Alberta Politics Thread

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You do realize you can downsize your car by trading in your current vehicle right?

You do realize that is quite likely to be a money losing transaction, right?

[Bootsy]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Your response to a sensible suggestion is to attack a statement you made? You do realize you can downsize your car by trading in your current vehicle right?

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/e...ters-1.3781414

"Any minister and deputy minister needs to have a vehicle that is safe and can contend with the treacherous road conditions that we have in the winter."

Yeah the Alberta citizens should all downsize their vehicles so they can save their money in order to pay for all the government minister's carbon taxed gas in their Pick-ups and SUVs.
Only the elitist NDP government officials should be able to feel safe driving the treacherous Alberta winter roads, the rest of us peasants should just suck it up and drive civics all winter.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

changing a furnace costs money yes, but if you are trying to argue that the energy savings are minimal after an upgrade, well you're just wrong. I just moved into a newly built green certified home from an older bungalow and the monthly savings on my utility bills are in literally in the hundreds. I'm not suggesting everyone should just go out and make massive investments they can't afford, but I do believe there are more people out there who can do something than who can't, and if more of those people actually did have some work done on their homes it would give the local economy a bit of a boost and also save them money in the long run, tax or no tax.

You seem to be implying that plunking a new furnace in an old bungalow will save you hundreds a month. That's not right at all. Your brand new green built house is more efficient and saves you money because it is insulated properly and has a super sealed vapour barrier that essentially eliminates heat loss and air transfer.

So if you want the same effect in your old bungalow all you have to do is rip it down to the studs, rebuild the entire thing and then add the new ten thousand dollar furnace. That should pay off in tax savings sometime around 2099. But it would be an awesome boost to the local economy.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Have you ever taken the time to calculate how much you spend on goods that will have this tax on them?

It'll be on virtually everything; every activity requires energy and fossil fuels are by far the dominant form used by humans. It'll won't just be on your vehicles or home heating, it'll also be on every good and service that you buy.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bootsy

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/e...ters-1.3781414

"Any minister and deputy minister needs to have a vehicle that is safe and can contend with the treacherous road conditions that we have in the winter."

Yeah the Alberta citizens should all downsize their vehicles so they can save their money in order to pay for all the government minister's carbon taxed gas in their Pick-ups and SUVs.
Only the elitist NDP government officials should be able to feel safe driving the treacherous Alberta winter roads, the rest of us peasants should just suck it up and drive civics all winter.

Four legs good, two legs bad

[llwhiteoutll]

It seems like the solution being offered by Notley and a few people in this thread is to spend $5,000 on some efficient appliances, take on more debt when I downsize my vehicle for something less useful and then brag about how I reduced by gas bill and utilities by $1,500 a year while I service $15,000 in new debt?

I assume the response to the increasing cost of groceries would be to eat less in order to offset the increase?

Consumption tax like a PST would have been better, then everyone pays. Unlike the current system where people with a “high” income subside those without one. Unless making less money means you don't produce GHGs?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by accord1999

It'll be on virtually everything; every activity requires energy and fossil fuels are by far the dominant form used by humans. It'll won't just be on your vehicles or home heating, it'll also be on every good and service that you buy.

Precisely, all while employment and GDP have taken a hit in Alberta. They are creating stagflation and don't know it.

[Nufy]

Will this new tax be on just consumption...or do they plan to tax the service and delivery fees and riders as well.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

It seems like the solution being offered by Notley and a few people in this thread is to spend $5,000 on some efficient appliances, take on more debt when I downsize my vehicle for something less useful and then brag about how I reduced by gas bill and utilities by $1,500 a year while I service $15,000 in new debt?

I assume the response to the increasing cost of groceries would be to eat less in order to offset the increase?

The math is hard.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

It seems like the solution being offered by Notley and a few people in this thread is to spend $5,000 on some efficient appliances, take on more debt when I downsize my vehicle for something less useful and then brag about how I reduced by gas bill and utilities by $1,500 a year while I service $15,000 in new debt?

That describes the NDP Climate action plan funnily enough.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You can't simply sit here and say, hey buy a new car and buy a new furnace and buy a new house that's green certified and bam you're saving money.

I go back to who this carbon tax is outright going to slaughter. And that's the family that's barely getting by and can't afford a super duper new fuel efficient car because they have to make a choice between that and eating. Oh its easy to by a new furnace for 10k, but there aren't a lot of families that are going to go out and balance off a few hundred dollars a year savings versus going in the hole for a furnace.

