Alberta Politics Thread

[Resolute 14]

You didn't answer my question, Makarov.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

If you divide the world into Alberta size groups you'll find that everyone's emissions will also be small.



I think it would be more efficient to tax your hyperbole.

The NDP business hyperbole change plan would defeat the carbon tax as its a gross exaggeration of Albertas CO2 impact.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

If you divide the world into Alberta size groups you'll find that everyone's emissions will also be small.

But can you prove that

I think it would be more efficient to tax your hyperbole.

I already pay enough taxes, but if the NDP could find a way to tax hyperbole they would have done it already.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You didn't answer my question, Makarov.

I can't answer your question because I disagree with the premise (at last to the extent that I'm not totally satisfied that the under-reporting of the PPAs was consistent with the legislated standards of the day). As I understand it, the relevant legislation or regulations at the time to provide for less public reporting for very lengthy or complex regulations but I'm curious to see how it was applied in this case. Just haven't had time to do so yet.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I already pay enough taxes

That's really the question at the heart of the debate. It's far from settled.

[jammies]

I think we have been undertaxed in Alberta for decades, but I don't agree that the current implementation of the carbon tax is anything other than a disaster. If the money was funding alternative energy research, or rebates for energy efficient construction, or.... anything really that's directly relevant to reducing GHGs, then I'd be at least ambivalent. So far it seems the plan is to reduce emissions by ensuring power becomes unaffordable, which I guess will work, but hardly seems the optimal course.

Raising taxes to cover spending is one thing. Raising taxes, and then borrowing huge amounts is entirely another, and it being amateur hour every time new policy is announced is even more inexcusable. Who imagined the days of bumbling Ed Stelmach would be regarded with fond nostalgia?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by jammies

I think we have been undertaxed in Alberta for decades, but I don't agree that the current implementation of the carbon tax is anything other than a disaster. If the money was funding alternative energy research, or rebates for energy efficient construction, or.... anything really that's directly relevant to reducing GHGs, then I'd be at least ambivalent. So far it seems the plan is to reduce emissions by ensuring power becomes unaffordable, which I guess will work, but hardly seems the optimal course.

Raising taxes to cover spending is one thing. Raising taxes, and then borrowing huge amounts is entirely another, and it being amateur hour every time new policy is announced is even more inexcusable. Who imagined the days of bumbling Ed Stelmach would be regarded with fond nostalgia?

Yes! Yes! Come to the dark side! Search your feelings, you know it to be true!

Oh wait....you hate Star Wars...nevermind.

In seriousness though, this is what a lot of people pretty much envisioned, rhetoric and idealism being put ahead of reality with a complete lack of understanding of the consequences.

"Oh, if you dont like the NDP you hate the environment and public servants!!!"

No...this is amateur hour of the highest order and these people arent grounded in the same reality as the rest of us.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

no the point of this is climate change. We're doing it because as the richest province in one of the richest countries of the world we shouldn't expect to ride the coattails of other jurisdictions.

Social license is just a bonus.

lol

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But can you prove that





I already pay enough taxes, but if the NDP could find a way to tax hyperbole they would have done it already.

The Indian State of Gujurat in 2007 emitted 154 MT of CO2e. Alberta in 2005 emitted 233 MT of CO2e. Gujurat has a population of around 60 million, we have 4.2 million.

Our taxes are among the lowest in Canada even including the Carbon tax. (Including Saskatchewan who also spends more per capita).

Originally Posted by jammies

I think we have been undertaxed in Alberta for decades, but I don't agree that the current implementation of the carbon tax is anything other than a disaster. If the money was funding alternative energy research, or rebates for energy efficient construction, or.... anything really that's directly relevant to reducing GHGs, then I'd be at least ambivalent. So far it seems the plan is to reduce emissions by ensuring power becomes unaffordable, which I guess will work, but hardly seems the optimal course.

Raising taxes to cover spending is one thing. Raising taxes, and then borrowing huge amounts is entirely another, and it being amateur hour every time new policy is announced is even more inexcusable. Who imagined the days of bumbling Ed Stelmach would be regarded with fond nostalgia?

The carbon plan does call for supports for renewable through the use of subsidies on renewable, but a fear is that they might have a more interventionist approach. (As a sample Saskatchewan retrofitted a coal power plant which costs as much as the privately build Shepherd Energy Centre while producing an 1/8 of power while having slightly worse greenhouse gas intensity.

Originally Posted by Locke

Yes! Yes! Come to the dark side! Search your feelings, you know it to be true!

Oh wait....you hate Star Wars...nevermind.

In seriousness though, this is what a lot of people pretty much envisioned, rhetoric and idealism being put ahead of reality with a complete lack of understanding of the consequences.

"Oh, if you dont like the NDP you hate the environment and public servants!!!"

No...this is amateur hour of the highest order and these people arent grounded in the same reality as the rest of us.

