com/business/en...at-replaces-it

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

In theory that is logical. In practice though, when you are in a recession as we are now, businesses are taking losses, by offering them tax cuts you are not guaranteeing they will create new jobs, and there is no way of enforcing that they do create jobs rather than just use the break to reduce losses. A rebate or some other sort of incentive for businesses to reward job creation is something that could be looked at but I have no idea how something like that would need to be administered without a lot of potential loopholes.

Fair enough. However the same could be said about the government collecting additional tax revenue to create jobs. There's no guarentee the taxes would be used towards job creation instead of increasing their government wages and funding their own agendas.

The difference between us is that you think corporate ceo's are selfish greedy people who won't share the wealth and i think government officials are selfish greedy people serving their own special interests.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Instead of spending like crazy in a valley to create jobs, why not lower taxes on every big and small business so they can create jobs and growth themselves. Those are long term jobs that fund themselves instead of short term jobs that are funded by the taxpayer.

Trickle down economics has shown not to be effective stimulus and by the time the tax affects have taken place you are long past when they are needed. Instead of cutting business taxes there is the argument that just giving poor people money is the best kind of stimulus because they spend it locally on neccessities which in turn creates profit for businesses.

The logic of counter cyclic spending though is that the government has things that it needs so if a ring road is a public good that has been deemed necessary you are better off borrowing in a slow time than building it in a boom.

So it isn't spending like crazy, it's spending money on projects which are necessary at some point. So you don't dump a billion into CalgaryNext you dump a billion instead into the green line. The key is that you don't spend just to stimulate you build things you need

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by GGG

Trickle down economics has shown not to be effective stimulus and by the time the tax affects have taken place you are long past when they are needed. Instead of cutting business taxes there is the argument that just giving poor people money is the best kind of stimulus because they spend it locally on neccessities which in turn creates profit for businesses.

The logic of counter cyclic spending though is that the government has things that it needs so if a ring road is a public good that has been deemed necessary you are better off borrowing in a slow time than building it in a boom.

So it isn't spending like crazy, it's spending money on projects which are necessary at some point. So you don't dump a billion into CalgaryNext you dump a billion instead into the green line. The key is that you don't spend just to stimulate you build things you need

The government isn't exactly quick to start infrastructure projects either. Albertans have been begging for work for a while now and the green line or the sw ring road still don't have shovels in the ground.

If you lose your job there may be things you need as well but should probably wait till you have a job instead of taking on debt with no source of revenue. To me low interest rates are a poor reason to borrow and spend. There's better ways to stimulate a sagging economy and create jobs.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

The government isn't exactly quick to start infrastructure projects either. Albertans have been begging for work for a while now and the green line or the sw ring road still don't have shovels in the ground.

If you lose your job there may be things you need as well but should probably wait till you have a job instead of taking on debt with no source of revenue. To me low interest rates are a poor reason to borrow and spend. There's better ways to stimulate a sagging economy and create jobs.

Outside of just giving poor people money nothing is fast but that is expensive and short lived. There isn't a great way to replace 120 million a day of revenue. And there seems to be an expectation that fixes should be instant and all ecoumpassimg. There is no good answer.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Delgar

This is the fundamental problem. You merely assume, if they're a business owner, they make money. Then you suggest they need to prove real losses before they get your sympathy.

I'm not saying or assuming he's making money or losing money for that matter, I don't have the necessary information to make any sort of informed decision on that. That's my point. Yes he should have to prove real(detrimental might be a better word) losses for me to sympathize with him, if these extra costs don't really hurt him overall, and by that I mean have a very minor impact on his ability to operate his business profitably, why would I feel sympathy for him when there are people out their losing their homes? This might surprise you but I'm actually trying to be able to sympathize with him.

In other posts you've suggested that if a restaurant can't afford the new minimum wage they're not worth being in business anyway.

I stand by my stance that if your business can only employ people at a salary that keeps them in poverty and reliant on subsidies, your contribution to the economy is not a positive one.

[QUOTE]
What if, you made a business starting in the 1970's, grew it, and now you have both a negative economy and new taxes with increased costs, and it pushes you out of business. All while you have supported a 1000s of employees over the years, or more, and now it may all go away.[/QUOTE

There are factors out of the control of every business that can dictate whether or not that business will last. Businesses are not limited in what they can earn, but they are also not guaranteed a right to be profitable regardless of their model. In your example my first question would be why were they paying people a wage that was near the poverty line? They would not have had an increase(or a much smaller one) in their costs due to the minimum wage increase if they would have been paying people better. As for the carbon tax, if you can give me a reasonable hypothetical example of how much it impacted their business I can better respond. To say they went out of business because it cost something doesn't really give a good indication of what type of impact it actually had on their business. As for the negative economy, I'd say that a recession can be a little bit unpredictable in terms of when and where they occur, but I'd ask the owner since he's been here since the 70's, if he noticed how boom/bust this province had been throughout that time, and if so did he ever try to vote for a government that would address that issue or did he always just vote for the party that would offer him as a business owner the most breaks.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Fair enough. However the same could be said about the government collecting additional tax revenue to create jobs. There's no guarentee the taxes would be used towards job creation instead of increasing their government wages and funding their own agendas.

The one difference though is the politician can be voted out of office, whereas the owner has nothing to lose by abusing the intention of their tax break

The difference between us is that you think corporate ceo's are selfish greedy people who won't share the wealth and i think government officials are selfish greedy people serving their own special interests.