And again this carbon tax doesn't take into consideration the increases that are going to hit things like food costs and every other cost out there.

The small amount comparatively on people that are way ahead who can afford to make that change aren't a significant number compared to the person who can't.

What about the person that doesn't own a house, and can't afford to own a house that see's their rent increase because of the carbon tax.

The NDP has put out this theoretical solution that this tax is no big deal because it will only effect heating and gas pricing, but that assumption is completely wrong, because the NDP has their noses so deep in their manifesto that they don't realize how many actual for real living and breathing people are going to get wrecked when this thing comes in because they can't buy new cars, and they can't buy new furnaces or super high priced light bulbs and other devices because its simply not in their budget and yet this stupid dumbass carbon tax is going to put them further behind the 8 ball.

I mean the NDP still hasn't talked about the charities like the food bank that are talking about a reduction of services because of this carbon tax, which again will hurt the low to low mid income earners.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary...extra-31k.html

And I love how you're sitting there, going, this guy owns a truck and he needs to dump it and get some what Yugo? I think the government forgets that more then half the year we sit in subfreezing deep snow weather conditions, where having a four wheel drive is pretty much needed. But I guess you want the government to mandate what we're allowed to drive.

I guess in my mind there are some nifty links to. This minimum wage increase that the NDP is putting into place to give people more "Buying power" well what will be left of that increase after the goods and services that these people would suppossedly be able to buy increase. And what's left will be vacuumed up by increased food, heating and gas costs, and they'll probably end up behind where they are now.

Again, the NDP is doing this all based on the theology of their religion, and have no clue what its doing to people.

Isn't the rebate supposed to cover all of the costs?

The way I understand it is that 60% of Albertans will be a fixed increase in their income, and the tax will be serve as an incentive to reduce their carbon use.

The more they reduce their carbon consumption the more of that fixed increase in income they get to keep.

[llwhiteoutll]

Assuming that $540 a year for a family of 4 (if you don't earn “too much”) will cover all the increases that are coming down the line is foolhardy.

If you are single, it maxes out at $300/year.

It's not just your natural gas, electricity and gas going up. It's going to be property tax, transit fares, utility riders, water/waste fees, groceries etc...

[Locke]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

It seems like the solution being offered by Notley and a few people in this thread is to spend $5,000 on some efficient appliances, take on more debt when I downsize my vehicle for something less useful and then brag about how I reduced by gas bill and utilities by $1,500 a year while I service $15,000 in new debt?

I assume the response to the increasing cost of groceries would be to eat less in order to offset the increase?

But you dont have to actually pay for any of that. Money is an artificial social construct that you dont have to honour as it was enacted without your express consent. I for one will be billing the Government for modifications to my Freeman-on-the-Land Embassy.

This is what happens when you hand your money to people who dont know how a balance a chequebook.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Isn't the rebate supposed to cover all of the costs?

The way I understand it is that 60% of Albertans will be a fixed increase in their income, and the tax will be serve as an incentive to reduce their carbon use.

The more they reduce their carbon consumption the more of that fixed increase in income they get to keep.

It might cover gas costs and maybe heating costs, but its not based on actual usage. But a guess based around income.

It certainly won't cover everything else that's hammered by the carbon Tax.

There's nothing really scientific about this whole thing. There's no tracking what actual spending is.

If a family buys $400.00 per month on groceries and groceries bump by lets say 5%, that means that $240 of the rebate would be eaten by groceries alone. Utilities will increase, heating will increase and things like gas costs will increase. Even things like entertainment dollars will see an increase because of this.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Nufy

Will this new tax be on just consumption...or do they plan to tax the service and delivery fees and riders as well.

That's the thing here. From what I can tell the government is saying it will only hit people who can't adjust their lifestyle.

So what about the trucking companies that bring us food from California? Or the rail lines moving containers? Or anyone moving anything for that matter? There is no such thing as a viable long range heavy haul that runs on batteries.

So all those companies are not going to sit back and just eat the tax increases, they are going to pass them on to the consumer. This means more expensive everything, unless it is made/grown/delivered locally without the use of fossil fuels anywhere in its production.

This happened when we deregulated electricity and the increases went straight to the consumer. Get ready for "carbon tax riders" on just about everything.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

It seems like the solution being offered by Notley and a few people in this thread is to spend $5,000 on some efficient appliances, take on more debt when I downsize my vehicle for something less useful and then brag about how I reduced by gas bill and utilities by $1,500 a year while I service $15,000 in new debt?

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

The math is hard.

