Alberta Politics Thread

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

My cell and cable plans are defined, my cell plan for example has been the same price for 5 years, I've never changed the plan because cell companies continually increase their costs for things(even without a carbon tax, imagine that), to get all the same features of my plan on a new plan would cost me about $30 more per month, they can't change the price unless I choose to change plans, they know this which is why they constantly call me trying to get me to switch plans. So while bell will incur some extra costs due to the carbon tax, it will not be passed on to me unless I change my plan. Now if a PST was introduced, both myself and bell would need to pay more, but they still would not be able to pass off their increased expense on to me unless I change my plan.

Ok. I was referring to the economy overall, which is the sum of millions of transactions, thousands of new contracts and old contracts and renewed contracts etc. I didn't realize you were referring specifically to your instance, and then extrapolating that to the general economy. Carry on.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

With the exception of iggy_oi, I think we all know that it will indeed trickle down.

I haven't denied that there will be trickle down, I just don't believe that this will cause prices to skyrocket on all goods and services, I think the increases on non target commodities will be for the most part minor. Businesses aren't stupid, they know that most people have budgets too, for every dollar they raise their price, that's one dollar less that a customer can potentially give to their business. That added to the fact that people will potentially already be tightening their budgets will keep business owners from raising their prices any more than necessary to not alienate their customers.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Why and how would that be better? Especially for low income families and workers? Should they stop putting taxes on cigarettes too and just make it PST?

If our activities are so harmful that we need to send $20/ tonne of carbon into the general revenues fund, then why should low income earners not be paying it? Are their activities less harmful than someone who makes more than an arbitrary amount decided on by the government?

I'd be willing to bet that the exemption amount was determined through study of the average income of the different demographics of voters. Also, that people with a higher income have a smaller carbon footprint than lower income earners in many areas that will be impacted by the carbon tax.

[Locke]

Not to mention, you know what really helps low-income families? Cheap Heat and Power.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

Not to mention, you know what really helps low-income families? Cheap Heat and Power.

Vs a PST on almost everything they buy?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

If our activities are so harmful that we need to send $20/ tonne of carbon into the general revenues fund, then why should low income earners not be paying it? Are their activities less harmful than someone who makes more than an arbitrary amount decided on by the government?

I'd be willing to bet that the exemption amount was determined through study of the average income of the different demographics of voters. Also, that people with a higher income have a smaller carbon footprint than lower income earners in many areas that will be impacted by the carbon tax.

If you didn't plan on answering the question, why respond at all? I'm sure those low income workers who have to walk or take the buss to work have a much larger carbon footprint then people who drive to work by themselves everyday.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Kind of like how tax cuts for businesses trickles down to higher wages?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Vs a PST on almost everything they buy?

At least they have the option on how much they buy.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Kind of like how tax cuts for businesses trickles down to higher wages?

Safe to say tax cuts for businesses leads to more investment, which means more employment. Would you disagree with that?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Vs a PST on almost everything they buy?

Except a PST can be specifically targeted at goods, whereas a carbon tax is a blanket tax on everything and probably some goods will have multiple cost increases attached to them due to the number of steps they need to go through to get the market.

With a PST you can literally mirror the practices of the GST and make it non applicable to things like agricultural products (food) etc.

And a PST is fixed and predictable and more importantly audit able. A Carbon tax is not fixed or predictable and auditing its effects on the market is going to be a nightmare.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

At least they have the option on how much they buy.

So people are going to stop buying things? You realize a PST would also be applied to your energy bills right? Even if the exempted everything that falls under the carbon tax, I'd argue most people spend more money on non carbon related items ons monthly basis.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Safe to say tax cuts for businesses leads to more investment, which means more employment. Would you disagree with that?

More employment and higher taxes for workers to make up the shortfall yes.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except a PST can be specifically targeted at goods, whereas a carbon tax is a blanket tax on everything and probably some goods will have multiple cost increases attached to them due to the number of steps they need to go through to get the market.

With a PST you can literally mirror the practices of the GST and make it non applicable to things like agricultural products (food) etc.

And a PST is fixed and predictable and more importantly audit able. A Carbon tax is not fixed or predictable and auditing its effects on the market is going to be a nightmare.

