Alberta Politics Thread

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

I do the bookkeeping at my organization. We spend about $16,000 a year on GST taxable supplies and services. So a simple 5% PST makes for another $16,000 of expenses

We purchase about 70,000 litres of fuel. A 6 cent fuel tax would cost us about $4,200.

Utilities is harder to do off the top of my head. I budget $9000 a year for lights and heat. Each utility bill has more distribution charges than energy charges (Plus I forget the actual gas we use) So natural gas portion Is maybe $2000 -3,000 in carbon tax (worst case scenario)

My situation shows that shows carbon tax will directly cost us half of a PST alternative.

Indirect cost: we calculate the carbon tax to give an overall increase of less than 1% to our total budget. I am assuming that some suppliers will be passing 1- 3% to us. so another $2000 to $4000 in indirect costs for the relevant purchases.

So with direct and indirect costs, my organization gets a better deal on a carbon tax than we would on a PST implementation.

While certainly would prefer not to see these increases, they are still less impact than we experienced in the 2006-2007 boom (or even the 2011-2013).Fuel prices where 25% higher. Heating was 3 times higher.


This province prays daily that energy prices will increase. We knew that When these prices increase our energy costs where going to go up again.We hate more taxes but this is still less than going to a PST.

Maybe I am just resigned I always knew that prices are going to go back up. The proposed carbon tax is still less of an increase that what we paid at the pump when the oil patch was booming.

Think of all the extra hours people were getting back then though to handle the increased costs, and there wasn't 100k people out of work with no o greatly reduced income. Putting up costs while overall household incomes are down is different than larger costs during the boom time.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tp...ptgds-eng.html
Child care is one, some people I know spend 50% of their monthly income on it. Do you think child care is going to get cheaper with increased utility costs?

Childcare could go up, sure. Same as it has before the carbon tax. If their heating and food costs go up about 5% it's not as if your cost will go up 5% to match, unless of course you're their only client. Think of it like this, a pallet of milk has 45 crates of 4L jugs, if the carbon tax adds a cost of $45 to ship a load(all in, fuel, facility heating etc) , it adds a cost of about $0.25 per jug, if they're only sending 1 pallet. A trailer can hold 30 milk pallets though, so the actual cost increase would be again divided by 30, making it less than 1cent per jug. The $45 figure is obviously just a random number, I'm just trying to illustrate how the increases get broken down as they are passed along, I mean would you suggest employees never ask for a raise because of the costs will be passed along to customers?

As a side note, I'm not sure I can understand how it makes sense for the people who you know to spend 50% of their income on childcare, they would make more money having one parent not working and getting a bump in their child tax benefits.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Childcare could go up, sure. Same as it has before the carbon tax. If their heating and food costs go up about 5% it's not as if your cost will go up 5% to match, unless of course you're their only client. Think of it like this, a pallet of milk has 45 crates of 4L jugs, if the carbon tax adds a cost of $45 to ship a load(all in, fuel, facility heating etc) , it adds a cost of about $0.25 per jug, if they're only sending 1 pallet. A trailer can hold 30 milk pallets though, so the actual cost increase would be again divided by 30, making it less than 1cent per jug. The $45 figure is obviously just a random number, I'm just trying to illustrate how the increases get broken down as they are passed along, I mean would you suggest employees never ask for a raise because of the costs will be passed along to customers?

As a side note, I'm not sure I can understand how it makes sense for the people who you know to spend 50% of their income on childcare, they would make more money having one parent not working and getting a bump in their child tax benefits.

You should retract this post and rethink it. Your analysis of all the tax on all input costs is pretty naive. You think raises are on the table for a lot of people or even available? Are you sure you live in Alberta?
You go back to work to keep your job and seniority these days.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

You should retract this post and rethink it. Your analysis of all the tax on all input costs is pretty naive. You think raises are on the table for a lot of people or even available? Are you sure you live in Alberta?
You go back to work to keep your job and seniority these days.

I think I'll leave my post up. Are you suggesting that no one is getting a raise in the province? I'm sure I live in Alberta. Not sure what you mean by the last sentence.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

Think of all the extra hours people were getting back then though to handle the increased costs, and there wasn't 100k people out of work with no o greatly reduced income. Putting up costs while overall household incomes are down is different than larger costs during the boom time.

Not everyone magically gets extra overtime and instant raises during a boom. Think back to when people working fulltime couldnt afford to pay skyrocketing rent in this city. Would that have been a better time to introduce the tax? When everything else was already more expensive? People and businesses can struggle in boom times too.

[PepsiFree]

The fact that people and businesses struggle infinitely more in a recession than a boom isn't even economics 101, it's basic logic.

That's like dismissing cancer by saying "Well lots of people gets colds, don't you think they're uncomfortable to?"

