Alberta Politics Thread

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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.

Yes if that one business goes under you lose all the tax revenue from that business and its employees. But if you cut 1% from what all businesses have to pay the total number is much higher. Depending on the businesses profits and employee salaries, the loss of business and employee generated tax revenue from 1 or more businesses going under can actually have less of a negative effect on tax revenue than a company with large profits getting a 1% reduction in their taxes.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Yes if that one business goes under you lose all the tax revenue from that business and its employees. But if you cut 1% from what all businesses have to pay the total number is much higher. Depending on the businesses profits and employee salaries, the loss of business and employee generated tax revenue from 1 or more businesses going under can actually have less of a negative effect on tax revenue than a company with large profits getting a 1% reduction in their taxes.

It can, but having tax cuts for businesses also keeps more employees paying taxes at those business, increases their ability to generate investment and raises their taxables (that's all in addition to avoiding the closure of businesses and the loss of those employees).

If you cut a large company's tax by 1%, you're losing tax revenue, but if that company's taxables and the loss of employees paying income tax drops by even a value of 5% combined (which is SUPER easy) then you're getting less tax money anyway.

Cutting tax to stem losses doesn't mean you're missing out on tax revenue. If businesses cash flow drops, if they close, or if employees get let go, you're losing a lot more tax revenue by doing nothing.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It can, but having tax cuts for businesses also keeps more employees paying taxes at those business, increases their ability to generate investment and raises their taxables (that's all in addition to avoiding the closure of businesses and the loss of those employees).

If you cut a large company's tax by 1%, you're losing tax revenue, but if that company's taxables and the loss of employees paying income tax drops by even a value of 5% combined (which is SUPER easy) then you're getting less tax money anyway.

Cutting tax to stem losses doesn't mean you're missing out on tax revenue. If businesses cash flow drops, if they close, or if employees get let go, you're losing a lot more tax revenue by doing nothing.

But you aren't cutting only that 1 companies tax rate, you would be cutting it across the board to all companies. If the provincial corporate tax rate is currently 12% and you reduce it to 11% you are reducing corporate tax revenue generated by over 8%, small business tax revenue will be reduced by 33% on Jan 1. Now the carbon tax will make up some of this shortfall but I don't think it will cover all of it, I'd need to look up the numbers. The other part of that equation is that it also won't guarantee how many jobs will be saved, same as keeping it the same won't guarantee how many jobs will be lost. A grant for not reducing your staff or salary payouts within a year could be a useful incentive to help maintain a balance.

[PepsiFree]

Well, yeah, nobody is suggesting a cut impacts just one company.

The recession doesn't impact just one company.
There isn't just one business closing.
We aren't just losing one employee from the pool of taxable income.

I think it's inherently understood by everyone in this conversation that we aren't talking about micro-examples here.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Well, yeah, nobody is suggesting a cut impacts just one company.

The recession doesn't impact just one company.
There isn't just one business closing.
We aren't just losing one employee from the pool of taxable income.

I think it's inherently understood by everyone in this conversation that we aren't talking about micro-examples here.

I was responding to your example that used a single company.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I was responding to your example that used a single company.

Yeah, I was expecting you to logically extrapolate that example to be representative of the larger situation. Not just take it as a one-off micro-example.

Of course we're talking about more than one company. The example is meant to be representative of the issue, not the issue.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

A grant for not reducing your staff or salary payouts within a year could be a useful incentive to help maintain a balance.

Unless they're giving out grants to cover the entire cost of someone's salary, your hypothetical grant is useless. The business will always save more money by terminating the employee.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

A grant for not reducing your staff or salary payouts within a year could be a useful incentive to help maintain a balance.

Free money for not firing someone or downsizing? Why doesnt the Government just hire them and get something for their money.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I was expecting you to logically extrapolate

And now you see why no one bothers to debates iggy_oi.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, I was expecting you to logically extrapolate that example to be representative of the larger situation. Not just take it as a one-off micro-example.

Of course we're talking about more than one company. The example is meant to be representative of the issue, not the issue.

