Alberta Politics Thread

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by LanceUppercut

Ok, here is my alternative plan. Cut the corporate tax rate to zero. Companies will invest more, hire more staff and drive wages up.

Reagan?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by LanceUppercut

Hey, we're talking about radical untested ideas that might completely alter/destroy an economy here. Why not go the exact opposite direction?

I would also like to say, don't you think this is pretty hyperbolic? Radical untested ideas? Raising minimum wage? Completely destroy the economy? Come on.

Completely alter? Maybe. Isn't that the point? The economy is bad, shouldn't we try to alter it?

I don't understand this fear of trying new or different things economically. It's not an exact science. The only things really "proven" are things that have been tried and failed. Everything is theoretical and we tend to not find out the effects until years or decades later. It generally bounces between two relatively close and normal points of socialism and capitalism, but within those parameters, we have to be open to change. There are far too many variables to make exact judgments. We have historical data which can help experts try to predict, but in the end, that's all it is; a prediction. Every new policy implementation is an experiment.

The circumstances surrounding living has changed significantly over the last 20 years. Probably larger and faster than it ever has. Rapid technological growth and globalization has completely changed the way we live, do business, get food, communicate, etc... Shouldn't our economic systems be changing with it?

I look at it like this: On one extreme of this normal range, you have believers in the trickle down effect. On the other side, you have strict socialism ala Sweden or Denmark. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Trickle down is an experiment that has been run and, IMO, is failing in front of our eyes right now. The nations mentioned above regularly top livability indexes.

For me, you can prop up the lower people to be able to participate meaningfully to the economy outside of being just a worker, who can live but afford no luxuries and thus, don't really participate much in the business part of the economy outside of their regular bills. In this format, yes there will be a few people who leech off the system. The question is: is the cost of those leeches higher than the lost economic value by not having the much larger group of people in currently in that cusp area who will work because work has personal value not participate in the broader economy?

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yeah. Netting $100k-300k per year. Must be tough.

If you want corporate taxes at zero (removing billions of dollars from the tax base), that's what would have to happen to continue to have the services we currently provide. You can't tax people who don't have money. You have to have the services we currently use. So how do you pay for it without corporate tax? Both are extremes that aren't really worth discussing, frankly. Hence, the GIFs.

[Dion]

Poll shows majority of Albertans not buying into the provinces climate plan

A new poll from ThinkHQ shows that Albertans are generally negative on the CLP and that 53 percent now disapprove of the plan.

In December 2015, 44 percent of pollsters disapproved and the survey suggests that the carbon levy is the driving force behind the nine point increase in the disapproval rating.

“It’s disproportionately negative. So we’ve got 63 percent of Albertans saying that they’re opposed to the new carbon levy, almost half of them strongly disapprove of it versus about a third who approve of the new carbon levy coming in and it’s a variety of different things. Some of it is sort of natural pocket-book, personally people are going to be paying more money, but also there’s concerns in and around the timing of it and how fragile the Alberta economy is right now, concerns about going forward, jobs, its impact on the economy and there are also concerns in and around transparency and by that I mean, there’s a strong desire of people, they want to see how much their paying on their utility bills,for instance, for carbon tax or how much they’re paying at the pump for carbon tax, so that’s also a concern,” said Marc Henry from ThinkHQ.

Henry says Albertans are finding certain parts of the plan appealing but now might not be the right time for this particular initiative.

“There are certainly elements of the Climate Leadership Plan, in terms of its broad principles, in terms of its broader direction, that there is an appetite for, in Alberta, so it’s not that Albertans are necessarily opposed to a climate leadership plan, they maybe just don’t like this one, and not right now.” he said. “It’s much easier to be an environmentalist when the economy is good than when times are tough”

The ThinkHQ poll sampled 1331 people with a margin of error of +/- 2.7.

To view the results of the ThinkHQ poll scroll the document below.

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/poll-shows...plan-1.3094537

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by jammies

No, it isn't.

What about having the highest GDP growth in Europe isn't working for them?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Zarley

What about having the highest GDP growth in Europe isn't working for them?