[Violator]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tp...ptgds-eng.html
Child care is one, some people I know spend 50% of their monthly income on it. Do you think child care is going to get cheaper with increased utility costs?

Then those daycare's should invest in reducing utility costs just like most people should be doing its not hard to do.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The fact that people and businesses struggle infinitely more in a recession than a boom isn't even economics 101, it's basic logic.

That's like dismissing cancer by saying "Well lots of people gets colds, don't you think they're uncomfortable to?"

I'm not suggesting that people don't suffer in a recession, or saying that people are worse off during a boom. There's different kinds of social and economic issues that arise in both scenarios, just because unemployment decreases during a boom doesn't guarantee less people are vulnerable when faced with increased expenses. Employed or not, if you can't afford something you can't afford it. People in lower paying jobs during boom times can face a level of cost increases on things like rent, groceries and other basic necessities that dwarf the carbon tax. Businesses with thin profit margins also face struggles to retain employees while staying profitable, so one could argue adding a tax at that time would have the same effect (or potentially worse) as introducing it while business is slower with lower labour, lease and product costs. At least in some scenarios.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I'm not suggesting that people don't suffer in a recession, or saying that people are worse off during a boom. There's different kinds of social and economic issues that arise in both scenarios, just because unemployment decreases during a boom doesn't guarantee less people are vulnerable when faced with increased expenses. Employed or not, if you can't afford something you can't afford it. People in lower paying jobs during boom times can face a level of cost increases on things like rent, groceries and other basic necessities that dwarf the carbon tax. Businesses with thin profit margins also face struggles to retain employees while staying profitable, so one could argue adding a tax at that time would have the same effect (or potentially worse) as introducing it while business is slower with lower labour, lease and product costs. At least in some scenarios.

But your scenarios completely ignore the fact that in a recession the amount of people unemployed or in lower paying jobs is much higher than it is in a boom.

Sure, some people are negatively impacted regardless of the economy. But a LOT more people are impacted in a much more serious way in a recession.

I don't understand your small-margin Business scenario. In a boom they're struggling? Sure, but in a recession they're closing their doors.

You're completely ignoring how much worse things are in a recession across the board. Yes, additional expenses can have a negative impact regardless of the economic climate. No, there is no scenario where the population on a grand scale isn't hit MUCH harder in a recession. How can you believe otherwise?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But your scenarios completely ignore the fact that in a recession the amount of people unemployed or in lower paying jobs is much higher than it is in a boom.

Sure, some people are negatively impacted regardless of the economy. But a LOT more people are impacted in a much more serious way in a recession.

I don't understand your small-margin Business scenario. In a boom they're struggling? Sure, but in a recession they're closing their doors.

You're completely ignoring how much worse things are in a recession across the board. Yes, additional expenses can have a negative impact regardless of the economic climate. No, there is no scenario where the population on a grand scale isn't hit MUCH harder in a recession. How can you believe otherwise?

When did I say the population on a grand scale is hit harder in a boom? I said there are negative effects in either economic phases, gave some examples. Slow down, take time to actually read my post, it'll save you from needing to question things I didn't say. To say that people who can't afford to pay bills in one scenario is less serious than another is also a little bit of ironic ignorance on your part considering how many times you say I'm ignoring things in your post. Also businesses close during booms the same as they do in recessions, the contributing factors to their closure are typically the only difference.

[Dion]

Investigation found 'abusive' behaviour at PC conference, but not orchestrated by leadership campaigns

A report approved by the PC Alberta Board of Directors Sunday found there were documented incidents of rude and ill-mannered behaviour during the policy conference in November, but no direct evidence to prove that any particular leadership campaign had directed their supporters to target another campaign.

IRISS LLC, a consortium of investigation and risk management professionals with specialized experience in public, private, government and military sectors, conducted the investigation.

IRISS conducted in-depth interviews with Sandra Jansen, Jason Kenney, PCAA volunteers who helped at the Policy Conference as neutral members, and supporters of both the Sandra Jansen and Jason Kenney campaigns. IRISS also reviewed Twitter posts.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/al...224/story.html

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

When did I say the population on a grand scale is hit harder in a boom? I said there are negative effects in either economic phases, gave some examples. Slow down, take time to actually read my post, it'll save you from needing to question things I didn't say. To say that people who can't afford to pay bills in one scenario is less serious than another is also a little bit of ironic ignorance on your part considering how many times you say I'm ignoring things in your post. Also businesses close during booms the same as they do in recessions, the contributing factors to their closure are typically the only difference.

Again, I've read your posts.
People being unable to afford to pay bills is not less serious in one scenario, ironic ignorance? Maybe you should read.
The difference isn't in the seriousness, it's in the amount of people in that scenario, which is much higher in a recession.

