Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Fuzz]

High property taxes are punitive on the poor, those with limited incomes, unable to work, students, the disabled, and the elderly. Flattening income taxes and raising property taxes only benefits one segment of society. High earners. Now progressive property tax rates, that's something we could look at. It would help tax wealth and dis-incentivize massively expensive homes.

I know you don't care, because your selfishness only has you advocating what is good for you.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

High property taxes are punitive on the poor, those with limited incomes, unable to work, students, the disabled, and the elderly. Flattening income taxes and raising property taxes only benefits one segment of society. High earners. Now progressive property tax rates, that's something we could look at. It would help tax wealth and dis-incentivize massively expensive homes.

I know you don't care, because your selfishness only has you advocating what is good for you.

Not sure how this logic lasts after even a momentary glimpse of real world examples.

Like I'm pretty much saying to copy the Nordic model. Netherlands taxes I like. Germanys education. French healthcare. Somehow all of those things are considered extreme here

[Regorium]

Taxing the "poor" is really the last bastion where you could actually make enough revenue to make a difference in the public coffers.

The middle and upper middle classes are tapped out. There's not enough multi-millionaires to tax that makes a difference in terms of paying teachers and doctors.

Adding a PST will actually help. All of the necessities of life are already exempt from sales taxes anyways.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by GGG

Technically I didn’t say the particular plans currently in place in BC Quebec and Ontario work. My post made no comment on the existing programs.

Originally Posted by GGG

Can you explain what was so unique about Alberta that the daycare plans that work in Quebec, Ontario and BC would not work here

I'll admit that I am an immigrant and English is not my first language but it appears that you clearly referred to daycare in BC as working.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by DJones

Not sure how this logic lasts after even a momentary glimpse of real world examples.

Like I'm pretty much saying to copy the Nordic model. Netherlands taxes I like. Germanys education. French healthcare. Somehow all of those things are considered extreme here

So we should implement wealth taxes then? You didn't mention that.

[surferguy]

Originally Posted by DJones

Not sure how this logic lasts after even a momentary glimpse of real world examples.

Like I'm pretty much saying to copy the Nordic model. Netherlands taxes I like. Germanys education. French healthcare. Somehow all of those things are considered extreme here

Are you advocating for a NDP government that would focus spending on these exact things? Because that is kinda what a lot of people in this thread want for Alberta.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So we should implement wealth taxes then? You didn't mention that.

Property taxes are wealth taxes. Taxing unrealized gains is just meaningless bureaucracy. They'll give up on within a few years. It's a waste of time for little gain. Same with corporate taxes. Just scrap them and crank up withholding taxes. Within five years the cashflows will normalize.

If you want annual tax revenues, no better way than sales taxes.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by surferguy

Are you advocating for a NDP government that would focus spending on these exact things? Because that is kinda what a lot of people in this thread want for Alberta.

The NDP generally hates all of those things. Germany and France systems for education and healthcare would be considered far right extremism in Canada

The pst is really the only aspect they would support but Notley and Nenshi are far to big of cowards to even mention it and they certainly wouldn't drop taxes to offset the revenue gains

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Texas

Thank God we're finally getting to the root of Alberta's budget issues: immigrants. I can't wait to vote in her referendum in November to stop those free loading good for nothing immigrants from coming to our province. For a second I thought the real problem was those greedy nurses and teachers, but I'm glad Danielle clarified that it's the immigrants.

Let’s start planning the extra care we’re gonna take for the immigrant teachers and immigrant nurses.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Taxing the "poor" is really the last bastion where you could actually make enough revenue to make a difference in the public coffers.

The middle and upper middle classes are tapped out. There's not enough multi-millionaires to tax that makes a difference in terms of paying teachers and doctors.

How are you rationalizing that the “poor” can pay more but the middle and upper classes can’t?

Adding a PST will actually help. All of the necessities of life are already exempt from sales taxes anyways.

I suppose we could debate the definition of necessities but in any event wouldn’t a PST still have a pretty big impact on the middle and upper classes who you claim are already tapped out?

I mean “poor” people generally don’t buy new cars, build new homes and are probably more likely to buy things like cell phones(taxed necessity in my view, TVs, furniture, electronics, clothing(taxed necessity to a degree) second hand rather than new. They also typically own less efficient vehicles without warranties that cost more to fuel and maintain(tax tax tax). Same goes for their home heating and electricity costs.

I do think though that lower income earners would probably be happy to pay more income tax as a natural result of having a higher income. Maybe doing things like increasing the minimum wage and making it a little easier for workers that want to unionize to do so would be a better solution.