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/e...blem-1.2722170

This article is a good summary of why not. That GDP gain is mostly illusion driven by companies booking revenue in Ireland that is not earned there nor employs people there. Ireland is to planes now, for example, as Liberia is to ships.

A bunch of companies headquartering here while not actually moving their operations here is not a long term fix for the economy.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by Dion

I'd say go for it! I just had a new garage door opener installed and I paid cash under the table.

I don't know if writing zero on your tax return after filing for a couple of years is risky or not. Although At their age, it would most likely be assumed they were still students.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yeah. Netting $100k-300k per year. Must be tough.

This is a fairly tone deaf thing to say... Yes, this would be pretty terrible.

If you want corporate taxes at zero (removing billions of dollars from the tax base), that's what would have to happen to continue to have the services we currently provide.

Corporate and personal income tax is integrated. A decrease in corporate tax rate would be offset by an equivalent increase in the tax on dividends. Cutting the corporate rate to zero does not "remove" anything from the tax base, per se, it defers the realization of that revenue until the money is paid out to shareholders (or employees or other entities that are subject to tax, ultimately at personal marginal rates).

Yes, this would absolutely have a negative effect on government revenue, especially in the short term, and some of those corporate earnings would be a deferred revenue source for, practically speaking, forever. So you would have to adjust other rates to some extent to compensate. But you seem to think that the revenue that the Receiver General currently gets from corporations just vanishes into the ether when the corporate rate is lowered. That's wrong.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Are you not making the same argument for your position?

Here's how the debate has gone so far:

Me: this is my reason why I think this will work

You: no you're wrong for reason X, we should try plan y

Me: I disagree with your view and feel your plan y doesn't help for reason y

You: no you're just wrong for reason whatever reason.

And this goes back and fourth

The one difference that I've notice in my defence of the wage increase in contrast to most who oppose it is I acknowledge the fact that there will be problems with the raise in wage while in most people will just insists on their views being the only option. I don't think this plan is perfect or the only possible option, IMO I just haven't seen any better alternatives given

There is a difference between "I think this will/won't work because reasons" and "we should do it because you haven't proven it wont work". It's the latter that I take issue with, even if I generally disagree with your reasons given in the former.

As to your final paragraph, Most of us understand and accept that minimum wages will and have to happen. But our argument is that Notley has chosen to raise it too far, too fast in a depressed economy, backed by blind ideology rather than sound consideration. As a consequence, she is likely to do more damage than good. As it is, she is already blatantly lying when she says her increases won't cost anybody their jobs.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Your issue is with conglomerate businesses, but as everyone is saying, they are the least affected by it.

What you're ignoring, is the fact that these changes hurt small business the most. If you're so concerned about the lower classes of income, don't ever go to Tim Horton's/McDonald's/Wal-Mart again. Support local business only.

The problem is, you just turn around and say that business isn't viable if it goes under. There's no respect from socialists when Ma's deli can't compete with wages & costs of doing business.

IMO a much better solution for lower class earners would be a complete income tax exemption.

Local business does not provide better wages then chains. Unless you have real data to back this up. Small restaurants and retail pay the same poor wages. They have to control every cost as they don't have economies of scale. That somehow a small business is more noble then a big chain is a falsehood.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by GGG

Local business does not provide better wages then chains. Unless you have real data to back this up. Small restaurants and retail pay the same poor wages. They have to control every cost as they don't have economies of scale. That somehow a small business is more noble then a big chain is a falsehood.

That's what I said though. Were you supposed to be quoting iggy_oi? That's his claim.

Local businesses also don't get a share purchase plan or anything similar.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by GGG

Local business does not provide better wages then chains. Unless you have real data to back this up. Small restaurants and retail pay the same poor wages. They have to control every cost as they don't have economies of scale. That somehow a small business is more noble then a big chain is a falsehood.

The average retail wage in AB is $16.09/hr. Average WalMart wage for retail workers is about $12/hr. Also a lot of small retailers offer commissions as a way to increase pay and control costs. That doesn't show up in the hourly calculations.

