Ed Stelmach resigning as Premier

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by slava

whats the difference?

~75%?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

~75%?

How do you figure? If we give huge tax incentives that money comes out of the same pockets as tax payers paying for the projects?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Morty resigns from cabinet

[Slava]

I guess he really wants to woo that WAP vote and couldn't support the budget.

[peter12]

This party is done.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by peter12

This party is done.

As in the party's over or as in Kim Campbell?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

As in the party's over or as in Kim Campbell?

Well, jokes aside, I don't think we'll have a PC government for much longer. A few weeks ago, I would have said the PCs could win one more election, but now, it's the WRA's to lose, IMO.

I do think it's important for WRA to start telling Albertans why they SHOULD be the next provincial government instead of lobbing bombs at Stelmach and his record. Move on, tell us why you are the party of the future.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, jokes aside, I don't think we'll have a PC government for much longer. A few weeks ago, I would have said the PCs could win one more election, but now, it's the WRA's to lose, IMO.

I do think it's important for WRA to start telling Albertans why they SHOULD be the next provincial government instead of lobbing bombs at Stelmach and his record. Move on, tell us why you are the party of the future.

I wouldn't rule out the PCs yet - they've recovered before. A Morton-led PC party could take away a lot of WRA supporters (though possibly at the expense of losing some of their more centrist support). I hope the PCs do lose the next election - I think extended dynasties are unhealthy - but if the PCs emerge with a strong leader another party will really have to step up and show that they are ready to lead to win the election.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Slava

How do you figure? If we give huge tax incentives that money comes out of the same pockets as tax payers paying for the projects?

Could be wrong here, but say for a $1B project and a 25% corporate tax rate.

Fully government funded: Government impact = -$1B

Corporate funded but fully deducatible in the first year instead of capitalized and depreciated: Government impact = -$1B x %25 = -$0.25B

?

[Golden Jet]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

No clue, not the finance minister. Not what was asked though.

You asked me a direct question in a statement like form so I'm asking you now. Where would you cut? You said I prefer running a deficit. I never said that...
How about cancelling $2 billion for carbon capture? That would be a start.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Morty resigns from cabinet

“I still strongly believe that the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta represents the best choice to successfully lead our province into the 21st Century,” [Morton] wrote.

Typical Conservative, gotta be at least ten years behind the times.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

Whats the difference?

Well obviously the tax incentives will be nowhere near equaling the $2 billion us taxpayers have to pay now for the program.

Plus, getting the private side involved can only help, since they're the ones who will have to use the program in the end anyways.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Golden Jet

You asked me a direct question in a statement like form so I'm asking you now. Where would you cut? You said I prefer running a deficit. I never said that...
How about cancelling $2 billion for carbon capture? That would be a start.

There are a variety of European health care systems that we can look at to help reduce our ever increasing cost of providing health care.

Again, throwing money at a problem doesn't really solve anything. More funding for everything isn't the solution at all. Much like just cutting spending isn't the solution either.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Could be wrong here, but say for a $1B project and a 25% corporate tax rate.

Fully government funded: Government impact = -$1B

Corporate funded but fully deducatible in the first year instead of capitalized and depreciated: Government impact = -$1B x (1-0.25) = -$0.25B

?

I guess I misunderstood. I was thinking of this as fully deductible being that the taxpayers would either pay $2b of give out $2b in tax cuts.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Golden Jet

You asked me a direct question in a statement like form so I'm asking you now. Where would you cut? You said I prefer running a deficit. I never said that...
How about cancelling $2 billion for carbon capture? That would be a start.

I think that's a great start. At this time it seems like our monorail.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Slava

I guess I misunderstood. I was thinking of this as fully deductible being that the taxpayers would either pay $2b of give out $2b in tax cuts.

I'm probably wrong in my assessment as well in that the incentive would only be immediate write off.

But giving a company $1B in tax cuts instead of spending $1B costs the same but effectively gives that company the asset for free to operate and profit from. If it costs the gov't the same, they'd want to own the asset right? Azure's got it right conceptually in that tax breaks would have to be much less than the cost for the gov't to build it themselves.

[Golden Jet]

Originally Posted by Azure

There are a variety of European health care systems that we can look at to help reduce our ever increasing cost of providing health care.

Again, throwing money at a problem doesn't really solve anything. More funding for everything isn't the solution at all. Much like just cutting spending isn't the solution either.

I agree. But cutting isn't the answer either. Stelmach had a financial hardliner as Health Minister & he's the main reason Stelmach is so unpopular. Being a tough talking SOB as Health Minister doesn't work & Leipert just about destroyed his political career.
Why can't I purchase health insurance for services not covered by Alberta health? I see no problem with paying for services I & my family need. There has to be a second option like Ray Hnatishyn reported to Klein 6 or 7 years ago but he never acted upon it. But if Morton cuts just for the sake of cutting because that is his philosophy, he'll kill the Progressive Conservatives for good. People won't stand for it. Cutting funding on health care & education puts more pressure on the system which it can't handle now...
Like I said a new Premier needs to look for things that can be eliminated... such as spending $2 billion by eliminating carbon capture.

[SebC]

Not sure eliminating the carbon capture project is a good move.

Doing so would immediately give ammunition to anti-oilsands campaigns. Their message would be that we're not even trying.

More importantly, having carbon capture as a mature technology could be critically important in the near future if the regulatory framework around carbon emissions changes. If there's a carbon tax, carbon capture projects could become economically viable (and profitable) just as new upgraders and whatnot cease to be.

[Golden Jet]

Screw the left wing nut jobs & ecologists. We have a financial crisis & it's time the Alberta government took care of its citizens instead of kissing producers like Cameron's ass. We can't afford carbon capture at the expense of basic needs & necessities.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Golden Jet

Screw the left wing nut jobs & ecologists. We have a financial crisis & it's time the Alberta government took care of its citizens instead of kissing producers like Cameron's ass. We can't afford carbon capture at the expense of basic needs & necessities.

It's not the left wing nut jobs I'm concerned about, it's the consumers who might be affected by them.