GT: Federal Election

[peter12]

The urban left loves to compose a terrifying picture of the foaming at the mouth ideologues behind Harper - never mind that they don't existd - but why has no one talked about how happily partisans of both the NDP and LPC would dismantle Alberta's Oil & Gas economy?

[Thor]

[Fuzz]

Curious how soon Justin will implement his plan for the senate. There are lots of empty seats, and a strong Conservative majority right now. They may make it difficult to get through some of his legislation, so I'd think filling the Senate soon would be a priority.

[FlamesAddiction]

It seems like a lot of people talk about it. There were many people saying that the Liberals or NDP would destroy the O&G industry by caving to environmentalists.

I would like to see actual case studies or something though that proves or at least makes a case that this will happen and isn't just partisan fear mongering.

[CampbellsTransgressions]

I'm curious as to why it took until two days after the election to post the article.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It seems like a lot of people talk about it. There were many people saying that the Liberals or NDP would destroy the O&G industry by caving to environmentalists.

I would like to see actual case studies or something though that proves or at least makes a case that this will happen and isn't just partisan fear mongering.

The NDP is just general assumptions. As for the Liberals, we don't necessarily case studies, we have been down that road before. Does that mean we will again? Unlikely, but there is enough good reason to watch closely. Read the article on the previous page. Yes, it is written by a pro O&G guy, and that's good - I think it's fair to have a side representing that bias too. And I wouldn't call it fear mongering either, guy has credentials:

Peter Foster was born and educated in England, where he studied economics at Cambridge before working for the Financial Times of London. His columns for the Financial Post have twice been shortlisted for the International Bastiat Prize. In 2011, he received the English-language Economic Education Prize from the Montreal Economic Institute.

He has written nine books. The first, The Blue-Eyed Sheiks, was a number one bestseller. Self-Serve, his book on Petro-Canada, won Canada’s National Business Book Award. He is also a recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Calgary-based Petroleum History Society.

His magazine journalism has won National Magazine Awards for subjects as diverse as Moscow McDonald’s, oil exploration in the Beaufort Sea and the story behind Toronto’s SkyDome. His latest book, Why We Bite the Invisible Hand: The Psychology of Anti-Capitalism, is available on Amazon.com and Amazon.ca.

[STAMPEDRED]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

tl;dr: If you make between $45k and $199k, you get a small tax break. If you make over $200k, your tax bill goes up.

Current federal income tax brackets:

15% on the first $44,701 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $44,700 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $44,701 up to $89,401), +
26% on the next $49,185 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $89,401 up to $138,586), +
29% of taxable income over $138,586.

Proposed income tax brackets from the Liberal election platform (changes from current rates in bold):

15% on the first $44,701 of taxable income, +
20.5% on the next $44,700 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $44,701 up to $89,401), +
26% on the next $49,185 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $89,401 up to $138,586), +
29% on the next $61,414 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over over $138,586 up to $199,999), +
33% of taxable income over $200,000.

brutal. Way to punish people for earning more.

The idea should be to reward people for earning a higher income. The more a person makes, the more taxes are collected regardless. This new tax measure essentially punishes those who figure out a way to increase their income level. And Trudeau wonders why companies 'cheat' on their taxes?

If anyone is making that dollar amount or more they would be wise to, I don't know, maybe run 3 numbers companies to split the profits up and in an effort to pay less tax.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

http://business.financialpost.com/fp...ont-be-so-sure

Theories about how climate change will be a vehicle for decimating O&G and the people behind Trudeau.

I wouldn't mind seeing a federal carbon tax or other climate change policies. The O&G industry should pay its fair share.

However, I'm just very very skeptical as to how he's going to go about it. O&G is only ~25% of our emissions. The other significant factors are transportation (cars), heating (houses), agriculture and other industries.

