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

[Methanolic]

Carbon sounds bad and dirty.
Carbon dioxide doesn't sound bad at all, after all, it is essential to life on earth.

This is a "Carbon Dioxide" tax. That just sounds silly, lose the word dioxide and we've got a winner.

[Northendzone]

as per all of the ndp's proproganda there are now jobs being created as a result of this new tax

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

as per all of the ndp's proproganda there are now jobs being created as a result of this new tax

Think of how many PR flacks they've had to hire to spin it...

Why does no one ever think of the PR flacks?!?!?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Methanolic

Carbon sounds bad and dirty.
Carbon dioxide doesn't sound bad at all, after all, it is essential to life on earth.

This is a "Carbon Dioxide" tax. That just sounds silly, lose the word dioxide and we've got a winner.

Everyone should know this is a carbon dioxide tax if they read more than the title. CO2 is essential, but releasing too much into the atmosphere is a bad thing.

The NDP aren't banking on people not knowing they're talking about carbon dioxide. Carbon is also an essential part of life. I don't know how one sounds dirtier than the other.

Governments use the term "carbon" because scientist studying the carbon cycle typically do. It's not to pull the wool over.

[GGG]

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.

No government is repealing our PST without replacing it with something else. Unless oil is $100 per barrel we can't cut taxes. We will still need to cut services to balance the budget. Anyone running on a populist campaign to kill the tax without replacing the revenues or cut the equivalent amount of expenses should not get anyone's vote.

[Dion]

A rushed system

With 2017 just days away, Darren King wasn’t interested in weighing in on the carbon tax as policy, but he wasn’t impressed with its execution.

“It’s the lack of foresight, their lack of understanding of the impact, the way they’re implementing it — that’s the issue,” he said.

King is president of Lloydminster-based Kings Energy Group, a wholesale fuel company primarily supplying oilfields.

To qualify for an automatic carbon tax exemption, 80 per cent of sales have to land outside of Alberta. In Lloydminster, sales for businesses like King’s tend to be split about 50/50 between Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Although King is expecting word on rebates in early 2017 — around the same time the province plans to announce energy efficiency programs — the ambiguity unsettled him.

“In the wholesale fuel industry, our biggest worry is (the province is) tying up a big chunk of our working capital with a process that isn’t outlined yet, and they don’t seem to be willing to recognize that — in this community especially — there are some unique challenges,” he said.

“They’re taking a blanket approach that seems hastily implemented and not very deeply thought through.”

The carbon tax was announced more than a year ago, but just days before Jan. 1, the government was still ironing out an exemption for Alberta’s greenhouses.

“I’m surprised that a tax with that magnitude, with that many ramifications, that some of these considerations weren’t outlined prior to its implementation,” King said.

“We’re basically getting on the road not knowing quite how we’re going to get there.”

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/poli...on-tax-feature

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by GGG

No government is repealing our PST without replacing it with something else. Unless oil is $100 per barrel we can't cut taxes. We will still need to cut services to balance the budget. Anyone running on a populist campaign to kill the tax without replacing the revenues or cut the equivalent amount of expenses should not get anyone's vote.

Oh I am all for proper taxation based on services the public wants. If that means a PST or the like then I am fine with it. What I am against is the implementation of this tax. I still have no clue where and how it is being spent. Should be very clear how this is being collected and allocated to diversify the economy.

Can that be answered? To date I haven't seen the plan. Just give is money and trust us... sorry but that should not be rewarded.

Also are we good with everything this government spends money on? Like canceling power contracts? Like retaining union laundry staff when cheaper options are available? If I am being asked to pony up more fine, but show me the bill. Show me how this will make my life better. Not just handed in salary to some environmental nutcase to sit in a government oil panel and spout hate against my province.

Ya a new government may replace it with something else, but my hope is it will be done in a much better way.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think the scary thing is that they have taken into account downstream effects...

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.

Honestly man...those rebates are a joke. The only reason they're in there is so that the NDP dont expend Political Capital by being accused of instituting a policy that punishes everyone including low-income families.

It will punish everyone....except low-income families because they'll be eligible for some nebulous rebate concept.

Lets be honest, nobody knows how those rebates work and damned near no one is going to either qualify or collect them. They're just something that can be pointed at when they're accused of not looking out for low income families.

Its a deflecting point. Its true, there technically are rebates. And thats about it.

The fact of the matter remains that if, and thats a Texas-Sized 'if,' the impact is as low as is being claimed then the rebates will likely barely be necessary.

And 'if' the downstream effects raise the costs of everything then those minuscule rebates are going to be too little and the process of getting them will make them too late.

But their existence sure sounds nice when Rachel steps up to the podium.

[rayne008]

Notley just posted this to facebook.

I know this is stupid, but the one thing that irks me is the '66% of Albertan's getting rebates' bit. WTF do I not only have to pay a carbon tax which will effectively make 0 difference in a global environment, but I also have to pay for the majority of other Albertan's usage as well.

