Alberta Politics Thread

[REDVAN]

Well, if this keeps up I'm moving to Saskatchewan.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Well, if this keeps up I'm moving to Saskatchewan.

Good thing I still have my condo in Saskatoon. I might have to find a job in the uranium industry or something. Maybe some of the bigger players in the Sask O&G industry will start moving staff to Saskatoon. I would be up for that.

In other news, the NDP want to abolish daylight savings time.

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

In other news, the NDP want to abolish daylight savings time.

Actually, that was PC leadership candidate Starke. The NDP thought it was a good idea.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by LanceUppercut

Actually, that was PC leadership candidate Starke. The NDP thought it was a good idea.

Right, but the NDP kid from some Edmonton riding is going to actually put forth a bill next spring though. It will be interesting to see if that goes anywhere.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Right, but the NDP kid from some Edmonton riding is going to actually put forth a bill next spring though. It will be interesting to see if that goes anywhere.

Of course it will, they have a majority

[Tron_fdc]

I think it's a great idea. Since having kids there's nothing I hate more than having kids running around at 5AM instead of 6AM.

I hate daylight savings.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Accurate depiction of how things would go if I happened to walk into the bar at that same time?

I've mentioned it before but I am terrible at keeping track of who trolls who and if certain posters have a beef with another poster but I'm not sure I understand this. Honest questions.

Are you saying that you expect that those two particular individuals would actually jump in your face and physically lay hands on you in public? Are you trying to mock them by equating them with the pug nosed Evazan? Do you find a lot of people get in your face and confront you when you are at a bar (that seems rather usual but maybe I'm getting old and that never happens to me).

Or is this merely in some sidebar jest. Or do you see yourself as Luke Skywalker?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Since having kids there's nothing I hate more than having kids.

Fixed your post.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

She's a complete and utter idiot, considering that there have been studies that place it at more like $1000.00 for consumer goods.

But since there won't be a separate line item at the grocery store for Carbon Tax of course she's and her politburo are going to blame it on those evil corporations and their gouging.

If an average family spends $100.00 a week on groceries and there's a 4% boost or $5.00 per week or $20.00 a month that's $240.00 per year just for groceries, and I'm betting with the global impact of a carbon tax it will probably more like 10% per week or $480.00 a year. And that's just groceries.

If a family spends lets say spends $500.00 a month a various things for their family outside of food (trips out etc) and the increased cost to them is 5 to 10% because of this tax lets add another $300 to $600 in cost increases on top of the groceries and then you take on the utilities increases and gas for fueling your car.

Then on top of that because the city isn't rebated all of your kids activity costs goes up and your property taxes go up.

Its not going to take long to see an additional $1000 or more leaving your families pocket which means you'd better pray for a $2000.00 or more raise this year in your income.

Good luck to the people that have lost their jobs already and are on benefits or the seniors on a fixed pension. But frack em right? Let em eat dog food.

See, this is really the question and I'm not sure I've got her pegged yet.

Instinctively I want to consider her an idiot and thankfully she helps me out with that assessment by regularly acting like one.

I dont know if her $100 assessment is wilful ignorance of economic principles regarding stream effects or if she honestly believes it.

You know, the concept that changing one thing only changes that one thing and has no effect whatsoever on any other things. Like how more expensive fuel wont increase the cost of food or other products that have to be shipped. You know, things like that.

I mean, think about this concept for a moment:

"We want to provide incentive to change people's behaviour through taxation, but the amount of change will only be $100 per family, so the incentive isnt significant enough to change your behaviour. But we're doing it anyways."

Either someone is grinning through brown teeth (because their mouth is full of ####) or they are a genuine, bona-fide idiot.

And the saddest part at the moment is that it could well be both.

Honestly, I think if we'd known about this little rider during the election Notley would be cooling her heels on a beach in BC, nobody would have voted for this.

And even if people had been misguided enough to vote for this our leaders should be intelligent enough to perceive that when a system is perilously close to collapse, and is in ill-condition to survive another significant shock, shouldnt be further taxed.

Man, I see people who are coming off their (Federally Extended) EI benefits at the end of this month and they're just going to get kicked in the teeth.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year...

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont know if her $100 assessment is wilful ignorance of economic principles regarding stream effects or if she honestly believes it.