Those 4 factors, while emitting a similar amount to O&G, are basically political hand grenades. Adding a carbon tax would probably roll into gasoline, and people are weirdly sensitive to changes at the pump. Agriculture and manufacturing are two "protected" industries from a political standpoint. I just see a carbon tax policy that basically exempts everything except large producers and pipelines, and in order to have the O&G industry bear the load of the entire country's emissions targets, it'd have to be a crippling amount of tax.

For me, that's really the only worry, but again this is all hypothetical and most likely untrue, but something to think about.

[polak]

Originally Posted by STAMPEDRED

brutal. Way to punish people for earning more.

The idea should be to reward people for earning a higher income. The more a person makes, the more taxes are collected regardless. This new tax measure essentially punishes those who figure out a way to increase their income level. And Trudeau wonders why companies 'cheat' on their taxes?

If anyone is making that dollar amount or more they would be wise to, I don't know, maybe run 3 numbers companies to split the profits up and in an effort to pay less tax.

It's not punishing people for earning more. It's raising tax revenue without making people who are barely above water go broke.

Someone making 200,000 can handle losing an extra 10,000 bucks of take home. Someone making 40,000 cannot handle losing an extra 2000 of take home.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by STAMPEDRED

brutal. Way to punish people for earning more.

The idea should be to reward people for earning a higher income. The more a person makes, the more taxes are collected regardless. This new tax measure essentially punishes those who figure out a way to increase their income level. And Trudeau wonders why companies 'cheat' on their taxes?

If anyone is making that dollar amount or more they would be wise to, I don't know, maybe run 3 numbers companies to split the profits up and in an effort to pay less tax.

How does it punish people for earning more?? They still get to earn More. So instead of getting $610 dollars for each 1K they earn they get $570. This effectively makes no difference to the high income earners.

It is 4k on 100k and if you are 100k above the last bracket I don't particular care that you have to fly coach instead of first class on one vacation.

[CampbellsTransgressions]

They'll target O&G as much as possible until they reach diminishing returns, plateau, and have nobody else to target.

Meanwhile Algeria will pack up the slack, Quebec will continue importing from them, and there will be at best no change in global emissions.

But hey, at least Quebec look like a saint for having low emissions as a result of being a nearly entirely hydroelectric based economy and importing all of their oil.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I wouldn't mind seeing a federal carbon tax or other climate change policies. The O&G industry should pay its fair share.

However, I'm just very very skeptical as to how he's going to go about it. O&G is only ~25% of our emissions. The other significant factors are transportation (cars), heating (houses), agriculture and other industries.

Those 4 factors, while emitting a similar amount to O&G, are basically political hand grenades. Adding a carbon tax would probably roll into gasoline, and people are weirdly sensitive to changes at the pump. Agriculture and manufacturing are two "protected" industries from a political standpoint. I just see a carbon tax policy that basically exempts everything except large producers and pipelines, and in order to have the O&G industry bear the load of the entire country's emissions targets, it'd have to be a crippling amount of tax.

For me, that's really the only worry, but again this is all hypothetical and most likely untrue, but something to think about.

And to protect exports we should only tax carbon at the tail pipe. Oil that is exported outside of Canada should have the carbon implications go to who ever burned it. If the Saudi's aren't going to tax the lifecycle emissions of oil burned in the US we shouldn't either.

Any carbon tax should be attached only to the final user of the good.

[ernie]

Is not the 20.5% lower than before?

People are not being punished for earning more. They still take home more. And because they earn more they are being asked to contribute more because they can do so. And yes it is being asked because you can feel free to move to a different country if it bothers people that much.

btw as comparison in the US for federal rates:

