Sales tax in Alberta?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

I think that a minor sales tax (say 2%) would be practically unnoticeable and would be very useful if 100% of it was used to grow the Heritage Fund.

Adding the revenue to the operating funds of the Government would be less useful

Nanny Redford has to fund her spending addiction somehow. I doubt a penny of this inevitable tax will see the Heritage fund.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I think pretending that the PC's would institute any changes that would be Revenue Neutral (such as Mintz suggests) is a pipe dream.

As alluded to many times, the PC's believe Alberta needs to drastically INCREASE revenues. Mintz, like the Wild Rose Party and the CTF, is much more on the side of reduction of spending to balance the budgets. He even believes Alberta's reckless spending is hurting the rest of Canada. http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...as-next-spree/


A consumption or sales tax to replace income tax and lower business taxes, while clearly the best option, is incredibly unlikely to ever pass.

On Saturday Mintz spoke of moderate spending cuts, not anything drastic. In fact the only speaker looking for drastic cuts was Flanagan and thats actually really interesting...he's a political scientist. All of the economists seem to agree that drastic spending cuts isn't what should be pursued weight now.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Nanny Redford has to fund her spending addiction somehow. I doubt a penny of this inevitable tax will see the Heritage fund.

Nor should it. With proper tax funding and an adequate tax structure we can divert non-renewable resource revenue to the Heritage Trust Fund.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

On Saturday Mintz spoke of moderate spending cuts, not anything drastic. In fact the only speaker looking for drastic cuts was Flanagan and thats actually really interesting...he's a political scientist. All of the economists seem to agree that drastic spending cuts isn't what should be pursued weight now.

Well despite what you might have interpreted him as saying, I think if you read any of Mintz' work or articles it's clear that he supports spending cuts. He quite firmly believes that Alberta has a huge spending problem first, and while he supports a revenue neutral change in tax policy, he certainly doesn't think the government has a shortage in revenues.


Actually, I see he has tweeted you directly with the same sentiment so I don't need to copy it here.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Well despite what you might have interpreted him as saying, I think if you read any of Mintz' work or articles it's clear that he supports spending cuts. He quite firmly believes that Alberta has a huge spending problem first, and while he supports a revenue neutral change in tax policy, he certainly doesn't think the government has a shortage in revenues.


Actually, I see he has tweeted you directly with the same sentiment so I don't need to copy it here.

Well his tweet was "agree that most people talked about sales taxes and "revenue problem". I didn't. Tax mix is a problem."

I don't see how that's anything other than what I've represented? I didn't say he didn't support spending cuts, I just said he spoke in favour of moderate spending cuts.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well his tweet was "agree that most people talked about sales taxes and "revenue problem". I didn't. Tax mix is a problem."

I don't see how that's anything other than what I've represented? I didn't say he didn't support spending cuts, I just said he spoke in favour of moderate spending cuts.

Perhaps you can outline exactly what you mean by 'moderate' spending cuts?

Everything I have read regarding Mintz would suggest he believes running deficits is wrong, that he doesn't support increasing tax revenues, and he doesn't support wasting royalty revenues on program spending.

Thus, it seems he would support reductions in spending in the neighborhood of 10-12 billion dollars annually.

It's almost as if he wrote the Wild Rose fiscal platform. Moderate spending cuts, no deficits, and saving for the future.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Perhaps you can outline exactly what you mean by 'moderate' spending cuts?

Everything I have read regarding Mintz would suggest he believes running deficits is wrong, that he doesn't support increasing tax revenues, and he doesn't support wasting royalty revenues on program spending.

Thus, it seems he would support reductions in spending in the neighborhood of 10-12 billion dollars annually.

It's almost as if he wrote the Wild Rose fiscal platform. Moderate spending cuts, no deficits, and saving for the future.

What is the Wildrose fiscal platform exactly? I've read basically everything they've put out and I don't think that I could tell. Danielle Smith was on QR 77 yesterday talking about how regressive consumption taxes are as well...so apparently there is a rather significant issue right there.

I can't define moderate for you, sorry we won't be able to argue semantics (one of my least favorite things to do!). I can say without question that "moderate" wouldn't be 25-30% of a budget though, at least in my world.

I have to say that if you think that magnitude of cut is moderate than I'm terrified at what you would consider to be deep cuts!

The thing is that most people, just talking average people here, agree that we should have some areas where spending can and should be reduced. When I went through the budget exercise on the website I found what I would consider to be a lot of areas to cut where the government shouldn't be involved (in my personal opinion). I just think that along with cuts there has to be a change to the structure of the revenues in this province so that it is more stable.

I can see how in the opinion of the Wildrose that makes me a demon who doesn't agree that the budget can be fixed with cuts alone. I also think that the Wildrose is opposing a consumption tax based solely on the political view as opposed to what actually makes sense for the province. I get that it has the word tax in it and that sounds bad! I just think that for real "fiscal conservatives" they should climb on board with the idea and try to "conserve" some of the non-renewable resource revenue for our future.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

What is the Wildrose fiscal platform exactly? I've read basically everything they've put out and I don't think that I could tell. Danielle Smith was on QR 77 yesterday talking about how regressive consumption taxes are as well...so apparently there is a rather significant issue right there.

