Alberta Politics Thread

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

http://www.policyschool.ucalgary.ca/...age-growth.pdf



And:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/private...port-1.2292650

Those articles refer to the public sector on aggregate, not teacher specific, which is what I thought we were discussing.

You won't find argument with me about the general bloat of the public sector, or its numerous inefficiencies.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

And I'm sure teacher's salaries decreased at a far lower rate that private sector salaries during the post 2014 economic collapse.

Oh wait.

I invite you to talk to my bank manager about my 45% economic pay cut.

And that is the risk you take for working in an industry that has higher economic risks and rewards.

[IliketoPuck]

At the risk of this devolving into "teacher's need to take a pay cut" or "teacher's work REALLY hard" thread version 5.0, (at which point I will stop participating, as the direction of the discussion is inevitable), I propose we move back towards the reason for the thread bump today, and the underlying implications for the average Albertan, which was the first reading of the Carbon Tax Levy legislation.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

At the risk of this devolving into "teacher's need to take a pay cut" or "teacher's work REALLY hard" thread version 5.0, (at which point I will stop participating, as the direction of the discussion is inevitable), I propose we move back towards the reason for the thread bump today, and the underlying implications for the average Albertan, which was the first reading of the Carbon Tax Levy legislation.

Discussion?

I know all new taxes are objectively bad and doomed to failure.

I know these things. Why would I bother discussing them?

[Locke]

So far all of these NDP 'Estimates' have been apocalyptically inaccurate.

When the word 'Estimate' is used it implies that it is something that is forecasted by someone who presumably knows what the hell they're talking about and is based on information thats at least marginally reliable, if you're just going to haul numbers out of your ass you might as well just call it a guess.

I for one cant wait for their next BS 'Estimate.'

[IliketoPuck]

It appears Notley's popularity ratings have stabilized at a lofty 32%. Statistically unchanged from last quarter (33%), and down from >50% at election time.

http://boereport.com/2016/05/25/notl...n-latest-poll/

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Locke

So far all of these NDP 'Estimates' have been apocalyptically inaccurate.

When the word 'Estimate' is used it implies that it is something that is forecasted by someone who presumably knows what the hell they're talking about and is based on information thats at least marginally reliable, if you're just going to haul numbers out of your ass you might as well just call it a guess.

I for one cant wait for their next BS 'Estimate.'

Well amongst the many things that bother about the carbon tax is that the whole thing is built on estimates that someone somewhere has the figures for, and knows probably don't work out. I'm just going by what I've seen on the news, but its something like $350 cost for a family per year, and then 66% of the families are going to get a rebate for $375. So we already know its costing more than people are putting in. But the thing is that you can't just give out cheques willy-nilly...so someone has to collect the funds and administer the program. Is it crazy to suggest that this would cost $100-150/cheque by the time you set-up a system, hire staff and all that stuff? Don't forget the office space, benefits and business cards for these people. So the amount of money going in right off the bat is less than what's being advertised.

Then I wonder about the estimates for the megatons of carbon this will save from going into the air. Lie what programs are they planning on implementing? How much of this is factored in as people making behavioural changes? It all seems really optimistic to me, but of course you can't really make that claim unless you've seen the numbers.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well amongst the many things that bother about the carbon tax is that the whole thing is built on estimates that someone somewhere has the figures for, and knows probably don't work out. I'm just going by what I've seen on the news, but its something like $350 cost for a family per year, and then 66% of the families are going to get a rebate for $375. So we already know its costing more than people are putting in. But the thing is that you can't just give out cheques willy-nilly...so someone has to collect the funds and administer the program. Is it crazy to suggest that this would cost $100-150/cheque by the time you set-up a system, hire staff and all that stuff? Don't forget the office space, benefits and business cards for these people. So the amount of money going in right off the bat is less than what's being advertised.

Then I wonder about the estimates for the megatons of carbon this will save from going into the air. Lie what programs are they planning on implementing? How much of this is factored in as people making behavioural changes? It all seems really optimistic to me, but of course you can't really make that claim unless you've seen the numbers.

Its going to be a nightmarish boondoggle from start to finish.

By the time the Government is done with it this tax is going to generate a net deficit.

But deficit spending is good during recessions because this is the 1930s and thats the New Deal!

Nobody worry about the alarming increase in debt servicing costs arising from our credit rating being downgraded twice in the last 12 months, besides, I'm sure it couldnt possibly be downgraded again and besides, I'm certain our fearless leaders have accounted for this!