Single:
$0 to $9,225 10%

$9,226 to $37,450 $922.50 plus 15% of the amount over $9,225

$37,451 to $90,750 $5,156.25 plus 25% of the amount over $37,450

$90,751 to $189,300 $18,481.25 plus 28% of the amount over $90,750

$189,301 to $411,500 $46,075.25 plus 33% of the amount over $189,300

$411,501 to $413,200 $119,401.25 plus 35% of the amount over $411,500

$413,201 or more $119,996.25 plus 39.6% of the amount over $413,200


Married Filing Separately:
$0 to $9,225 10%

$9,226 to $37,450 $922.50 plus 15% of the amount over $9,225

$37,451 to $75,600 $5,156.25 plus 25% of the amount over $37,450

$75,601 to $115,225 $14,693.75 plus 28% of the amount over $75,600

$115,226 to $205,750 $25,788.75 plus 33% of the amount over $115,225

$205,751 to $232,425 $55,662.00 plus 35% of the amount over $205,750

$232,426 or more $64,998.25 plus 39.6% of the amount over $232,425

[polak]

Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions

They'll target O&G as much as possible until they reach diminishing returns, plateau, and have nobody else to target.

Meanwhile Algeria will pack up the slack, Quebec will continue importing from them, and there will be at best no change in global emissions.

But hey, at least Quebec look like a saint for having low emissions as a result of being a nearly entirely hydroelectric based economy and importing all of their oil.

What makes you think they'll target Oil and Gas? There is ZERO money coming out of Oil and Gas right now.

Seemingly my whole facebook seems to not realize that in order for the Liberals to "rape Alberta" as some so eloquently put it, Alberta would have to be actually generating some revenue. This continues and we'll be the ones with our hands out.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by polak

Someone making 200,000 can handle losing an extra 10,000 bucks of take home. Someone making 40,000 cannot handle losing an extra 2000 of take home.

Ridiculous.

1) Taxes should not be based on what someone can afford to "lose."

2) In your example, why do you believe that the $200K earner can "handle losing" any money at all? Perhaps the $200K earner earns their income by virtue of many years of education, paid for (temporarily) by debt, which now must be serviced.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Ridiculous.

1) Taxes should not be based on what someone can afford to "lose."

2) In your example, why do you believe that the $200K earner can "handle losing" any money at all? Perhaps the $200K earner earns their income by virtue of many years of education, paid for (temporarily) by debt, which now must be serviced.

I fundamentally disagree. Though I wouldn't phrase it as "I can afford to lose more because I make more".

I can afford to give more to help out those that don't because, yes, I make more and am in a privileged situation. By giving more I give others a better chance to end up in the same situation I am in. A situation I'm in because my parents worked hard and allowed me to have an education (and several other benefits) they didn't have a chance to have. It's a social fabric thing.

To me, and many can feel free to disagree, but it is my personal belief: that is what it means to be Canadian. Even further to me that is what it means to be a responsible and caring citizen. And yes even though I no longer live in Canada I identify very strongly with that belief. There is plenty of money in the system to have fantastic safety net systems and as a whole those safety nets are advantageous to a country not a detriment. Now if we talking ludicrous levels of taxation things might change but it isn't ludicrous. It's pretty middle of the road in the world.

I fundamentally don't believe that I make what I make (which btw isn't some huge amount) just because I worked hard. Sure I did. I also had major advantages provided to me others don't. You know who else works hard? The guy sweeping up floors at two different companies and can barely make ends meet. You think he wants a better education? Sure he does. But you know what? Maybe he couldn't do it because of financial reasons. Maybe he couldn't do it because he made a mistake at 18. Maybe he couldn't do it because he was not capable of doing it. It's a fact of life that some people are smarter in doing certain things and it is easier to earn more when you are smarter in those things. It just is. I'm good in science and math. I'm useless at fixing and building things no matter how much I try. What I'm good at, by and large, will earn me more than a guy who is good at fixing things. That doesn't mean the "smarter" person is a better person or a person who worked harder than someone making a fraction of what they do. It doesn't mean I'm a better person than the person who cuts my hair. It does mean I can help out society more through financial contribution.

Unlike popular belief, there are not a huge amount of lazy drug addled bums sitting on their asses sponging off the system. Are there some? yes. But they are a very small minority and no matter what system is in place those very same people will be sponging off the system. They won't be out getting jobs because someone took the money or food stamps or whatever away.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by STAMPEDRED

brutal. Way to punish people for earning more.