If you're comparing fast food businesses to restaurant businesses you're in two completely different things... tips make a huge difference. I bought my first house with tips. Nobody working for minimum wage plus tips wants a raise to $15/hr.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is a fairly tone deaf thing to say... Yes, this would be pretty terrible.

Lol talk about tone deaf. You realize the vast majority of people never hit annual incomes that high even before tax, right?

Corporate and personal income tax is integrated. A decrease in corporate tax rate would be offset by an equivalent increase in the tax on dividends. Cutting the corporate rate to zero does not "remove" anything from the tax base, per se, it defers the realization of that revenue until the money is paid out to shareholders (or employees or other entities that are subject to tax, ultimately at personal marginal rates).

Yes, this would absolutely have a negative effect on government revenue, especially in the short term, and some of those corporate earnings would be a deferred revenue source for, practically speaking, forever. So you would have to adjust other rates to some extent to compensate. But you seem to think that the revenue that the Receiver General currently gets from corporations just vanishes into the ether when the corporate rate is lowered. That's wrong.

Sure, but those dividends only affect people who actually have shares in the company, and assumes that for some reason the capital gains tax has increased with the decrease in corporate taxes. Some people seem to think it's just like a rule of nature that when a Corp makes more money they will expand and increase labour wages but it's not necessarily true. Business only expand when it's profitable, not just because they have the money to do it. And I think by now the idea that it will trickle down to labour wages is laughable at best. They pay employees as little as possible, it's a rule if business basically. What that number is is completely independent of what it actually costs to live, particularly for multinationals. Either way it's an extreme example to counter the other extreme, and as I said neither are really worth discussing.

What it comes down to is are you comfortable with the services you receive in return for your taxes. At those levels, it's likely the government would have more money than they need to provide services they reasonably could or should be providing. Government could reasonably have a hand in at least subsidizing things like dental, expanding health care to include things like physio, insurance, Internet, utilities, etc... For what amounts to very little skin of the back of a few, you can provide essential things to people who can't or barely can attain them otherwise. But you have to get those few people on board, but they can afford those things without even worrying about it. So why can't everyone? Must be dumb or lazy. It couldn't possibly be because their wages are too low and the cost of those things is too high. Talk about tone deaf.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Lol talk about tone deaf. You realize the vast majority of people never hit annual incomes that high even before tax, right?

Yes. I do realize that. My parents were teachers. You seem to think that because many people don't make that much, everyone should be satisfied with less. This is class warfare. That being said, as the rest of your post shows, you're a socialist, so I guess this is at least consistent.

Sure, but those dividends only affect people who actually have shares in the company, and assumes that for some reason the capital gains tax has increased with the decrease in corporate taxes.

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with capital gains. They're completely separate types of income. I am really starting to suspect that you don't know the first thing about the Canadian tax system.

Some people seem to think it's just like a rule of nature that when a Corp makes more money they will expand and increase labour wages but it's not necessarily true. Business only expand when it's profitable, not just because they have the money to do it.

Yes, and the idea that if you aren't taxing money as long as it's re-deployed within the corporation on active business investment (as opposed to buying shares or passive investments, any income from which is subject to Part IV tax to eliminate the deferral advantage) is going to be more profitable than paying it out to the shareholder.

In other words, to put it simply, if I've got a million dollars of corporate net income in my company, I have two main options. I can keep my million dollars in the company and use it to expand the company - maybe by opening a new location, or expanding production so I can sell in more outlets - and if I do that right I'll make more money in the future. Or, option two, I can pay it out to myself as a dividend or salary, spend half of it on whatever I want and give the other half to the government as income tax. The proposal of eliminating corporate tax is a major incentive to do the former rather than the latter.

I'm not saying this is a good idea, I don't think it is, but your statement about having to raise income tax rates to 70-90% to account for the lost revenue is complete nonsense. That was what I responded to.

And I think by now the idea that it will trickle down to labour wages is laughable at best. They pay employees as little as possible, it's a rule if business basically.What that number is is completely independent of what it actually costs to live, particularly for multinationals. Either way it's an extreme example to counter the other extreme, and as I said neither are really worth discussing.

What it comes down to is are you comfortable with the services you receive in return for your taxes. At those levels, it's likely the government would have more money than they need to provide services they reasonably could or should be providing. Government could reasonably have a hand in at least subsidizing things like dental, insurance, Internet, utilities, etc... For what amounts to very little skin of the back of a few, you can provide essential things to people who can't or barely can attain them otherwise. But you have to get those few people on board, but they can afford those things without even worrying about it. So why can't everyone? Must be dumb or lazy. It couldn't possibly be because their wages are too low and the cost of those things is too high. Talk about tone deaf.

Who are you arguing with? This has literally nothing to do with what I posted. Nothing. You can't just spew garbage onto your keyboard and act like it's a counterargument. You're arguing in favour of socialism, and I'm not at all interested in getting into a discussion with you about it.

[Coach]

You're right I forgot dividends were taxed differently than capital gains. My bad.

Aren't we all discussing different economic theories and tax methods? Why are you in here if you don't feel like engaging people with different thought processes? Are you just looking for a place where everyone can just Pat each other on the back because we all agree?

I've said over and over the high tax rate was a response to the equally ridiculous zero corporate rate. And said neither are worth discussing but other people keep bringing it up.

Canada is a socialist nation. We heavily subsidize education healthcare and many other social services. You don't have to fear it so much. You live in it.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Aren't we all discussing different economic theories and tax methods? Why are you in here if you don't feel like engaging people with different thought processes? Are you just looking for a place where everyone can just Pat each other on the back because we all agree?

You made two statements about tax policy. One was wrong, the other was highly incendiary. I tried to explain why you're wrong about those two specific issues.

You then started arguing about socialism. I don't want to have that conversation because I don't think it's interesting, and it would be a waste of time. Aside from you, I guess, and a tiny minority of other people who have a very optimistic view of what would result, absolutely no one wants a true socialist regime of the type you seem to favour (wherein people get taxed up to 90% of their income because people don't really need more money than that anyway). The upheaval that could result is impossible to fathom or predict. Speculating about what the results might be is pointless. So I don't think it's worth discussing.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You made two statements about tax policy. One was wrong, the other was highly incendiary. I tried to explain why you're wrong about those two specific issues.

You then started arguing about socialism. I don't want to have that conversation because I don't think it's interesting, and it would be a waste of time. Aside from you, I guess, and a tiny minority of other people who have a very optimistic view of what would result, absolutely no one wants a true socialist regime of the type you seem to favour (wherein people get taxed up to 90% of their income because people don't really need more money than that anyway). The upheaval that could result is impossible to fathom or predict. Speculating about what the results might be is pointless. So I don't think it's worth discussing.

Again ignoring that the 90% comment was an admittedly extreme response to an equally extreme notion and I agree it's not worth discussing. Which I'm pretty sure has been said in every post I've made here.

You don't think it's worth discussing the methods of Germany. Sweden, Denmark, etc? Nations that provide things like universal post secondary, expanded health care, etc and regularly top livability indexes. Why is looking to emulate what they do not worth discussing?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

The average retail wage in AB is $16.09/hr. Average WalMart wage for retail workers is about $12/hr. Also a lot of small retailers offer commissions as a way to increase pay and control costs. That doesn't show up in the hourly calculations.

If you're comparing fast food businesses to restaurant businesses you're in two completely different things... tips make a huge difference. I bought my first house with tips. Nobody working for minimum wage plus tips wants a raise to $15/hr.

Average retail is very misleading. Most average retail is big chain weather its a store in the mall offering commission or Safeway or Walmart.

If there was a true stat that small business paid an average wage of $16 per hour for their front line retail and big business paid $12 it would actually be an argument to support raising the minimum wage as a way to make small businesses more competitive. I'd be interested in a source for that stat but I would be surprised if it is representing a comparison between small and large businesses.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Again ignoring that the 90% comment was an admittedly extreme response to an equally extreme notion and I agree it's not worth discussing. Which I'm pretty sure has been said in every post I've made here.