The first cookie cutter argument against that will be that things will get more expensive as a result but the same would apply with a PST. The tax revenue gains made through lower income earners making more would likely outweigh that though.

Especially when you consider the indirect benefits that the upward pressure it would create to increase the earnings of middle to upper middle incomes who would also naturally pay taxes on those gains. The resulting reduced expenses for social programs and assistance would also allow for existing tax revenue to be diverted to either reducing the debt of funding.

Many businesses would also see a direct benefit because they could then stop funding campaigns and special interest groups who oppose anything that sees lower income earners make a little bit more money. But we’ll probably end up with a PST since that’s what the people with the pull(money) want.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by DJones

Property taxes are wealth taxes. Taxing unrealized gains is just meaningless bureaucracy. They'll give up on within a few years. It's a waste of time for little gain. Same with corporate taxes. Just scrap them and crank up withholding taxes. Within five years the cashflows will normalize.

If you want annual tax revenues, no better way than sales taxes.

Property taxes get passed on to renters so owners can continue to profit on their investments. They have no wealth, yet are taxed. It's certainly not a universal wealth tax, and owning a home doesn't mean you have excess wealth, so I have to disagree.


Norway's net wealth tax dates to 1892. Any day now...


So you want to get rid of corporate taxes and replace them with...I don't understand how withholding taxes would serve as substitute. Would that not mean less income for employees? But they get that back at tax time? Please explain. I Googled and didn't see anything on this idea.


I agree higher sales taxes are a good way to go, when implemented with a well designed rebate system, and targeting. Why Alberta still doesn't do this is mostly about perceived exceptionalism perpetuated by the idea that all taxes are bad, and no government should ever bring a new one in.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by DJones

Nothing confusing about it. Pretty much standard in Europe. Like our income taxes are higher than Norway, the stereotypical high tax county. Jack up sales taxes and drop income taxes. As a CPA I'm biased but our tax system is broken. Income taxes are not capable of keeping up in a global economy. You tax activities, not income. You'll get way more money from rich people and non residents.

Only because Canada funds healthcare and Old Age Security through tax revenue rather than social security payments. If you combine income tax and social security contributions relative to GDP, Canada is lower than basically any Western/Northern European country.

And within those countries, there are huge variances. Norway brings in 2.5x as much corporate tax revenue as Canada does, while Finland brings in very little (about half what Canada does). Denmark and Sweden have very high consumption tax revenue, while Norway's is far closer to Canada in that regard.

The main constant with the Nordic model is that they all bring in about 20% more tax revenue than Canada does. Lowering income taxes isn't going to get you there, unless you just shift it (and more) to mandatory social security contributions; but you're still just taxing income. Increasing consumption taxes would help, but matching Norway's consumption tax revenue and keeping all other existing taxes still doesn't get Canada anywhere close to what Nordic countries are bringing in overall relative to GDP.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Property taxes get passed on to renters so owners can continue to profit on their investments. They have no wealth, yet are taxed. It's certainly not a universal wealth tax, and owning a home doesn't mean you have excess wealth, so I have to disagree.


Norway's net wealth tax dates to 1892. Any day now...


So you want to get rid of corporate taxes and replace them with...I don't understand how withholding taxes would serve as substitute. Would that not mean less income for employees? But they get that back at tax time? Please explain. I Googled and didn't see anything on this idea.


I agree higher sales taxes are a good way to go, when implemented with a well designed rebate system, and targeting. Why Alberta still doesn't do this is mostly about perceived exceptionalism perpetuated by the idea that all taxes are bad, and no government should ever bring a new one in.

Rent is capped by practical means and higher property taxes severely hurts property values. Full lvt system would be ideal.

Corporations do not pay taxes in Canada. Every single dollar gets refunded as a dividend tax credit. Corporate taxes are an illusion and so the government gets money annually instead of sporadically following business timelines. The loophole is dividends getting paid to foreigners since we can't tax them appropriately. That's where you simply withhold a higher percentage of the dividend as a tax than we do now. You don't have to replace it with anything, the same amount of taxes get paid if corporate taxes are 0% or 50%. Just timing changes.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I'll admit that I am an immigrant and English is not my first language but it appears that you clearly referred to daycare in BC as working.

Is the a current plan in BC working or not? If the daycare plan is working then it’s subject to this post. If the daycare plan is not working it isn’t a subject of that post.

That post just asks why if something works elsewhere does it not work here. Ie why dos Alberta need to centralize power and authority. What is the example where this ability to customize improves outcomes.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Only because Canada funds healthcare and Old Age Security through tax revenue rather than social security payments. If you combine income tax and social security contributions relative to GDP, Canada is lower than basically any Western/Northern European country.