Lower it for everyone, so revenue from it is the same. But taxing me more to pay for others rebates does not seem like a good way to reduce consumption.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rayne008

Notley just posted this to facebook.

I know this is stupid, but the one thing that irks me is the '66% of Albertan's getting rebates' bit. WTF do I not only have to pay a carbon tax which will effectively make 0 difference in a global environment, but I also have to pay for the majority of other Albertan's usage as well.

Lower it for everyone, so revenue from it is the same. But taxing me more to pay for others rebates does not seem like a good way to reduce consumption.

No way, almost like its a half-assed harebrained scheme that makes little to no sense.

If its not going to impact people then how is it supposed to make a difference to carbon consumption?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

Businesses are fully capable of providing breakdowns of their costs to the public? Really? How do you figure that?

I figure that because the fact is they are capable of it(see your next paragraph) they simply aren't obligated to do it. I hope you're at least willing to acknowledge that much.

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.

How are businesses coming up with their cost increases if it is so complicated to figure out? We will likely never agree philosophically on a number of things related to this, but I can't really understand why people only care about price increases when they can point their finger at the government for it. There have been a number of announced increases by companies to cover their addedd costs, but while everyone is so up in arms about the increase, they don't question how that company came up with their numbers. It's made even more interesting since many on here have been beating the drum that we can't possibly predict how much this will cost.

If a product or service goes up a dollar in price and that company blames it on the carbon tax, how do we as consumers know if that increase needed to be that much? If that increase only needed to be $0.25-$0.50 to maintain their bottom line and the rest is being added by choice because that company feels it will still be a competitive enough price for their business and they can simply tell consumers it's because of the carbon tax, is it really all on the carbon tax? It's their right to charge what they want to charge, but the fact that consumers aren't given all the data on both sides will always leave questions as to the legitimacy of how much businesses claim these types of taxes will affect our prices.

This isn't about propaganda, it's about transparency, wouldn't you prefer to know exactly how much this is going to cause prices to go up, if it's as bad as some have feared then it would help make a case to repeal it, and to fight the Feds on their plan for it. If it's effect is really not as drastic as people have feared, then I guess everyone who's panicking would be spared their anxiety? What's the downside to knowing as much about the increases as possible?

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

........

Well said, in the end NO capitalist can be trusted, and that's the downfall of all of this. If I were a business owner, I would argue that profiteering is my right (and it is), and will bump as much as the market will bear, while shuffling off the blame to the government, its a perfect scheme.

As a consumer, I hate it, I have no options in my line of (*gasp* union employment, trigger alert) work as a Paramedic to reduce my primary consumption of fuel for my vehicle, the nature of scheduling and staffing don't just allow you to "live closer to work", nor utilize transit (not permitted). So this will directly "punish" me for having commutes of 4km (yes, I bike that in the summer) to 150km to work depending on my assignment.

As an aside, I also don't see any initiative by the government to reduce our consumption of fuel in my line of work, we still spend the entire day driving around aside from 911 calls, doing what they call "flexing", which is dynamic deployment, a quack science built on loose predictors of where the next event will be, which is typically incorrect. Multiply that by 48 vehicles in calgary, all consuming 30L/100km, and you have startling hypocrisy from up above. This is also consistent with other aspects of healthcare, when there is a centralization of services, which does have its advantages, but also comes with a steep price of having to move patients from other towns (via aircraft, ground, etc), does it really increase efficiency?

Anyhow, #### the carbon tax

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Aleks

Well said, in the end NO capitalist can be trusted, and that's the downfall of all of this. If I were a business owner, I would argue that profiteering is my right (and it is), and will bump as much as the market will bear, while shuffling off the blame to the government, its a perfect scheme.

As a consumer, I hate it, I have no options in my line of (*gasp* union employment, trigger alert) work as a Paramedic to reduce my primary consumption of fuel for my vehicle, the nature of scheduling and staffing don't just allow you to "live closer to work", nor utilize transit (not permitted). So this will directly "punish" me for having commutes of 4km (yes, I bike that in the summer) to 150km to work depending on my assignment.

As an aside, I also don't see any initiative by the government to reduce our consumption of fuel in my line of work, we still spend the entire day driving around aside from 911 calls, doing what they call "flexing", which is dynamic deployment, a quack science built on loose predictors of where the next event will be, which is typically incorrect. Multiply that by 48 vehicles in calgary, all consuming 30L/100km, and you have startling hypocrisy from up above. This is also consistent with other aspects of healthcare, when there is a centralization of services, which does have its advantages, but also comes with a steep price of having to move patients from other towns (via aircraft, ground, etc), does it really increase efficiency?

Anyhow, #### the carbon tax

Weren't you always talking about using firearms in your line of work? I assumed you were a police officer and just didn't want to say it on a public forum. Were you a paramedic when you said that and if so, they allow you to carry a firearm? This is in Canada?

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by chemgear

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 . . .

It was leaked through. The cost will be approximately 16 hours of lost economic activity over a period of 5 years

Originally Posted by Locke

No way, almost like its a half-assed harebrained scheme that makes little to no sense.