Time for more taxes. We need more taxes.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Locke

Its going to be a nightmarish boondoggle from start to finish.

By the time the Government is done with it this tax is going to generate a net deficit.

But deficit spending is good during recessions because this is the 1930s and thats the New Deal!

Nobody worry about the alarming increase in debt servicing costs arising from our credit rating being downgraded twice in the last 12 months, besides, I'm sure it couldnt possibly be downgraded again and besides, I'm certain our fearless leaders have accounted for this!

Time for more taxes. We need more taxes.

Twice since December, sir.

At this rate we'll be Venezuela by Christmas 2018. (Joking, kinda)

[Locke]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Twice since December, sir.

At this rate we'll be Venezuela by Christmas 2018. (Joking, kinda)

Don't Panic. All Part of 'The Plan.'

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Locke

Its going to be a nightmarish boondoggle from start to finish.

By the time the Government is done with it this tax is going to generate a net deficit.

But deficit spending is good during recessions because this is the 1930s and thats the New Deal!

Nobody worry about the alarming increase in debt servicing costs arising from our credit rating being downgraded twice in the last 12 months, besides, I'm sure it couldnt possibly be downgraded again and besides, I'm certain our fearless leaders have accounted for this!

Time for more taxes. We need more taxes.

Homer Simpson: "Dig up, stupid!"

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well amongst the many things that bother about the carbon tax is that the whole thing is built on estimates that someone somewhere has the figures for, and knows probably don't work out. I'm just going by what I've seen on the news, but its something like $350 cost for a family per year, and then 66% of the families are going to get a rebate for $375. So we already know its costing more than people are putting in. But the thing is that you can't just give out cheques willy-nilly...so someone has to collect the funds and administer the program. Is it crazy to suggest that this would cost $100-150/cheque by the time you set-up a system, hire staff and all that stuff? Don't forget the office space, benefits and business cards for these people. So the amount of money going in right off the bat is less than what's being advertised.

Then I wonder about the estimates for the megatons of carbon this will save from going into the air. Lie what programs are they planning on implementing? How much of this is factored in as people making behavioural changes? It all seems really optimistic to me, but of course you can't really make that claim unless you've seen the numbers.

As is usual in these cases, the estimated cost is a moving target. Inevitably, it moves up. The environment minister now says her Carbon Sales Tax will cost the average family over $500. The opposition says it will be twice that, and argues that even after the rebates, low income families will also be paying hundreds more.

And, of course, that will most certainly not include the additional costs we're going to have to eat from municipal taxes because Notley's getting greedy and making municipalities pay as well.

[transplant99]

Tax and spend man....its the NDP way.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Echo chamber combo blocker.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Echo chamber combo blocker.

Not really. You're just in your own echo chamber. Though I've noticed yours is quieter lately.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Echo chamber combo blocker.

Sure, though you forgot to lower the bar and call me a caricature like your comrade Markov did.

Feel free to actually dispute what was said too.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well amongst the many things that bother about the carbon tax is that the whole thing is built on estimates that someone somewhere has the figures for, and knows probably don't work out. I'm just going by what I've seen on the news, but its something like $350 cost for a family per year, and then 66% of the families are going to get a rebate for $375. So we already know its costing more than people are putting in. But the thing is that you can't just give out cheques willy-nilly...so someone has to collect the funds and administer the program. Is it crazy to suggest that this would cost $100-150/cheque by the time you set-up a system, hire staff and all that stuff? Don't forget the office space, benefits and business cards for these people. So the amount of money going in right off the bat is less than what's being advertised.

The rebates are a means-testing program so it piggybacks off the income tax system, so implementation costs of the rebates will be tiny.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Sure, though you forgot to lower the bar and call me a caricature like your comrade Markov did.

Feel free to actually dispute what was said too.

Wait you can debate what is basically a Conservative meme?

Weird.

"Tax...

...and spend!"

*pause for applause*

[CaptainCrunch]

At the end of the day the next election will be a fight to recind the carbon tax and probably implement a stable PST in its place.

I put as much stock in NDP estimates and math as predictions for an Oilers Stanley Cup.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Wait you can debate what is basically a Conservative meme?

Weird.

"Tax...

...and spend!"

*pause for applause*

And yet....that is exactly what this government has done.

Weird eh?