I already have explained the effect on both sides in the larger situation. This is the first post of mine on the subject that you replied to:

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.

You responded with this example which focused on the impact of one single company closing and the tax revenue losses associated with that compared to the overall shortfall of decreasing corporate tax rates across the board:

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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.

I then went into a bit more detail to explain how they compare in the big picture

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Yes if that one business goes under you lose all the tax revenue from that business and its employees. But if you cut 1% from what all businesses have to pay the total number is much higher. Depending on the businesses profits and employee salaries, the loss of business and employee generated tax revenue from 1 or more businesses going under can actually have less of a negative effect on tax revenue than a company with large profits getting a 1% reduction in their taxes.

Then you went back to the single business impact example again, comparing that companies' overall tax revenue generated to what it would give up in a tax cut:

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It can, but having tax cuts for businesses also keeps more employees paying taxes at those business, increases their ability to generate investment and raises their taxables (that's all in addition to avoiding the closure of businesses and the loss of those employees).

If you cut a large company's tax by 1%, you're losing tax revenue, but if that company's taxables and the loss of employees paying income tax drops by even a value of 5% combined (which is SUPER easy) then you're getting less tax money anyway.

What part of my position would you specifically like more clarification on? When I've given you examples of how a tax cut or job losses affects the overall tax revenue, you responded by giving examples referring to the impact they would have for a single business, when I've gone into more detail to explain the across the board impact, you responded by reiterating what I've already acknolwleged, and then again used a single business example for how you could lose money either way. Using single business examples can help illustrate the possible complications, but you have to put it in a context which shows the overall effect on the big picture, in both scenarios, while also accounting for the fact that businesses are not all equal when it comes to tax revenue generated, general revenues/profits, or the ratio of employee compensation vs revenue generated. Either scenario impacts 2 different companies very differently, and the impact of how either outcome affects those 2 companies has a very different effect on the overall tax revenue generated or lost.

Unless your definition of the larger picture means something other than the overall across the board impact of both scenarios, I think you're going in circles with your posts. Be it accidentally or intentionally.

[PepsiFree]

Going in circles?

Said the guy who spends hundreds of words recapping conversations that are happening right in front of us.

[Dion]

NDP generating green-energy ideas

But whatever their motive, the NDP’s micro-gen policy is sensible. Albertans should be able to generate as much power as they want on their own. And the competition from small-scale residential and commercial generators might just help keep overall power rates down, too.

Where these new regs fall down is the NDP’s insistence that new micro-generators will help substantially to replace the coal-fired power they have ordered closed by 2030.

At present, according to the government’s own figures, coal-fired power plants in Alberta have the capacity to generate 6,300 megawatts of power. Meanwhile, all 1,200 existing micro-generators produce fewer than seven megawatts.

Even if the new regs encourage a doubling of the current number of green generators and each one of them quintuples its capacity, microgeneration would still account for only 70 megawatts.

Alberta would still be 6,230 megawatts short. Whose house won’t we heat? I vote that the NDP cabinet be the first to live with their new “green” energy experiment.

What happens two years from now, five years from now, 10 years when micro-gen and other experiments are failing to take up the slack left by coal’s closure? Expect the Alberta NDP to follow the ridiculous lead of the Ontario Liberals.

Ontario started shutting coal plants in 2002 with a final date of 2014. In about 2008, when it became obvious “green” energy would not replace coal before the deadline, Ontario started subsidizing wind, solar and biomass (like woodchips) heavily, as well as building new nuclear, natural gas and hydro capacity.

This effort cost taxpayers $40 billion and, on top of that, gave Ontario the highest priced electricity in North America. Rates have gone up 120 per cent in eight years.

Expect our NDP to follow a similar path here when their “green” plot flops. Rather than admit their mistake, they’ll charge taxpayers and consumers through the nose.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/12/21...n-energy-ideas

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

Free money for not firing someone or downsizing? Why doesnt the Government just hire them and get something for their money.

