Alberta Politics Thread

[Resolute 14]

Notley's complete lack of self awareness when she is being a hypocrite is honestly breathtaking.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...atum-1.3790650

"We don't think it's economically responsible to commit moving to $50 a tonne when the province of Alberta is struggling as much as it is right now, and the shock-waves of that are continuing to hit the Canadian economy, both east and west.

"It's not over yet, and there needs to be some concerted efforts to reestablish growth in Alberta and that needs to happen first."

I could respect Notley for trying to stand up to Trudeau's economically irresponsible tax if she didn't just submarine her own province by doing exactly the same thing!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/carb...pact-1.3789224


So by doubling the nat gas cost to heat our houses, this will reduce GHG's by reducing consumption? Anyone buying that? What are we supposed to do just layer up and turn off the furnace...?

Justin's true colours are coming through. He's a Trudeau, and he is a Liberal. Of course Alberta is going to get totally fcked as part of any energy policy he introduces. As with so many other of these policies, this is all about wealth redistribution, not environmentalism.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Notley's complete lack of self awareness when she is being a hypocrite is honestly breathtaking.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...atum-1.3790650



I could respect Notley for trying to stand up to Trudeau's economically irresponsible tax if she didn't just submarine her own province by doing exactly the same thing!

Read between the lines.

Notley: "I want a tax grab!!!!"
Trudeau: "No, I want one!!!!"

You have 2 politicians lining up at the trough. Question is, who gets there first and what's left over when they're done?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Read between the lines.

Notley: "I want a tax grab!!!!"
Trudeau: "No, I want one!!!!"

You have 2 politicians lining up at the trough. Question is, who gets there first and what's left over when they're done?

And thanks to their combined idiocy the trough is empty at the moment.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Notley's complete lack of self awareness when she is being a hypocrite is honestly breathtaking.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...atum-1.3790650



I could respect Notley for trying to stand up to Trudeau's economically irresponsible tax if she didn't just submarine her own province by doing exactly the same thing!

I get where you are coming from in principle but a $30 carbon tax and a $50 carbon tax would have a significantly different impact.

[IliketoPuck]

http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp...-oil-pipelines

I will post this in the Alberta Oil thread as well, but I think it is highly relevant here as well, given of course, Tzeporah Berman's current status as a co-chair of Alberta's Oil Sands Advisory working group.

[CaptainCrunch]

Berman should be relieved of her position, especially since she so closely linked to Tides.

I've also said it before that any group that receives funding from Tides or Rockefellow should have its tax exemption status pulled, and should be banned from any public consultation.

Tides is basically getting funding from US and Saudi Oil interests.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I get where you are coming from in principle but a $30 carbon tax and a $50 carbon tax would have a significantly different impact.

Agreed. But the message really is "You can't do to my province what I did to my province unless I get something in return."

At least she is fighting for pipelines instead of more union benefits.

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I get where you are coming from in principle but a $30 carbon tax and a $50 carbon tax would have a significantly different impact.

Its just a different sized hole in the bottom of the same boat. The impact difference would be how fast it sinks.

[burn_this_city]

I can't really blame Notley and find her position to be reasonable. The basis for the carbon tax was to grant pipeline approvals. This entire thing is a cash grab by the feds. The tax should be revenue neutral but it won't be, and will be used to balance the books.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Agreed. But the message really is "You can't do to my province what I did to my province unless I get something in return."

At least she is fighting for pipelines instead of more union benefits.

I don't know about that, it seems to me like she's saying "I'm already trying to address this in a way that won't be as unmanageable for Albertans as what you are planning"

But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I can't really blame Notley and find her position to be reasonable. The basis for the carbon tax was to grant pipeline approvals. This entire thing is a cash grab by the feds. The tax should be revenue neutral but it won't be, and will be used to balance the books.

The feds said that the carbon tax dollars would be transferred back to the provinces from which it was collected. What the provinces do with those dollars determines whether it's a cash grab or not and truly revenue neutral.

Alberta's tax is a cash grab, in that the proceeds are spent on ideological transfers from richer to poorer Albertans, and from profitable corporations to unprofitable ones (i.e. slush fund grants to "green" companies who without the grant would not be viable).

If Alberta's Carbon tax were more like BC's in that it is offset by broad drops in the corporate tax and personal tax rates, it would be actually revenue neutral.

[Dion]

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=965615

[Fuzz]

See, restaurants have an easy solution. Kill tipping and raise prices. Staff still get the same take home, customers still pay the same(after tip) and everyone is happy. But no, now staff are going to get laid off, businesses will close, and customers will end up overpaying for service.

If we are going to pay a living wage, WTF do they need tips for?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Dion

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=965615

/sigh

It's like they don't teach basic minimum wage effects in ECON 101/201.

Okay, let me take a stab at the response by some to this:

"All those 1,200 businesses are lying. Or they are blowing it out of proportion and are actively laying off people or cutting their hours in an feeble attempt to somehow pressure the government in a vast organized conspiracy against socialism."

"All of those dirty businesses deserve to die because they won't provide a living wage for everybody."

"CTV made up those numbers because Notley said that there would be ABSOLUTELY NO JOB losses from the minimum wage hikes. Total BS reporting."

"Minimum wage hikes, psh, that won't increase operating costs. Or increasing the price of everything. They're lying. If they are not lying, the businesses should just eat the cost and keep running regardless if they are bankrupt or not."

[Knut]

I have a real life example of how the Minimum wage hike is going to affect things.

Our live-in Nanny is due for a pay increase, each year for the next 3 years, due to the increase in minimum wage (I know... If you are rich enough for a Nanny you are rich enough for only 1$ per hour more!!!!). She has very few expenses as we pick up groceries for her and she rents out our basement bedroom for a pre-determined set price (approx 400/month). Most of the rest of her money goes back to the Phillipines, to family and for a house mortgage.

In January we have to pay her approximately $200 more per month. Then the same increase the next year, and the year after that. This is putting pressure on our finances, to the point that we are now considering other options (Dayhomes, part time Nanny with my wife and I reducing our work hours etc).

Before and After school care are going to increase in cost due to the minimum wage hike, same with Daycare/dayhomes. A lot of middle class families may be faced with a tough choice of maybe having a parent stay home (which takes someone out of the workforce).

The extra $200/month is about what we would pay our Nanny in extra babysitting services so we could go out for a date night. We are going to be less likely to go out and spend $100 at a local restaurant every few weeks, which has a trickle down effect there as well.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Wait... isn't the obvious solution to increase the basement rent to offset the increase in wage? I acknowledge that I have not actually thought about that at length and am not a landlord...

[Knut]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Wait... isn't the obvious solution to increase the basement rent to offset the increase in wage? I acknowledge that I have not actually thought about that at length and am not a landlord...

My understanding of it is that we can not raise the rent as it is a set figure, determined by the government, under the foreign workers program. You can only deduct up to a maximum amount for rent.

[Resolute 14]

Well, I'm sure your nanny will be thanking Notley for the "living wage" as she is sent packing back to the Phillipines when you inevitably have to let her go.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, I'm sure your nanny will be thanking Notley for the "living wage" as she is sent packing back to the Phillipines when you inevitably have to let her go.

There is very shortly going to be an oversupply of Nanny's in Calgary. Several are already only working part time now in our community due to the economy.

Nanny's made a lot of sense for many middle class families as it was approximately the same cost as having two children in a Day home with way more flexibility.