We know the consequences of the Carbon Tax 1% of Alberta's GDP over a 6 year period, or 1 days worth of economic activity in 2022. The Regulatory Framework for Industrial Greenhouse Gas that was created by the Federal government in 2008 but is kicking in at the same time.
It's costs in the same timeframe?
About 1% of national GDP in a 5 year period. So basically no one batted an eye when the Federal Government created a regulation that has approximately the same economic negatives of the Carbon tax, but is much less effective.

[Kjesse]

From the "surprised but not surprised" department, the NDP have come up with yet another way to pickpocket taxpayers involuntarily. This is just pure greed:

"If passed, an Alberta government plan will see taxpayer dollars help fund the province’s election campaigns.

The recommendation was made by Edmonton-Ellerslie NDP MLA Rod Loyola in Wednesday’s ethics committee meeting. He proposed parties and candidates get a rebate for half of their campaign expenses, as long as they get at least 10 per cent of the vote."

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/08/1...-wildrose-says

[GGG]

I would prefer a system that banned donations to political parties and the government paid for a set amount for each riding for any party/person over a certain threshold.

[V]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

I think it would be more efficient to tax your hyperbole.

This was a pretty awesome dig. Nice job.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Delgar

From the "surprised but not surprised" department, the NDP have come up with yet another way to pickpocket taxpayers involuntarily. This is just pure greed:

"If passed, an Alberta government plan will see taxpayer dollars help fund the province’s election campaigns.

The recommendation was made by Edmonton-Ellerslie NDP MLA Rod Loyola in Wednesday’s ethics committee meeting. He proposed parties and candidates get a rebate for half of their campaign expenses, as long as they get at least 10 per cent of the vote."

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/08/1...-wildrose-says

Basically, the same thought process the Chretien Liberals had in the early 90s. "We can't fundraise as well as the other guys, so we'll take steps to cripple the other guys' ability to fundraise and then force the taxpayer to compensate us too!"

Originally Posted by GGG

I would prefer a system that banned donations to political parties and the government paid for a set amount for each riding for any party/person over a certain threshold.

I don't entirely disagree, but that might tread too closely to restricting or stifling freedom of speech. Also, it would be a great way to ensure little parties or independent candidates never get off the ground. Great for the entrenched large parties though.

[Resolute 14]

Meanwhile on the ongoing PPA disaster front, the idiot who came up with Notley's climate change plan says they didn't consider that companies would hand back contracts because they simply assumed prices would never get low enough to make them unprofitable.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/08/10...ity-argy-bargy

[CaptainCrunch]

Small and medium business shuttering at a accelerated rate

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...ncreasing-pace

“We’ve certainly heard from entrepreneurs, especially those in smaller and medium-size businesses unable to maintain competitiveness in this economic environment while facing sizable cost increases to things like the minimum wage,” he said.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Meanwhile on the ongoing PPA disaster front, the idiot who came up with Notley's climate change plan says they didn't consider that companies would hand back contracts because they simply assumed prices would never get low enough to make them unprofitable.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/08/10...ity-argy-bargy

Can't beleive they forgot to legislate that prices are no longer allowed to fall. Rookies.

[CaptainCrunch]

Because doubling or more someone's costs never leads to disaster

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Basically, the same thought process the Chretien Liberals had in the early 90s. "We can't fundraise as well as the other guys, so we'll take steps to cripple the other guys' ability to fundraise and then force the taxpayer to compensate us too!"



I don't entirely disagree, but that might tread too closely to restricting or stifling freedom of speech. Also, it would be a great way to ensure little parties or independent candidates never get off the ground. Great for the entrenched large parties though.

As I was writing it I was thinking about how to deal with that problem.

you need a way to allow independents and new party's but without making it so any average Joe can go get 5k per riding when he runs. Maybe required more signatures to be nominated or give out $X per signature for new candidates.

The money angle in politics should be removed as much as possible.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Meanwhile on the ongoing PPA disaster front, the idiot who came up with Notley's climate change plan says they didn't consider that companies would hand back contracts because they simply assumed prices would never get low enough to make them unprofitable.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/08/10...ity-argy-bargy

Quick, sue him for $14 billion. Somebody, anybody?

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Because doubling or more someone's costs never leads to disaster

Hey now, costs haven't gone up. Can't use the word "doubled".

Business tax hasn't gone up 20%. Remember how many pages people spent in this thread trying to spin numbers to make cost increases look smaller? But hey, if you can't handle the increased costs you deserve to be out of business or bankrupt or lose your home. Move to BC.

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Business tax hasn't gone up 20%. Remember how many pages people spent in this thread trying to spin numbers to make cost increases look smaller? But hey, if you can't handle the increased costs you deserve to be out of business or bankrupt or lose your home. Move to BC.

Give the poor guys a break, math is hard.