Well, I hear things like:

- significantly increasing the minimum wage in a short span of time actually INCREASES employment
- a tax is revenue neutral if you spend it all on other things
- suing yourself in an attempt retroactively change terms of contracts in your favor does not have a chilling effect on investment and business sentiment
- increasing business tax actually improves the economic situation of those businesses
- increasing the cost of fuel won't affect the cost of items that need to be transported around like your food

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by chemgear

I've mentioned it before but I am terrible at keeping track of who trolls who and if certain posters have a beef with another poster but I'm not sure I understand this. Honest questions.

Are you saying that you expect that those two particular individuals would actually jump in your face and physically lay hands on you in public? Are you trying to mock them by equating them with the pug nosed Evazan? Do you find a lot of people get in your face and confront you when you are at a bar (that seems rather usual but maybe I'm getting old and that never happens to me).

Or is this merely in some sidebar jest. Or do you see yourself as Luke Skywalker?

I see myself as someone who was just making a joke with two other Star Wars fans. Locke and the captain don't typically agree with my political views but I don't think that makes any of us trolls, I respect their opinions as well as the fact that they generally give well thought out responses, even if I don't agree with them.

I'm sorry you couldn't see the humour in my post. I'm not sure why you couldn't just see it for what it was and had to really overthink it, but it's not your fault, it's not your fault.

To clarify further, I see myself as more of a Han Solo type than a Luke Skywalker. Otherwise I would just Jedi mind trick the board and call it a day.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I see myself as someone who was just making a joke with two other Star Wars fans. Locke and the captain don't typically agree with my political views but I don't think that makes any of us trolls, I respect their opinions as well as the fact that they generally give well thought out responses, even if I don't agree with them.

I'm sorry you couldn't see the humour in my post. I'm not sure why you couldn't just see it for what it was and had to really overthink it, but it's not your fault, it's not your fault.

To clarify further, I see myself as more of a Han Solo type than a Luke Skywalker. Otherwise I would just Jedi mind trick the board and call it a day.

Ah, I figured I had overthought it. But I thought it would be nice to be sure. Afterall, I'd like to think that people shouldn't be feeling like they're being accosted by two fellows at a bar by some forum posts.

Though I'm a little disappointed I didn't get any points for knowing Dr. Evazan.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Well, I hear things like:

- significantly increasing the minimum wage in a short span of time actually INCREASES employment
- a tax is revenue neutral if you spend it all on other things
- suing yourself in an attempt retroactively change terms of contracts in your favor don't have a chilling effect on investment and business sentiment
- increasing business tax actually improves the economic situation of those businesses
- increasing the cost of fuel won't affect the cost of items that need to be transported around like your food

I know, right? She is so consistently wrong but in so many various arenas that its hard to put your finger on.

I'll tell you what though, as Albertans if this thing is only going to cost us a cool $100 per family then I propose this:

I will e-transfer my $100 to the Alberta Government right now, they can have the full value of the time-value of my $100 in their pockets right now, up front, in exchange for a Carbon Tax Exemption Card.

It shall read:

"Locke has paid his 2017 Carbon Tax, you have to charge him fuel, gas and electricity at the old rates and groceries at the old price. Anything that has seen its price rise due to the Carbon Tax must be charged to Locke at it's historical price for 2017."

Now....you think theres going to be any takers on that? I'm skeptical.

[OMG!WTF!]

So now according to Rachel Notely, you're a xenophobe if you don't support the carbon tax. I knew I hated foreigners for some reason. Always raising our taxes.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Though I'm a little disappointed I didn't get any points for knowing Dr. Evazan.

I actually meant to acknowledge that in my reply.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Could you enlighten us as to what you do remember about that industry by answering my other questions?

Okay fine.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I mean I have trouble remembering things about importing/exporting, and geography too for that matter, but I still took the time to respond to your question regarding why goods coming from Montana would be subject to an import tax.

Where?

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Have you ever worked in warehousing or supply chain management? Easily move their operations? These businesses live and die on efficiency and cost per case/load, moving an entire operation has so many moving parts that even a very well run company can fail at it.

Well if we are referring to transporation companies they can quite easily move their operations if their costs get too high. Many of those companies are starting to utilize dispatchers and other office staff that are out of province already since they can easily work remotely. I spoke with a dispatcher, from an Alberta based company, last week about a shipment from Calgary to Cranbrook and she was in Nova Scotia. Moving the physical warehouse equipment is a bit of a pain but not really a big deal if they are going to save on power, rent, labour, fuel, etc. The reason they are in Alberta to begin with is for a low cost environment, take that away and there is no reason to stay.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

They are gonna fuel up where it's cheaper? You realize we currently have the cheapest gas in the country right? How much do you really think fuel is really going to go up in price?