Originally Posted by GaiJin

That describes the NDP Climate action plan funnily enough.

Not so funnily enough, if you multiply that by literally about a million, that's about the state of our annual budget.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Do you ever bother to read my entire posts? Yes a lot of people would struggle to make certain changes, but a lot of people wouldn't, and those people who can make the changes could help the others by helping out the local economy, while helping themselves in the process. Those who are struggling likely have some things they could change to make things easier, downsizing to a more fuel efficient vehicle is very doable in a lot of cases.

I wasn't advocating people just up and buy a new home, but for the record my new home was purchased for less than what I sold my old house for, and the early indications are that I will save significantly more than $500/year.

I find it hilarious that you can nail the problem we are all arguing in your own replies without even seeing it.

Honestly, iggy, you seem to believe that this tax will hit the rich the hardest, because they will possibly choose to pay for more efficient things. Except, even as some level of your subconscious realizes, it is the poor and the middle class that will bear the brunt of this. The poor can't afford a single thing you suggest they do. They can only hope that whatever subsidies Notley and Trudeau offer will make up the extra tax burden they face. For the middle class, the choice has pretty much come down to trading a new furnace in exchange for degrading the quality of life for themselves and their children.

The rich, meanwhile, eat the costs with the least difficulty and with the greatest ability to maintain that standard of living that you seem to find so evil.

All praise the progressive cause!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I find it hilarious that you can nail the problem we are all arguing in your own replies without even seeing it.

Honestly, iggy, you seem to believe that this tax will hit the rich the hardest, because they will possibly choose to pay for more efficient things. Except, even as some level of your subconscious realizes, it is the poor and the middle class that will bear the brunt of this. The poor can't afford a single thing you suggest they do. They can only hope that whatever subsidies Notley and Trudeau offer will make up the extra tax burden they face. For the middle class, the choice has pretty much come down to trading a new furnace in exchange for degrading the quality of life for themselves and their children.

The rich, meanwhile, eat the costs with the least difficulty and with the greatest ability to maintain that standard of living that you seem to find so evil.

All praise the progressive cause!

The funny thing though, is that the rich and ultra rich that can eat this without trouble make up a pretty small slice of the tax payer pie.

Its sounds good in an election campaign when you angrily slam the podium and yell "Cornswarnit, we'll make the rich pay more", and sure they should thats why they pay more taxes percentage wise then the middle class or poor. But as governments are finding out there aren't billions and billions of dollars being mined from the rich and super rich because they make up a fairly small percentage of the population, I think its in the area of 1%.

So then its back to the podium, "Conswarnit, we'll tax everyone" which fine, but when you spend foolishly, or come up with an ill conceived notion that "If you buy a $10,000 dollar furnace and buy a new car, you'll pay a bit less in taxes". At which point the lower and lower middle class start to wonder what dog food tastes like.

[Tron_fdc]

The funny thing about the rich and the large corporations that this is supposedly going to hit is they have this thing called "tax planning" where they pay people to get around paying into these schemes. I had an oilman the other night say they would rather do business with Venezuela right now because (tax/business wise) it's more stable than Alberta. These people have options, and they're going to vote with their feet and dollars.

It's comically absurd that someone would say it's easier to work in a borderline 3rd world country run by a dictatorship than it is in Alberta, but maybe that's what we're going for these days based on the dingus' running the place.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

The funny thing about the rich and the large corporations that this is supposedly going to hit is they have this thing called "tax planning" where they pay people to get around paying into these schemes. I had an oilman the other night say they would rather do business with Venezuela right now because (tax/business wise) it's more stable than Alberta. These people have options, and they're going to vote with their feet and dollars.

It's comically absurd that someone would say it's easier to work in a borderline 3rd world country run by a dictatorship than it is in Alberta, but maybe that's what we're going for these days based on the dingus' running the place.

I find it particularly funny when people point to the antique Tax Rates that the top earners were required to pay in the 75% range in the early 1900s.

Yeah, because at that time moving your money or your offices to Venezuela or Ireland wasnt a viable alternative while today, it most certainly is.

Now, we can yell at clouds for the unfairness of it all, or we can accept this new reality and roll with it.

Again, the remonstrating about the artificially low taxes in Alberta due to Oil Revenue, theres value to that statement, but we also lowered taxes to bring in investment dollars.

Look at all the companies that relocated their Toronto Head Offices to Calgary.

We dont own these companies and they dont owe us, if you make the environment undesirable they can and will either fold up shop or leave and now you get nothing.

Its a fairly simple concept.