Alberta Politics Thread

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

No I didn't. I was responding to the ludicrous notion that climate change could have a positive impact on the Alberta economy (whether you think climate change is man made or whether you don't).

Increased Flooding events will happen in the city of Calgary in the future. Everyone with skin in the game seems to recognize this. These will become more and more costly as the province continues to develop land in flood plains. There is clear evidence of this trend and the province has now conducted several studies which reach the same conclusion.

Flood events are not good for Alberta's economy. Even if you don't believe humans are causing the climate to change you should at least be able to acknowledge that the climate IS changing and that these consequences are logical. troutman shared some links in this regard earlier.

Instead of Federal dollars for a new stadium, the city should be actively campaigning for flood mitigation infrastructure. That would have a much better return on investment.

That's the only thing I was replying to.

I agree that it was silly to say that it will help the Alberta economy (though I thought it was tongue in cheek), but you state the bolded like it's fact. It isn't. No one knows whether or not there will be more flooding in Calgary - there could just as easily be less.

And we won't have enough data to know either way for decades.

[Bownesian]

I would guess the most likely scenario for Calgary in a 4 degree Celsius warming situation (an extraordinary overreach that would be really really bad for coastal regions) is we'd have something like eastern Wyoming's climate - about the same precipitation as we have with more rainy days than snowy ones, more melting days in the winter, a longer warm season that would be somewhat drier because the highs would be higher.

[Fuzz]

Good diversification idea:

The federal government is being asked to unravel red tape to allow farmers to cultivate a type of poppy that is currently illegal to grow in Canada.
Thebaine poppies don't have the same narcotic properties as opium poppies and are processed into pain relievers such as morphine, codeine and oxycodone.
Canada imports about $600 million worth of thebaine each year from Australia and Europe as the poppy is not available anywhere in North America.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...490957?cmp=rss

I wonder if there are a lot of medical crops that could be grown here?

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Good diversification idea:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...490957?cmp=rss

I wonder if there are a lot of medical crops that could be grown here?

Big Pharma is already here (southern alberta) using genetically modified Canola to produce compounds for use in pharmacology products.

Bio- security is severe for these fields. The harvest could mean millions for the drug manufacturer. Pollen contamination from a regular canola crop could drastically reduce the useable compounds.

[chemgear]

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...ining-business

An alliance of employer organizations is asking for a meeting with Alberta Premier Rachel Notley to discuss what it calls the “dire economic situation” in the province.

The alliance — made up of 15 associations representing contractors, retailers, energy sector companies and others — has sent an open letter to the premier.

It states that recent policies, such as the carbon tax, corporate and personal income tax increases and changes to the minimum wage, are undermining business confidence and competitiveness during the economic downturn.

The group says it doesn’t want to see any further tax increases and is also seeking a delay in the next proposed minimum wage hike.

It’s also seeking a moratorium on any new policies that could have a detrimental effect on the ability of business to create jobs, attract capital investment and compete globally.

There has been no immediate response to the letter from Notley, but Finance Minister Joe Ceci said Alberta is already the lowest taxed jurisdiction in Canada and tax changes being implemented by the NDP government won’t change that.

[Mr.Coffee]

That will be an interesting meeting.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by chemgear

but Finance Minister Joe Ceci said Alberta is already the lowest taxed jurisdiction in Canada and tax changes being implemented by the NDP government won’t change that.[/I]

So does Joe think that Alberta Energy companies are competing with the rest of Canada and that should give them some kind of advantage? I mean Texas corporate tax rate is what 1 percent?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

So does Joe think

The answer is no.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

So does Joe think that Alberta Energy companies are competing with the rest of Canada and that should give them some kind of advantage? I mean Texas corporate tax rate is what 1 percent?

Zero actually, which is also what the State Income tax rate is. But they do have a Sales tax.

[robaur]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

So does Joe think that Alberta Energy companies are competing with the rest of Canada and that should give them some kind of advantage? I mean Texas corporate tax rate is what 1 percent?

Are we competing with Texas? lol....even if we move our tax rate to 0....the big supers arent going to shift their head offices here. its already 0 there. its a moot argument.

Besides, a family member had to move back to AB once he was laid off because they were reliant on the healthcare system. Life in Texas is ####ing brutal for the common man or just in the US in general. My relatives pay $1000 a month for healthcare coverage in California.....lol....which is a disgrace for a 1st world developed nation.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by robaur

Are we competing with Texas? lol....even if we move our tax rate to 0....the big supers arent going to shift their head offices here. its already 0 there. its a moot argument.

Besides, a family member had to move back to AB once he was laid off because they were reliant on the healthcare system. Life in Texas is ####ing brutal for the common man or just in the US in general. My relatives pay $1000 a month for healthcare coverage in California.....lol....which is a disgrace for a 1st world developed nation.

Relevance? We are not competing with Texas for people; we are competing with Texas for investment dollars (rigs or what not - I am not familiar with all that grease-monkey stuff). Way to miss the point. That's actually a nice NDP slogan, based on performance so far - "We miss the point".