I find it confusing you claim to have such trouble understanding the Wildrose platform but so easily mischaracterise what they say? Succinctly, the Wildrose fiscal platform focuses on balanced budgets through reduced spending and no new taxation, and saving a large portion of royalty revenue for future generations.

In terms of whatever Danielle Smith was discussing (I didnt hear any of it) consumption taxes are regressive by nature, anyone would admit that simple truth. You need to provide rebates in order to combat the regressive nature. It's done with the GST and would hopefully be done with any new provincial tax. But they are undoubtedly regressive.

I can't define moderate for you, sorry we won't be able to argue semantics (one of my least favorite things to do!). I can say without question that "moderate" wouldn't be 25-30% of a budget though, at least in my world.

So you are arguing semantics? Or not? Confusing.

Regardless, you made the assertion Jack Mintz (and all the economists at the Budget discussion) supported only "moderate" spending cuts. So I'm asking you to clarify that either your initial statement was wrong, or you didn't understand what Mintz was actually talking about,or if Mintz has changed his opinion from his past years of work and publications.

I have to say that if you think that magnitude of cut is moderate than I'm terrified at what you would consider to be deep cuts!

I would definately support Mintz' reccommendations, which you have called 'moderate' spending reductions. Hence the confusion.

The thing is that most people, just talking average people here, agree that we should have some areas where spending can and should be reduced. When I went through the budget exercise on the website I found what I would consider to be a lot of areas to cut where the government shouldn't be involved (in my personal opinion). I just think that along with cuts there has to be a change to the structure of the revenues in this province so that it is more stable.

I can see how in the opinion of the Wildrose that makes me a demon who doesn't agree that the budget can be fixed with cuts alone. I also think that the Wildrose is opposing a consumption tax based solely on the political view as opposed to what actually makes sense for the province. I get that it has the word tax in it and that sounds bad! I just think that for real "fiscal conservatives" they should climb on board with the idea and try to "conserve" some of the non-renewable resource revenue for our future.

What 'political view' are you referring to? The Wildrose is opposing the creation of increased taxes. This is exactly on side with Jack Mintz, who supports only a revenue shift not increased taxation. The Wildrose are simply more forceful in the statement that they expect the PC's to create new taxes. The Liberals and NDP both would increase taxes as well. Jack Mintz would oppose this because he knows that the negative effects on the economy would be terrible. The Liberal Party platform totally ignored the negative effects of increased taxation that's why their platform budgeting was such a joke.

Also, the Wildrose was the only party with a plan to save resource revenues in their last platform. One might think you'd remember that?

[Slava]

The Wildrose wasn't the only party with a plan to save money, but maybe the Liberals don't count as an option for most Albertans!

Look, my characterization of the financial stance for the Wildrose is pretty simple. I know that they plan to cut, I fully acknowledge that. I just have no idea where they plan to cut and how those cuts will bring the budget into balance.

I also better come right out and say that I don't agree with everything that Mintz has to say. Truth be told I found myself agreeing with what he said on Saturday a lot more than I would've expected! He used the word moderate, so that's what I used in describing his statement (which he has had reprinted in the Herald today in a little more detail). He says that he thinks there is a spending issue there, but is also quite clear with the VAT being a better method to receive money for the province than our current system.

I know that politically its far better for opponents to criticize this as a way to increase revenue, but clearly that isn't what Mintz is talking about here. This proposal wasn't brought forward as a "new" tax. Its a different tax in place of the aforementioned income taxes and corporate taxes. You'll note that he says we could lower both corporate and personal taxes here, or we could increase the exemption by an enormous amount.

Are these taxes regressive? They can be. We already have GST rebates though and its not a big deal. Frankly we could treat this in the exact same manner and as and aside get a few billion from the federal government for the HST!

And yes, I don't want to discuss semantics. I have no idea what moderate means in this context, but I know that it doesn't mean a quarter or third of the budget, at least to me!

[killer_carlson]

I find it as a standard Liberal message to rely on the "who knows where they will cut" line. Come up with something original.

It rings hollow as the wildrose will be quite outspoken how they will balance the budget and will release such messages around the same time as the budget. Have before and i expect them to do it again.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I find it as a standard Liberal message to rely on the "who knows where they will cut" line. Come up with something original.

It rings hollow as the wildrose will be quite outspoken how they will balance the budget and will release such messages around the same time as the budget. Have before and i expect them to do it again.

I don't think its "standard messaging". I asked at a public forum, as well as on tiwtter and couldn't get a reply. You'll have to factor in part of my bias that I want to know what the plan is before I put an "x" beside someone.

Don't you guys ever tire of just labelling me as a Liberal rather than talking about the underlying issues? It's frankly amazing that I'm here defending Jack "freaking" Mintz and still the Wildrosers here find reasons to argue!