If its not going to impact people then how is it supposed to make a difference to carbon consumption?

The rebates are tied to household income not to the amount of carbon that they use so the price incentive is still there. The same reason that people who get GST rebates don't automatically go out and spend it all on gasoline.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Weren't you always talking about using firearms in your line of work? I assumed you were a police officer and just didn't want to say it on a public forum. Were you a paramedic when you said that and if so, they allow you to carry a firearm? This is in Canada?

Weren't you the one that complains a lot about people going off topic in threads?

[jayswin]

touche! But it just piqued my interest and had me wondering if any Canadian paramedics carry firearms. Also, it only had to take my post and then his response to answer the question and may have been of interest to others. Now it's more.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I figure that because the fact is they are capable of it(see your next paragraph) they simply aren't obligated to do it. I hope you're at least willing to acknowledge that much.



How are businesses coming up with their cost increases if it is so complicated to figure out? We will likely never agree philosophically on a number of things related to this, but I can't really understand why people only care about price increases when they can point their finger at the government for it. There have been a number of announced increases by companies to cover their addedd costs, but while everyone is so up in arms about the increase, they don't question how that company came up with their numbers. It's made even more interesting since many on here have been beating the drum that we can't possibly predict how much this will cost.

If a product or service goes up a dollar in price and that company blames it on the carbon tax, how do we as consumers know if that increase needed to be that much? If that increase only needed to be $0.25-$0.50 to maintain their bottom line and the rest is being added by choice because that company feels it will still be a competitive enough price for their business and they can simply tell consumers it's because of the carbon tax, is it really all on the carbon tax? It's their right to charge what they want to charge, but the fact that consumers aren't given all the data on both sides will always leave questions as to the legitimacy of how much businesses claim these types of taxes will affect our prices.

This isn't about propaganda, it's about transparency, wouldn't you prefer to know exactly how much this is going to cause prices to go up, if it's as bad as some have feared then it would help make a case to repeal it, and to fight the Feds on their plan for it. If it's effect is really not as drastic as people have feared, then I guess everyone who's panicking would be spared their anxiety? What's the downside to knowing as much about the increases as possible?

If I were a business, why would it be my responsibility to make sure consumers/citizens are well off? A business is not a human being. It's there to employ people and to make money for the owner(s).

Since businesses are there to make money, of course they will pass along every increase they can, and then some, if the market can bear it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's the government's job to make sure business aren't operating in monopoly fashion or abusing workers.

Lastly, why would a business freely give away their cost breakdowns for all their competitors to see? That is a ridiculous notion. Unless its a publicly traded company, they have no obligation to share anything. Nor should they.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

If I were a business, why would it be my responsibility to make sure consumers/citizens are well off? A business is not a human being. It's there to employ people and to make money for the owner(s).

Since businesses are there to make money, of course they will pass along every increase they can, and then some, if the market can bear it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's the government's job to make sure business aren't operating in monopoly fashion or abusing workers.

Lastly, why would a business freely give away their cost breakdowns for all their competitors to see? That is a ridiculous notion. Unless its a publicly traded company, they have no obligation to share anything. Nor should they.

Which is why people making all the claims of how bad this will impact the economy will sadly have no way of ever making an accurate credible argument to support their view, other than to say it will cost more and the uncertainty may cause investors to be cautious. Even in a years time, there will be no way of directly linking any exact cost increases passed along to consumers as a direct result of the carbon tax, the only direct links that could be calculated will be on the actual commodities directly affected that we are purchasing ourselves. We will not be able to determine how many businesses would or wouldn't have invested or how many jobs would have or wouldn't have been created if this tax wasn't introduced. We simply don't have the data. Businesses don't have to give us this data, that's within their right, and because of their choice to keep it to themselves, people shouldnt foolishly accept that every increase in price we see after January 1st is directly linked to the carbon tax.

[flamesfever]

I guess, until the next election, I can live with Notley and her carbon tax, if it gets us the pipelines we need. Sure the carbon tax is a boondoggled debacle, and it's implementation deserves much more careful consideration as to the overall consequences. However I believe, in the long run, the importance of pipelines to our economy is more important than a carbon tax.

IMO, if by temporarily hopping on the "environmental activist bandwagon" to appease a significant number of Canadian voters, concerned about saving the planet, gets us the pipelines we need, then I think Notley has succeeded where previous governments have failed.

I guess only time will tell whether Trudeau has what it takes to make the pipelines a reality.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by rayne008

Notley just posted this to facebook.

I know this is stupid, but the one thing that irks me is the '66% of Albertan's getting rebates' bit. WTF do I not only have to pay a carbon tax which will effectively make 0 difference in a global environment, but I also have to pay for the majority of other Albertan's usage as well.

Lower it for everyone, so revenue from it is the same. But taxing me more to pay for others rebates does not seem like a good way to reduce consumption.

It's a socialist program where she's taking from the rich and giving it to the poor. A modern day Robin Hood