The idea should be to reward people for earning a higher income. The more a person makes, the more taxes are collected regardless. This new tax measure essentially punishes those who figure out a way to increase their income level. And Trudeau wonders why companies 'cheat' on their taxes?

If anyone is making that dollar amount or more they would be wise to, I don't know, maybe run 3 numbers companies to split the profits up and in an effort to pay less tax.

Are you implying that they wouldn't if their taxes were below some magical threshold? I can complete BS on that.

And you realize things like these are exactly why taxes are going up on those people, right? Those that don't have the assets to be splitting or the ability to be paying financial advisors/accountants/tax specialists to hunt down loopholes for them don't get those advantages. Is it a surprise that those people are ticked off at the few who are able to do these things, purely because they already have more.

And no, the idea should not be to reward those who earn more, they have their rewards already in the form of more wealth than others, wealth that, in many cases, is excessive and unnecessary. There's this prevailing idea that work harder=paid more and it's not even close to true. That's not saying that people that are highly paid aren't working hard, most certainly do. But the implication that those who aren't making over $100K/year AREN'T working hard enough is ludicrous. Their pay is less a subject of their hard work, and more a subject of the money to be gained from using their skill. It's not wrong to use that skill to bring yourself success, but what that skill gets paid is a function of the market price for that job, not necessarily how hard the person worked to get there. The fact that oil is a widely used commodity and there is much wealth to be gained from extracting and selling it is why these jobs are higher paying. It's not because an engineer working in O&G works harder than one working in civil engineering, or a rink rat. They all have to feed their families, provide education for their kids, have some fun in life, and the fact that people whose lives will literally not change with an extra few percent off the top (much of which is paid by the market, not their hard work) make such a fuss about it, when it could make a world of difference for people at the bottom, is a huge piss-off. When our parents were kids, someone could be a shoemaker, or a rink attendent, or a department store salesperson and raise a family off that income alone. It can't happen anymore, technology and international relations have changed it too much. The system needs to be adapted to this, and not by people who grew up in an era that has long since gone. The job landscape that we deal with isn't even close to the one our parents did, and light years different than their parents, yet the economic systems have remained largely the same. It makes no sense.



Albertan's on average work more than the rest of the country (a max of a whopping 4 hours more per week. Oh my god how do we live under such conditions!?!) yet are paid 20-30% more than other provinces. Is this because we work 20-30% harder? Or perhaps its because we sit on a black gold mine and our economy revolves around a lucrative resource?

This doesn't even get into people who knowingly work low-paying, socially beneficial jobs because they want to, and work just as hard, if not harder, to provide for their families that have the same basic needs as anyone else.

[polak]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Ridiculous.

1) Taxes should not be based on what someone can afford to "lose."

2) In your example, why do you believe that the $200K earner can "handle losing" any money at all? Perhaps the $200K earner earns their income by virtue of many years of education, paid for (temporarily) by debt, which now must be serviced.

I'm not wasting time arguing about the benefits of progressive taxation. I've done it to death on here.

Read it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

take a look at this comic too. might give you some perspective:

Large:

Spoiler!

http://digitalsynopsis.com/inspirati...d-toby-morris/

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by ernie

I can afford to give more to help out those that don't because yes I make more and am in a privileged situation. . .

This is all well and good, but why is someone's income the standard proxy for determining whether they are (or are not) in a "privileged situation" and thus should pay more (or less) in taxes relative to someone else?

Just because you may be in a privileged situation does not mean that someone else who earns the same as you is as well, and thus can also "afford to give more."

[GGG]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

This is all well and good, but why is someone's income the standard proxy for determining whether they are (or are not) in a "privileged situation" and thus should pay more (or less) in taxes relative to someone else?

Just because you may be in a privileged situation does not mean that someone else who earns the same as you is as well, and thus can also "afford to give more."

How is income not a good measure?

When you are 2-3 standard deviations above average regardless of where you are on the expenses side of the ledger you are privileged.