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

Don't you guys ever tire of just labelling me as a Liberal rather than talking about the underlying issues? It's frankly amazing that I'm here defending Jack "freaking" Mintz and still the Wildrosers here find reasons to argue!

[crazy_eoj]

Some great highlights from Mintz' article today:

"The first question — how much to tax — depends on spending. In my view, Alberta does not have a revenue problem, but it does have a spending problem. In the past decade or so, spending outstripped nominal economic growth by a wide margin, with generous public salary compensation and inefficient delivery of public services.

Health care is a perfect example, which accounts for over 40 per cent of Alberta government spending. While Alberta spends more per capita on health than almost all other provinces, the Canadian Institute of Health Information has shown that health-care delivery in Alberta is mediocre among the provinces. More spending does not necessarily mean better public services.

.....

Specifically, Alberta should switch from income to consumption-based taxation, whether user fees, excise taxes and especially a sales tax....And let me repeat: None of the tax reform revenue should be used to reduce the deficit. The government must learn to deal with its spending problem."


Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...#ixzz2KiarXJAA

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

I know that politically its far better for opponents to criticize this as a way to increase revenue, but clearly that isn't what Mintz is talking about here. This proposal wasn't brought forward as a "new" tax. Its a different tax in place of the aforementioned income taxes and corporate taxes. You'll note that he says we could lower both corporate and personal taxes here, or we could increase the exemption by an enormous amount.

Well of course I agree whole-heartedly that we should have followed Mintz' recommendations and gotten rid of income taxes and reduce our corporate taxes to the lowest in North America. However, this would mean we would have to make billions in spending reductions.

However, I also agree with his suggestions that we need to drastically lower public sector salaries and public programs and find more efficiencies in service delivery.

I also agree with the Wildrose party in saying that any attempt to introduce a VAT or PST would be to INCREASE taxes overall and they have no intention of cutting spending to meet Mintz' recommendations.

Do you really believe the PC's would institute a revenue neutral sales tax? Or do you openly support an increase in taxation to further increase spending?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Well of course I agree whole-heartedly that we should have followed Mintz' recommendations and gotten rid of income taxes and reduce our corporate taxes to the lowest in North America. However, this would mean we would have to make billions in spending reductions.

However, I also agree with his suggestions that we need to drastically lower public sector salaries and public programs and find more efficiencies in service delivery.

I also agree with the Wildrose party in saying that any attempt to introduce a VAT or PST would be to INCREASE taxes overall and they have no intention of cutting spending to meet Mintz' recommendations.

Do you really believe the PC's would institute a revenue neutral sales tax? Or do you openly support an increase in taxation to further increase spending?

I have no insight into what the PC's will do, so let's keep that clear. After attending Saturday though, my impression isn't that this was a rigged event, it's that they have no idea what to do here either. I'm not talking about the short term, but about the long term where many agree that regardless of our propensity to spend we have to consider alternative funding aside from resource revenue.

I'm not prepared to say, that if I were king, I would increase taxes and spending. I wouldn't. I would actually cut areas that I think the province ought not to be involved in either partially or entirely. I would have no qualms in that actually, but I would also switch to a much greater reliance on a VAT and hope to eliminate income tax entirely.

I think that the province could put away about $3.5B indexed to inflation and invest that money. There is no reason we couldn't basically run a sovereign fund with that, and by law keep politicians away. Eventually we could use a portion of that money to fund the operating budget (not capital) thereby keeping expenses down for everyone and having a sustainable and effective perpetuity for the province and our children's children.

I can't say that's a "Liberal" or "Wildrose" plan or anything else. Its just what I would do if I had the power to do it.

[darklord700]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/po...050/story.html

That a look at this AHS expense story before shout out sales tax so quickly.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by darklord700

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/po...050/story.html

That a look at this AHS expense story before shout out sales tax so quickly.

What does that have to do with a revenue neutral sales tax exactly?

[ken0042]

That most of us do not believe that a PST will be revenue neutral. In the 80s we were told the GST would be used to pay down the national debt. Fool me once..........

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by ken0042

That most of us do not believe that a PST will be revenue neutral. In the 80s we were told the GST would be used to pay down the national debt. Fool me once..........

In fact, the GST was introduced also introduced as a revenue neutral tax. It replaced a hidden 13.5% Manufacturer's Sales Tax. When the proposed GST was reduced to 7%, it became more of a tax cut than anything.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The Liberal Party platform totally ignored the negative effects of increased taxation that's why their platform budgeting was such a joke.

... and the Wildrose Party totally ignored the negative effects of decreased government spending on the economy (and on the community in general). That is why their platform budgeting was a complete joke.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

... and the Wildrose Party totally ignored the negative effects of decreased government spending on the economy (and on the community in general). That is why their platform budgeting was a complete joke.

Ah yes, we all remember the huge recession Alberta was ushered into because of government cutbacks in the 90's.

Must be the most laughable suggestion in this thread.