Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-27-2011, 12:55 PM   #181
Frequitude
Franchise Player
 
Frequitude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 555 Saddledome Rise SE
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slava View Post
whats the difference?
~75%?
Frequitude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2011, 01:02 PM   #182
Slava
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frequitude View Post
~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?
Slava is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2011, 02:34 PM   #183
Reggie Dunlop
All I can get
 
Reggie Dunlop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Morty resigns from cabinet
Reggie Dunlop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2011, 02:47 PM   #184
Slava
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Exp:
Default

I guess he really wants to woo that WAP vote and couldn't support the budget.
Slava is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2011, 02:50 PM   #185
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

This party is done.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Old 01-27-2011, 03:07 PM   #186
VladtheImpaler
Franchise Player
 
VladtheImpaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
This party is done.
As in the party's over or as in Kim Campbell?
__________________
Cordially as always,
Vlad the Impaler

Please check out http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...94#post3726494

VladtheImpaler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2011, 03:17 PM   #187
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler View Post
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.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2011, 03:36 PM   #188
Ashartus
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
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.
Ashartus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2011, 05:18 PM   #189
Frequitude
Franchise Player
 
Frequitude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 555 Saddledome Rise SE
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava View Post
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

?

Last edited by Frequitude; 01-27-2011 at 09:47 PM.
Frequitude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2011, 05:31 PM   #190
Golden Jet
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frequitude View Post
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.
Golden Jet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2011, 05:49 PM   #191
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop View Post
Quote:
“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.
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2011, 06:23 PM   #192
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2011, 06:26 PM   #193
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Jet View Post
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.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2011, 07:48 PM   #194
Slava
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frequitude View Post
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.
Slava is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2011, 09:50 PM   #195
Frequitude
Franchise Player
 
Frequitude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 555 Saddledome Rise SE
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Jet View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2011, 09:53 PM   #196
Frequitude
Franchise Player
 
Frequitude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 555 Saddledome Rise SE
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava View Post
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.
Frequitude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2011, 09:56 PM   #197
Golden Jet
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
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.
Golden Jet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2011, 11:48 PM   #198
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

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.
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 12:36 AM   #199
Golden Jet
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Exp:
Default

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.
Golden Jet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2011, 12:42 AM   #200
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Jet View Post
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.
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:52 PM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy