Alberta Politics Thread

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

No we're not willing to pay more for products cause we have no money left. The governments have taken anything we had to spare in the form of carbon taxes, property taxes, gas taxes etc etc etc. People only have so much disposable income.

These statements always turn out to be ridiculous once you dig a little bit beneath the surface. How many products and services do you own or make use of that don't fit the criteria of a "basic need" (i.e. food, clothing, shelter)? Because all of that is basically disposable income. Not only that but I would wager that the food, shelter, and clothing you have don't exactly fall into the category of "basic essentials."

[Slava]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

^ I'm sure it's the case. Be interest to see numbers.
'Tax freedom day' in Canada was a couple days ago. Not that far from taxation taking more than half of employment income either.

Sweet we don't have to pay anymore this year. Those guys are all working for free now I guess!

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

^ I'm sure it's the case. Be interest to see numbers.
'Tax freedom day' in Canada was a couple days ago. Not that far from taxation taking more than half of employment income either.

If interested here is a link.

Go to June 9...select 11:00AM hour....then forward it to the 35:00 mark.

She does give some numbers and they are frightening.

http://www.newstalk770.com/audio-on-demand-2/

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by transplant99

If interested here is a link.

Go to June 9...select 11:00AM hour....then forward it to the 35:00 mark.

She does give some numbers and they are frightening.

http://www.newstalk770.com/audio-on-demand-2/

Here is the article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...-tax-1.3624552

[chemgear]

Sad listening to what these big tax increases are doing to these businesses (and ultimately the people who work there - for now).

The upcoming carbon taxes. wage hikes and other additional increases even just next year (never mind the years that follow) are going to stomp on their throat.

[CliffFletcher]

Well, Alberta's carbon footprint will definitely get smaller if people stop going out to restaurants and bars. Tough break for the thousands who work in the industry, though.

[Resolute 14]

Perhaps Notley should have promised to pay $5000 (in extra EI and welfare) for every job she eliminates in Alberta.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Sad listening to what these big tax increases are doing to these businesses (and ultimately the people who work there - for now).

The upcoming carbon taxes. wage hikes and other additional increases even just next year (never mind the years that follow) are going to stomp on their throat.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Well, Alberta's carbon footprint will definitely get smaller if people stop going out to restaurants and bars. Tough break for the thousands who work in the industry, though.

People voted for change, now they have it. They'll have the chance to vote for more change in three years. I'd bet that people in the service industry were more likely to vote NDP, so they can't really complain since they were supposedly well informed about who they were voting for.

[stampsx2]

I was going to put a whole bunch of points on how the the ndp is ruining this province but that's going to take too long.

Anyone else think Prentice and Redford are sort of laughing right now?

[Resolute 14]

If they are, they shouldn't be. They are the idiots most responsible for the current state of affairs.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

People voted for change, now they have it. They'll have the chance to vote for more change in three years. I'd bet that people in the service industry were more likely to vote NDP, so they can't really complain since they were supposedly well informed about who they were voting for.

Except that when they were running their platform had no mention of a carbon tax. They also promised to balance the budget by 2017.

So by putting in the carbon tax they basically mislead Alberta voters, and we were in the midst of the oil crisis during the election, and now they have no plans to even approach a balanced budget in their first mandate.

So no, the people who voted for the NDP didn't vote for this.

Realistically the opposition parties are right, if the NDP are so sure that Albertan's want this carbon tax in this form, call a referendum and take it to the people.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except that when they were running their platform had no mention of a carbon tax. They also promised to balance the budget by 2017.

So by putting in the carbon tax they basically mislead Alberta voters, and we were in the midst of the oil crisis during the election, and now they have no plans to even approach a balanced budget in their first mandate.

So no, the people who voted for the NDP didn't vote for this.

Realistically the opposition parties are right, if the NDP are so sure that Albertan's want this carbon tax in this form, call a referendum and take it to the people.

Their official platform also said "Albertans are not getting their fair share of oil royalties"

After 8 months of reviewing said royalties, they did wisely admit it was indeed fair. Campaigning on people's emotions.

At least the NDP hired people smart enough to show them they were wrong, but Notley still botched it.

"Now isn't the time for a cash grab"

[polak]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Their official platform also said "Albertans are not getting their fair share of oil royalties"

After 8 months of reviewing said royalties, they did wisely admit it was indeed fair. Campaigning on people's emotions.

At least the NDP hired people smart enough to show them they were wrong, but Notley still botched it.

"Now isn't the time for a cash grab"

The fair share part was addressed by the corporate tax increase. They promised a review, they didn't promise to change it.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by polak

The fair share part was addressed by the corporate tax increase. They promised a review, they didn't promise to change it.

Technically, no they didnt promise it.

Publishing things like "The PC's have also refused to implement realistic oil royalties that the people who own the resources - all of us - deserve" is just hogwash though.

Why don't we deserve more even when oil is in the toilet? Because we'd kill the golden goose?

[Dion]

CALGARY, Alta. — If anyone thought that Alberta's climate action plan was actually about protecting the climate, Bill 20, recently introduced by Alberta's environment minister, should lay that idea to rest.

As the Globe and Mail reports, the budget tabled by the Alberta government in April forecast revenues from the carbon levy of $9.8 billion over five years. Some of that money will be redistributed to lower-income earners, some will be given back to small businesses as a reduction in Alberta's small business tax, but at the end of the day, the government expects to net $6 billion to fund a giant green energy spending spree. According to estimates in the Edmonton Journal, the new tax scheme will cost a family of four about $338 extra in 2017, rising to $508 in 2018 in direct energy costs, and another $70 to $105 in "indirect costs," that is, when products and services have to increase in price as a result of the tax on producers and service providers.

But as we pointed out in a recent study by the Fraser Institute, this approach to managing greenhouse gas emissions has been tried - and failed - repeatedly in both the United States and Canada. Ontario has done a masterful job at avoiding transparency with regard to the benefits of its "demand-side management programs," despite spending some $400 million on efficiency programs in 2013 alone.

The most rigorous study of a home efficiency program in the United States, the $5 billion Weatherization Assistance Program, looked at 34,000 homes, where some were aggressively offered weatherization assistance and some were not. The study, conducted at uber-environmentalist University of California, Berkeley found that of the households aggressively offered assistance with weatherization, only six per cent actually followed through to participate in the weatherization program. Only one per cent of the non-outreach households did so. And the households that participated did reduce energy consumption by some 20 per cent, but - and it's a big but - they spent twice as much money on the retrofits than they saved in reduced energy spending. And that 20 per cent reduction was far below the economic models used to promote the program.

Alberta's new climate plan, by the government's own admission, will not lead to significant greenhouse gas reductions for many years, if it ever does. The tax is far too low to have significant impacts on consumer behaviour, which is further proof that it is not "market-based carbon pricing." It's simply a funding mechanism for bureaucratic expansion of failed efficiency programs, a mechanism for redistributing the wealth of Albertans, and a green fig leaf for an Alberta government that wants to look as if it's proactively promoting "social license" for the continued development of Alberta's oilsands.

Kenneth P. Green is senior director of Natural Resource Studies at the Fraser Institute.

http://www.newsoptimist.ca/opinion/c...grab-1.2271757

[EldrickOnIce]

From above

but at the end of the day, the government expects to net $6 billion to fund a giant green energy spending spree

To be honest, I don't know that I have a problem with that. Of course the tax itself will not reduce carbon output much, but the optics are good. I had also understood that $6B just went back into general revenue to be squandered away on some nonsense regular program spending. If it instead is going into 'green energy spending', whether that is ultimately nonesense or not, then I withdraw my objection.

[Mr.Coffee]

Can we not agree that the reason the NDP are in power was because it became an escape vote from a corrupt government that foolishly underestimated Albertans and overestimated their entrenched seat?

People didn't vote for the NDP's or their policies, they voted against the PC's. The NDP became the best option to usurp the sitting government due to hype, social media, polls and the media reporting the swell of NDP support. Many young people came to the polls with no clue on what they were doing when they cast these votes. For the record I did not vote NDP, nor PC, but I wasn't surprised that the province wanted to spell an end to a regime so arrogant and entitled as the PC's.

The other thing to keep in mind, is that there's no chance in hell the NDP win the next election. So let's just all understand that we're in for 3 more years of this but that it will also end.

Lastly, there's no doubt that some of the comments in here are over the top. Some of these small businesses are definitely getting hit by increasing taxes. But without a doubt the number one hammer that's come hard at local small businesses is the softening economic environment due to the downward pressure from the greater economy and layoffs. I think it's a little disingenuous to imply otherwise.

[Fire]

The protest vote should have went to the Wildrose. They have some idiots but every party does and the damage to the economy would be much less.

[Mr.Coffee]

And the Wildrose would have won easily if they weren't such a clusterfata on social issues, and one of their leaders hadn't run their mouth and was a massive bigot in the previous campaign under Danielle Smith.

You're never going to win the majority in urban areas with anti-abortion, anti-gay, hard "Christian" values. It's simply put- stupidity and not reflective of where young people and society is headed.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Technically, no they didnt promise it.

Publishing things like "The PC's have also refused to implement realistic oil royalties that the people who own the resources - all of us - deserve" is just hogwash though.

Why don't we deserve more even when oil is in the toilet? Because we'd kill the golden goose?

They did significantly change the conventional side for the better. The royalty review should be held up as a lesson for politicians on how partisanship should work.

They had an idea.
They hired the best people for the job to decide the best past forward
They accepted the recommendations without political interference.

Compare that to say Harper on prison sentences or Stelmech when he just arbitrarily jacked royalties without a thoughtful process. Or the NDPs implementation of the Carbon tax.

You can really see the people who just cheer for a team when they criticise the ndp on the royalty review.