Actually I think the difference between us is that you appear to believe only one of those statements to be true.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Just so I understand this correctly, you are opposed to me using a hypothetical situation as an example, yet feel I have to accept any hypotheticals you add to my hypothetical example? PST legislation from another province does not set a precedence for how any potential PST would have to be administered in Alberta.

Sure, but neither does your fictional version of PST.

What makes it any more valid than actual evidence-based hypotheticals? Nothing.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Wow. Cutting edge. Bit late though.

http://calgaryherald.com/business/en...at-replaces-it

Wasn't aware of that program, I think it's a good concept though if it can be properly managed.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sure, but neither does your fictional version of PST.

What makes it any more valid than actual evidence-based hypotheticals? Nothing.

At first you tried to argue that your hypothetical situation had a precedence over my hypothetical situation, you went as far to say you considered it me "balking" at you by suggesting that we shouldn't just assume a hypothetical Alberta PST will mirror parts of BC's PST. You then begin arguing that my hypothetical or "fictional" version of the PST doesn't have a precedence over yours. Who was suggesting that it did anyways? Now you are asking me what makes my hypothetical situation more valid than "evidence based" hypothetical? Rather than wait for me to respond you answer for me: nothing. So to that I would ask you again, who is suggesting that either scenario is more valid or has precedence over the other? I certainly never did. Why are you even trying to discuss this with me? Where is this going for you?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

At first you tried to argue that your hypothetical situation had a precedence over my hypothetical situation, you went as far to say you considered it me "balking" at you by suggesting that we shouldn't just assume a hypothetical Alberta PST will mirror parts of BC's PST. You then begin arguing that my hypothetical or "fictional" version of the PST doesn't have a precedence over yours. Who was suggesting that it did anyways? Now you are asking me what makes my hypothetical situation more valid than "evidence based" hypothetical? Rather than wait for me to respond you answer for me: nothing. So to that I would ask you again, who is suggesting that either scenario is more valid or has precedence over the other? I certainly never did. Why are you even trying to discuss this with me? Where is this going for you?

Maybe because I thought you might be able to defend your position instead of recapping the conversation? I'm just confused as to why you would be dismissive of a hypothetical tax system based on multiple other provinces in Canada while repeatedly creating your own version which doesn't seem to have any point of reference. You said you don't think my scenario would happen, I pointed to multiple other provinces where that exact scenario is happening, and your answer was basically: "so?"

What makes you think your scenario would happen?

It was just a small example of the issue people are running into, that's all. Lots of abstractions. Not a lot of evidence backing up opinions, so people are looking for more concrete info or rejecting them outright. That seems fair.

If you have to ask who is suggesting a hypothetical based on immediately comparable situations is more valid than something you made up without a point of reference, then I don't know what to say. The answer should be: everyone.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

The government isn't exactly quick to start infrastructure projects either. Albertans have been begging for work for a while now and the green line or the sw ring road still don't have shovels in the ground.

If you lose your job there may be things you need as well but should probably wait till you have a job instead of taking on debt with no source of revenue. To me low interest rates are a poor reason to borrow and spend. There's better ways to stimulate a sagging economy and create jobs.

Neither the Green Line nor SWRR are shovel ready. However, the funds that the government have already given the city to complete the technical studies and planning to make them shovel ready is employing people and getting the projects closer to being shovel ready.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

In theory that is logical. In practice though, when you are in a recession as we are now, businesses are taking losses, by offering them tax cuts you are not guaranteeing they will create new jobs, and there is no way of enforcing that they do create jobs rather than just use the break to reduce losses. A rebate or some other sort of incentive for businesses to reward job creation is something that could be looked at but I have no idea how something like that would need to be administered without a lot of potential loopholes.

Is this not a highly desired outcome as well? Reducing losses reduces the odds of a business going under, which reduces the odds of more people being thrown out of work.

I realize that you were responding directly to a question about tax cuts to create jobs, but surely you also realize that saving an existing job is valuable also.

[shermanator]

Alberta government will now ban pick up trucks and steaks in 2017

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2016/10...ks-steak-2017/

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Is this not a highly desired outcome as well? Reducing losses reduces the odds of a business going under, which reduces the odds of more people being thrown out of work.

I realize that you were responding directly to a question about tax cuts to create jobs, but surely you also realize that saving an existing job is valuable also.

Yes it would increase the likelihood of jobs being maintained, however I don't think anyone would deny it would also create a massive shortfall on tax revenue generated from businesses. On the flip side of that there would also be a loss in tax revenue generated from income of the jobs that are lost as well, it's a matter of figuring out which scenario is the least painful overall. There's no easy black and white solution to this. I think you would agree on that.

[iggy_oi]

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/c...king-1.3906460

Another article related to carbon tax surcharges being added by trucking companies.

I can understand these companies making an effort to have their increased costs covered, however I find that the method of adding a percentage on the total freight charges will be going well above what they are actually incurring in extra costs.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Yes it would increase the likelihood of jobs being maintained, however I don't think anyone would deny it would also create a massive shortfall on tax revenue generated from businesses. On the flip side of that there would also be a loss in tax revenue generated from income of the jobs that are lost as well, it's a matter of figuring out which scenario is the least painful overall. There's no easy black and white solution to this. I think you would agree on that.

I don't know that the tax revenue shortfall would be massive. I think it'd be marginal overall, and should that business go under you're looking at losing not just a portion of it's taxables, but 100%, along with the taxable income of every employee it had.