And within those countries, there are huge variances. Norway brings in 2.5x as much corporate tax revenue as Canada does, while Finland brings in very little (about half what Canada does). Denmark and Sweden have very high consumption tax revenue, while Norway's is far closer to Canada in that regard.

The main constant with the Nordic model is that they all bring in about 20% more tax revenue than Canada does. Lowering income taxes isn't going to get you there, unless you just shift it (and more) to mandatory social security contributions; but you're still just taxing income. Increasing consumption taxes would help, but matching Norway's consumption tax revenue and keeping all other existing taxes still doesn't get Canada anywhere close to what Nordic countries are bringing in overall relative to GDP.

Ya I don't want to get taxed as much as them, I just like their funding model. Consumption taxes being the foundation rather than a side tax. I'd use that tax revenue to cut income taxes. They just tax everything

Norway doesn't have royalties, they just charge more corporate taxes

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DJones

Ya I don't want to get taxed as much as them, I just like their funding model. Consumption taxes being the foundation rather than a side tax. I'd use that tax revenue to cut income taxes. They just tax everything

The Alberta advantage

Like the programs of other countries but not the taxes.

[edslunch]

Thanks for a few pages of rational, intelligent discussion guys. I thought I was in the wrong forum for a few minutes

[CliffFletcher]

The top 20 per cent of households in Canada (roughly $250k household income and up) pays 62 per cent of the country's income taxes. Raising their rates is politically unpopular because there's lots of voters who fall into range (I'd guess more than 30 per cent of the electorate), and many regard themselves as middle class.

Raise income taxes on the top 2 per cent won't generate much money for the simple fact there's a lot fewer people in that range.

DJones is right that sales and property taxes are reliable revenue generators for governments. The Nordic countries - the best real-world models egalitarian countries with robust public services - have 20-25 per cent VAT. And property taxes are a way to unlock the wealth of seniors who have seen their net worth increase substantially just because they bought their homes decades ago. That wealth would otherwise be passed down through inheritance, hardening intergenerational wealth inequality.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Taxing the "poor" is really the last bastion where you could actually make enough revenue to make a difference in the public coffers.

The middle and upper middle classes are tapped out. There's not enough multi-millionaires to tax that makes a difference in terms of paying teachers and doctors.

Adding a PST will actually help. All of the necessities of life are already exempt from sales taxes anyways.

The most obvious is to raise royalty rates. Also, to raise corporate tax rates.

It was stupid to lower corporate tax rates when the UCP took office. Corporations just took the money and downsized anyway.

2025–2026 Provincial Corporate Income Tax Rates (General/Small Business)
Alberta: 8% / 2%
British Columbia: 12% / 2%
Manitoba: 12% / 0%
New Brunswick: 14% / 2.5%
Newfoundland & Labrador: 15% / 3%
Nova Scotia: 14% / 1.5%
Ontario: 11.5% / 3.2%
Prince Edward Island: 16% / 1%
Quebec: 11.5% / 3.2%
Saskatchewan: 10% / 0%

Upping to 10% would make a massive difference, and not change a thing in terms of corporate offices moving, or any of the usual threats.

Having a 2% royalty before payout, when no one ever reaches payout, is blatant thievery from the province. Even OPEC has a 9% royalty, and they own all of the wells themselves. It's just a protection against future princes bankrupting the country. No resource company would leave, as they would still be making money. They are already downsizing anyway, even with record output.

This province needs balls. Not big ones, normal ones, just the basic minimum.

That's how you get rich as a province. That, and non-corrupt scum in office.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The top 20 per cent of households in Canada (roughly $250k household income and up) pays 62 per cent of the country's income taxes. Raising their rates is politically unpopular because there's lots of voters who fall into range (I'd guess more than 30 per cent of the electorate), and many regard themselves as middle class.

Raise income taxes on the top 2 per cent won't generate much money for the simple fact there's a lot fewer people in that range.

DJones is right that sales and property taxes are reliable revenue generators for governments. The Nordic countries - the best real-world models egalitarian countries with robust public services - have 20-25 per cent VAT. And property taxes are a way to unlock the wealth of seniors who have seen their net worth increase substantially just because they bought their homes decades ago. That wealth would otherwise be passed down through inheritance, hardening intergenerational wealth inequality.

The issue isn’t one specific tax and whether it’s good or not. It’s the pointless exercise of looking at high tax countries and how we could emulate them but not wanting to pay any additional tax overall.

If something costs $10 and you only have $5, it really doesn’t matter whether you offer to pay in coins or a bill, you still only have $5.