Who is saying it's worse when people can't afford things in a recession? Nobody is saying that. Nobody is trying to argue that. Who are you even talking to? There are just MORE of those people in a recession.

You'd have to be completely shut off from the world to believe the same amount of businesses close in a boom than do in a recession.

Recessions are worse because more people are in the negative situations you're talking about, that's basic. It has nothing to do with the individual situations being worse.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Who is saying it's worse when people can't afford things in a recession? Nobody is saying that. Nobody is trying to argue that. Who are you even talking to? There are just MORE of those people in a recession.

You did. Based on what you wrote I'd say you are arguing that so I'm talking to you.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sure, some people are negatively impacted regardless of the economy. But a LOT more people are impacted in a much more serious way in a recession.

Not sure what else needs to be said. It may not have been what you meant but it's what you wrote, so I responded based on that, I'm not a mind reader.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You did. Based on what you wrote I'd say you are arguing that so I'm talking to you.







Not sure what else needs to be said. It may not have been what you meant but it's what you wrote, so I responded based on that, I'm not a mind reader.

Yes, it's what I wrote. The number of people negatively impacted in a recession is much more serious than the number in a boom.

You don't need to be a mind reader. Just read.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yes, it's what I wrote. The number of people negatively impacted in a recession is much more serious than the number in a boom.

You don't need to be a mind reader. Just read.

You wrote that in a recession more people are impacted in a "much more serious way". Now you are saying that it is a much more serious number of people who are negatively impacted by it in a recession. Those two statements have two very different meanings.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You wrote that in a recession more people are impacted in a "much more serious way". Now you are saying that it is a much more serious number of people who are negatively impacted by it in a recession. Those two statements have two very different meanings.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you. I clarified what I meant.

You're still engaged in an incorrect position. Introducing extra expenses in a recession is much more damaging on a broad scale than introducing it in a boom (which I said, multiple times). Period. No buts.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I'm not going to argue semantics with you. I clarified what I meant.

You're still engaged in an incorrect position. Introducing extra expenses in a recession is much more damaging on a broad scale than introducing it in a boom (which I said, multiple times). Period. No buts.

It's not semantics, it's what you wrote, you "clarified" by stating that something you wrote in another post was what you wrote in the post I was responding to, which it wasn't, and then told me I don't have to mind read, just read, when there was nothing there to support your claim.

What exactly is my position in your view? I never said that overall it's better to introduce this in either a recession not a boom. I was merely stating that it would have an impact in both scenarios, since booms create their own issues regardless of what the unemployment rate is or how much extra overtime people are getting, as one poster stated. I also pointed out how in some cases it could be worse for people or businesses in certain scenarios, but never said across the board it would be worse.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I was merely stating that it would have an impact in both scenarios, since booms create their own issues regardless of what the unemployment rate is or how much extra overtime people are getting, as one poster stated. I also pointed out how in some cases it could be worse for people or businesses in certain scenarios, but never said across the board it would be worse.

Sure, everyone knows that, why even mention it? Of course there are people struggling regardless of the economic climate that exists around them, so an extra expense will always impact someone.

In a recession, it's more so.

I understood that your point was that a boom has its own issues, but, as I've said multiple times already, those issues pale in comparison by levels of magnitude when comparing them to those found in a recession. Businesses struggling in a boom? Well, they're out of business and there's 10x more struggling in a recession. People unable to pay bills in a boom? Well they might have have a job and 10x more people have joined the ranks of 'struggling.'

Again, saying "well booms have issues too" is irrelevant, because it's like saying having a cold is bad too to someone with cancer. It's a dumb argument to make. Recessions are unequivocally worse across the board and any issue that a boom has is multiplied in severity.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sure, everyone knows that, why even mention it? Of course there are people struggling regardless of the economic climate that exists around them, so an extra expense will always impact someone.

In a recession, it's more so.

I understood that your point was that a boom has its own issues, but, as I've said multiple times already, those issues pale in comparison by levels of magnitude when comparing them to those found in a recession. Businesses struggling in a boom? Well, they're out of business and there's 10x more struggling in a recession. People unable to pay bills in a boom? Well they might have have a job and 10x more people have joined the ranks of 'struggling.'

Again, saying "well booms have issues too" is irrelevant, because it's like saying having a cold is bad too to someone with cancer. It's a dumb argument to make. Recessions are unequivocally worse across the board and any issue that a boom has is multiplied in severity.

OK you win, it's dumb and irrelevant to state a fact that you claim to understand yet want to twist into me making an argument for something that I had zero intention of making an argument for.

[PepsiFree]

Hey man, I'm not a mind reader.

At least I won?