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...on154a-eng.htm

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/9705290

Do the math and explain to me how it makes sense to add 100's of kilometres in travel fuel consumption expenses to save 2-3 cents per litre? If that.

You're not adding 100's of kilometres in travel, you're just making that up. Transportation companies travel long distances through many jurisdictions and their trucks hold thousands of liters of fuel. If the price here gets higher than in surrounding provinces/states for instance they will have their drivers fill the tanks before entering Alberta, this is already common practice. Those companies work on very slim margins and fuel prices are a major expense.

As for greenhouses, yes they would see increased transportion costs if they moved but they have to look at overall costs. From my understanding their biggest costs are utilities and labour, they are going to be seeing big increases on both fronts thanks to this government. At some point, which we are already seeing, they will simply close shop in Alberta because they can't compete with produce coming out of the states. All of this of course means higher food costs which affects lower income people the most. It's not like people can just stop eating.

You seem to have this mentality that as long as we don't make this bad enough for businesses to leave that's a good thing, you should be thinking how can we make things good enough to retain our current businesses and attract new ones.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Jacks

You seem to have this mentality that as long as we don't make this bad enough for businesses to leave that's a good thing.

This is a good summary. For some reason, there are people who seem to think that the goal of corporate tax policy should be to get as much out of businesses as possible without forcing them to fold or relocate.

[Dion]

More hypocrisy from Notley on the child intervention system...

In October 2008, as an opposition MLA, Rachel Notley demanded the resignation of then-human services minister Janis Tarchuk over problems in the child intervention system.

Notley charged that Tarchuk’s ministry had bungled the screening process for would-be government care homes.

“You clearly have no idea what’s going on inside your ministry,” Notley told Tarchuk during question period.

“You failed your staff. You failed Albertans. You failed these children. Why won’t you resign?”

Tarchuk responded that “actions have taken place” and issues “have been addressed,” but Notley said Albertans had no reason to have any faith in the minister’s assurances.

“You’ve lost all credibility,” Notley said. “Why won’t you resign?”

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/poli...fare-conflicts

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

She's a complete and utter idiot, considering that there have been studies that place it at more like $1000.00 for consumer goods.

But since there won't be a separate line item at the grocery store for Carbon Tax of course she's and her politburo are going to blame it on those evil corporations and their gouging.

If an average family spends $100.00 a week on groceries and there's a 4% boost or $5.00 per week or $20.00 a month that's $240.00 per year just for groceries, and I'm betting with the global impact of a carbon tax it will probably more like 10% per week or $480.00 a year. And that's just groceries.

If a family spends lets say spends $500.00 a month a various things for their family outside of food (trips out etc) and the increased cost to them is 5 to 10% because of this tax lets add another $300 to $600 in cost increases on top of the groceries and then you take on the utilities increases and gas for fueling your car.

Then on top of that because the city isn't rebated all of your kids activity costs goes up and your property taxes go up.

Its not going to take long to see an additional $1000 or more leaving your families pocket which means you'd better pray for a $2000.00 or more raise this year in your income.

Good luck to the people that have lost their jobs already and are on benefits or the seniors on a fixed pension. But frack em right? Let em eat dog food.

Dude, your math is horrible.
I'm not particularly in favour of the carbon tax, but if you're going to try to use math to argue against it, at least try to get your math correct.

You're assuming everything goes up 5-10% which is ridiculous.
Gasoline, which is an example of something that the the tax directly affects is only going up ~5%. That's a direct energy product, not a consumer product that has other inputs (materials, labour, etc).

So your math of a 5-10% increase in costs for everything is assuming that the energy cost (manufacturing, transportation etc), makes up 100-200% of the cost of the products. Do you see why that doesn't make sense.

There's a lot wrong with this tax and how it is being implemented, and it will certainly have an impact on the cost of everything, but there's no need to pull obviously incorrect numbers out of thin air and hold them up as a battle cry.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

So we pay $50 a ton to Justin and then another $20-$30 to Rachel? Geez. We're f'ed.

maybe I'm mistaken but that is not my understanding. The amount paid to Justin will be the difference between whatever the Feds have decided to levy and what the Province levies. So in this instance we would pay $30 to Rachel and $20 to Justin for a total of $50.