To avoid throwing you into a fit of rage for further expanding their operations with tax dollars? In all seriousness, you do realize that a lot of government grants and subsidies risk getting no return on their investment right? It was a random example of a possible alternative, I'm not saying it's the definitive solution so don't dwell too deeply

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Unless they're giving out grants to cover the entire cost of someone's salary, your hypothetical grant is useless. The business will always save more money by terminating the employee.

So what if they modelled it in a way that could cover an employee's salary? Let's say the grant gave the employer $1000 per employee if there's was no reduction in their workforce throughout the year? For a business that employs 100 people, that would be $100k. So conservatively I'd say that's the equivalent to 1 or 2 jobs. Is it going to stop them from firing 10 employees if they feel they need to? Not likely in most cases, but it would provide some incentive to at least try and retain employees. Obviously there are a lot of reasons why this would not work in all circumstances and a lot factors related to the model and costs that actually need to be paid, but if there is a way to make it work and it keeps some people employed what is the negative in that? If no one qualifies for it then it costs nothing.

Another possible way of giving employers incentive to retain employees could be to give them a tax break based on retention. If a business doesn't reduce or if it increases its staff/labour costs throughout the year, maybe they could be have their business tax rate cut by 1%. Depending on the size of the company and it's revenue that could actually be a very good incentive.

I get that you don't agree with my views on a lot of things, but don't you think contributing potential alternative solutions would be a bit little more productive and add more to the discussion than constantly hiding in the woodworks waiting to criticize someone's posts over and over again does? Pointing out why something won't work is kinda easy, finding a solution that makes it work or a better alternative is the hard part.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Dion

NDP generating green-energy ideas





http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/12/21...n-energy-ideas

This is fear mongering.

Before 2030 hits gas retrofits and new gas plants will open. It won't be green but it will be greener than coal.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is fear mongering.

Before 2030 hits gas retrofits and new gas plants will open. It won't be green but it will be greener than coal.

Seeing how coal is black that is not a high bar.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

Seeing how coal is black that is not a high bar.

Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) when combusted in a new, efficient natural gas power plant compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/c...s#.WFxl2jRfOnM

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is fear mongering.

Before 2030 hits gas retrofits and new gas plants will open. It won't be green but it will be greener than coal.

Just curious, are there any new gas plants planed? I've heard about some of the conversions from coal. Is anything of the scale of Shepard in the works? We need about 7 Shepard's to replace our loss in coal. I'm not sure how many are going to be converted.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is fear mongering.

Before 2030 hits gas retrofits and new gas plants will open. It won't be green but it will be greener than coal.

Hopefully Alberta does a better job of that compared to what Wynne did in Ontario.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Just curious, are there any new gas plants planed? I've heard about some of the conversions from coal. Is anything of the scale of Shepard in the works? We need about 7 Shepard's to replace our loss in coal. I'm not sure how many are going to be converted.

No idea,

But if you make regulatory approval easy 4-6 years should be enough time to build new gas plants. With the supply based markets their talking about it should incentivize meeting the supply.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Another possible way of giving employers incentive to retain employees could be to give them a tax break based on retention. If a business doesn't reduce or if it increases its staff/labour costs throughout the year, maybe they could be have their business tax rate cut by 1%. Depending on the size of the company and it's revenue that could actually be a very good incentive.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering here, but companies looking at laying off significant numbers of employees aren't making profits and so aren't paying business taxes.

Your proposal would reward companies who can afford corporate taxes (those growing or maintaining their staff) while paradoxically in a relative sense punishing those who can't (the small cohort who are cutting staff but manage to maintain marginal profitability and so would be paying tax).

Everyone else pays nothing or is restructuring for an outside reason (merger/relocation/end of short term contracts etc.) not affected by short term tax rates.

Better to let failing companies fail (or restructure to return to profitability) and bail the people hurt by layoffs out individually than intervene like in any of the scenarios you imagine.

Saving a job when it's not needed is a waste of life for the employee (the purgatory of going to work with nothing to do), is bad for the company (morale, waste and inefficiency that comes from being overstaffed), and is thus a waste of tax money.