[Enoch Root]

or also: 'they're ahead of us anyway, so why even try?'

[CliffFletcher]

So every constituency that's serious about attracting investment and economic activity should have a zero corporate tax rate?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So every constituency that's serious about attracting investment and economic activity should have a zero corporate tax rate?

Way to argue the extreme example.

No, to answer your question. But ignoring the competition, throwing your hands in the air, and just remaining completely un-competitive, is defeatist, short-sighted, and moronic.

[Locke]

The NDP could easily take the Air Canada slogan:

"We're not happy until you're not happy!"

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Way to argue the extreme example.

No, to answer your question. But ignoring the competition, throwing your hands in the air, and just remaining completely un-competitive, is defeatist, short-sighted, and moronic.

you haven't explained why though.

What's the threshold where corporate tax cuts have diminishing returns?

According to just about every Albertan I've talked to about this, they don't know or care, they just know that it's low.

Well, how low is too low? You could make the argument that corporate tax rates in Alberta have been too low for years considering the budget deficit the province finds itself in.

So, Enoch, what is the ideal threshold for corporate tax rates in Alberta?

[Fuzz]

I think the ideal rate is somewhere near the Canadian average, because businesses get a bit of a tax break in Alberta from no PST. I guess it depends on the business and how much purchasing they do, but it can be a big savings, so I don't think we need to have the lowest rate in Canada.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

you haven't explained why though.

What's the threshold where corporate tax cuts have diminishing returns?

According to just about every Albertan I've talked to about this, they don't know or care, they just know that it's low.

Well, how low is too low? You could make the argument that corporate tax rates in Alberta have been too low for years considering the budget deficit the province finds itself in.

So, Enoch, what is the ideal threshold for corporate tax rates in Alberta?

Sure, I'll play along.

To your point that corporate tax rates were too low in Alberta, as evidenced by the budget deficit, is misleading at best. Low corporate taxes did not create this deficit. Low corporate taxes led to a competitive advantage in Alberta that led directly to higher per capita GDP (and thus a higher overall taxbase). Discussing why we now have a deficit is an automatic thread derailing.

As to your question - there are too many variables at play to answer in a paragraph or two. But one thing is certain: having them significantly higher than your competitors creates a disadvantage.

All corporate taxes are a) passed on to the consumer, or b) result in spending cuts elsewhere (usually payroll) or c) reduce profitability (when neither of the first two are possible). They are inconsistent between industries, and are inconsistent due to accounting practices and paper losses. They accomplish three things:

1) they are unfair and inconsistent between industries and even between companies in the same industry

2) they are a hidden tax that consumers aren't typically aware they are paying (which makes valuating their effectiveness - and even their scope - extremely difficult), and

3) they make the businesses in higher taxed districts unfairly less competitive than businesses in districts with lower corporate taxes.

So following those points through to their logical end suggests that the optimal corporate tax rate is zero.

Note: you asked me a question so I have answered it. But I am NOT going to get into an internet debate (yelling match) about it. I've answered and I'm out.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So every constituency that's serious about attracting investment and economic activity should have a zero corporate tax rate?

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Way to argue the extreme example.

No, to answer your question. But ignoring the competition, throwing your hands in the air, and just remaining completely un-competitive, is defeatist, short-sighted, and moronic.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Sure, I'll play along.

To your point that corporate tax rates were too low in Alberta, as evidenced by the budget deficit, is misleading at best. Low corporate taxes did not create this deficit. Low corporate taxes led to a competitive advantage in Alberta that led directly to higher per capita GDP (and thus a higher overall taxbase). Discussing why we now have a deficit is an automatic thread derailing.

As to your question - there are too many variables at play to answer in a paragraph or two. But one thing is certain: having them significantly higher than your competitors creates a disadvantage.

All corporate taxes are a) passed on to the consumer, or b) result in spending cuts elsewhere (usually payroll) or c) reduce profitability (when neither of the first two are possible). They are inconsistent between industries, and are inconsistent due to accounting practices and paper losses. They accomplish three things:

1) they are unfair and inconsistent between industries and even between companies in the same industry

2) they are a hidden tax that consumers aren't typically aware they are paying (which makes valuating their effectiveness - and even their scope - extremely difficult), and

3) they make the businesses in higher taxed districts unfairly less competitive than businesses in districts with lower corporate taxes.

So following those points through to their logical end suggests that the optimal corporate tax rate is zero.

Note: you asked me a question so I have answered it. But I am NOT going to get into an internet debate (yelling match) about it. I've answered and I'm out.

So then CliffFletcher was right in his characterization and you were just replying to him (and contradicting yourself in the process) to be a jerk?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

That will be an interesting meeting.

Originally Posted by zamler

The answer is no.

Zamler, you're a prophet. There will be no meeting.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...ing-tax-relief

Alberta finance minister fires back at business group seeking tax relief

Joe Ceci also said Monday the tax changes being implemented by the NDP government won’t change that and will put the province on a sounder footing.

“The carbon levy … we are recycling 100 per cent back into the economy.”

Is that what it means to spend it all/give it all the our union buddies?