Well, it wasn't though. It was you saying that you'd have to increase income tax to that amount to offset the loss in corporate tax revenue, which is wrong, because the revenue is deferred, not lost. That was what I pointed out. For the same reason, it's not an "equally extreme notion". Not even close. That example I gave above is already an incentive that's given to certain types of small business corporations on incomes up to $500,000 per year, whereby they pay 11% tax rather than the 40+% (varies by Province) they'll pay if they just bonus out that income.

Would changing that 11% to zero be extreme? It'd be significant, but not that extreme. Would expanding that incentive to a higher dollar threshold be extreme? I'd say not at all. Would expanding it to a wider variety of companies (say, companies majority owned by non-Canadians or those listed on a stock exchange) be extreme? Maybe. Depends on how you do it - that one might not work, simply because you can't change tax treaties the way you can tax laws. But all in all, these aren't completely Earth-shattering proposals, and at worst would require some adjustment in other policy areas.

Meanwhile, you're suggesting adopting policies like those in place in Scandinavia. That would represent an overhaul of peoples' way of life, the results of which can't be predicted other than to say they would be enormous. I'll suspect that personally, that change in incentives would mean I would either leave the country, or change my lifestyle completely (wouldn't live in a major city, would probably change careers and certainly jobs). If that's reflective of what the impact on most peoples' lives would be, it should be pretty obvious that the idea is on a different order of magnitude of "extreme".

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, it wasn't though. It was you saying that you'd have to increase income tax to that amount to offset the loss in corporate tax revenue, which is wrong, because the revenue is deferred, not lost. That was what I pointed out. For the same reason, it's not an "equally extreme notion". Not even close. That example I gave above is already an incentive that's given to certain types of small business corporations on incomes up to $500,000 per year, whereby they pay 11% tax rather than the 40+% (varies by Province) they'll pay if they just bonus out that income.

Would changing that 11% to zero be extreme? It'd be significant, but not that extreme. Would expanding that incentive to a higher dollar threshold be extreme? I'd say not at all. Would expanding it to a wider variety of companies (say, companies majority owned by non-Canadians or those listed on a stock exchange) be extreme? Maybe. Depends on how you do it - that one might not work, simply because you can't change tax treaties the way you can tax laws. But all in all, these aren't completely Earth-shattering proposals, and at worst would require some adjustment in other policy areas.

Yeah I would agree with this. The original motion that I responded to was 0 corporate taxes. Not just for small business. I could get on board with that. This us what happens when we don't focus on the extremes. Dialogue meeting somewhere in the middle.

Meanwhile, you're suggesting adopting policies like those in place in Scandinavia. That would represent an overhaul of peoples' way of life, the results of which can't be predicted other than to say they would be enormous. I'll suspect that personally, that change in incentives would mean I would either leave the country, or change my lifestyle completely (wouldn't live in a major city, would probably change careers and certainly jobs). If that's reflective of what the impact on most peoples' lives would be, it should be pretty obvious that the idea is on a different order of magnitude of "extreme".

Yeah I don't dispute that. Personally, it's something I would be happy to be a part of. I obviously understand that others don't agree and why. I enjoy having these discussions here because people can have well thought out and supported responses, rather than two people arguing in a bar.

Why would you change careers? Is it because you only hold your job because of the money it provides vs the money provided what you would rather do? Why wouldn't you live in a major city? Dont you find it odd that something as abstract as money runs these decisions in your life? Wouldn't you be more productive in the field that holds your interest and is something you are superior at than others?

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by GGG

If there was a true stat that small business paid an average wage of $16 per hour for their front line retail and big business paid $12 it would actually be an argument to support raising the minimum wage as a way to make small businesses more competitive. I'd be interested in a source for that stat but I would be surprised if it is representing a comparison between small and large businesses.

Raising the minimum wage makes a small business more competitive? Do you people even read what you write? Your claim makes no logical sense.