What percentage of non taxable goods and services versus taxable ones do you think the average person or business spends money on? It would have the same effect you are consistently claiming will be detrimental, in my opinion it would have an even more devestating effect than you are concerned about under the carbon tax.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

What percentage of non taxable goods and services versus taxable ones do you think the average person or business spends money on? It would have the same effect you are consistently claiming will be detrimental, in my opinion it would have an even more devestating effect than you are concerned about under the carbon tax.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tp...ptgds-eng.html
Child care is one, some people I know spend 50% of their monthly income on it. Do you think child care is going to get cheaper with increased utility costs?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So people are going to stop buying things? You realize a PST would also be applied to your energy bills right? Even if the exempted everything that falls under the carbon tax, I'd argue most people spend more money on non carbon related items ons monthly basis.

That's not a given. They could make it exempt. I'll leave the math up to you, but even if we did pay a 5% PST, it would still be cheaper than a carbon tax in the vast majority of energy bills.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's not a given. They could make it exempt. I'll leave the math up to you, but even if we did pay a 5% PST, it would still be cheaper than a carbon tax in the vast majority of energy bills.

That's a lot of coulds and woulds, I pay GST on my energy bill, I see no reason why PST wouldn't be applied on that too.

[Fuzz]

That's not a lot of "coulds" and "woulds", it's one could, and one absolute. I'll change my answer. A PST absolutely is cheaper than a carbon tax on energy bills. Yo do the math.

In Ontario they will refund the provincial portion of the HST, in BC residential customers only pay GST. I believe their are similar programs in PEI, Nova Scotia and Newfoundaland. So I'll stand by my strong "could", thankyouverymuch.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

What percentage of non taxable goods and services versus taxable ones do you think the average person or business spends money on? It would have the same effect you are consistently claiming will be detrimental, in my opinion it would have an even more devestating effect than you are concerned about under the carbon tax.

I couldn't tell you I'm not privy to everyone's spending habits at all. So its an impossible question.

But if you made a PST that mirrored GST

These are the 0 percentage items

• basic groceries such as milk, bread, and vegetables.
• agricultural products such as grain, raw wool, and dried tobacco leaves.
• most farm livestock.
• most fishery products such as fish for human consumption.
• prescription drugs and drug-dispensing fees.
• medical devices such as hearing aids and artificial teeth.
• exports.
• many transportation services where the origin or destination is outside Canada

All of these things would be hit by the carbon tax, especially locally provided goods like dairy and livestock



All of these are exempt, but under a carbon tax these would certainly be effected

• sed residential complexes.
• long-term residential accommodation (of one month or more), and residential condominium fees.
• some sales of vacant land or farmland.
• most health, medical, and dental services performed by licensed physicians or dentists for medical reasons.
• child care services (daycare services for less than 24 hours a day) for children 14 years old and younger.
• bridge, road, and ferry tolls (ferry tolls are taxed at 0% if the ferry service is to or from a place outside Canada).
• legal aid services.
• most educational services such as:
  • courses from a vocational school that lead to a certificate or a diploma to practise a trade or a vocation; or
  • tutoring services for an individual who takes a course approved for credit by a school authority or the education service follows a curriculum designated by a school authority.
• music lessons.
• most food or beverages sold in an elementary or secondary school cafeteria primarily to students of the school and most meal plans provided in a university or public college.
• most services provided by financial institutions such as arrangements for a loan or mortgage.
• arranging for and issuing insurance policies by insurance companies, agents, and brokers.
• most goods and services provided by charities.
• certain goods and services provided by non-profit organizations, governments, and other public service bodies, such as municipal transit services and standard residential services such as water distribut

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's not a given. They could make it exempt. I'll leave the math up to you, but even if we did pay a 5% PST, it would still be cheaper than a carbon tax in the vast majority of energy bills.

I do the bookkeeping at my organization. We spend about $16,000 a year on GST taxable supplies and services. So a simple 5% PST makes for another $16,000 of expenses

We purchase about 70,000 litres of fuel. A 6 cent fuel tax would cost us about $4,200.

Utilities is harder to do off the top of my head. I budget $9000 a year for lights and heat. Each utility bill has more distribution charges than energy charges (Plus I forget the actual gas we use) So natural gas portion Is maybe $2000 -3,000 in carbon tax (worst case scenario)

My situation shows that shows carbon tax will directly cost us half of a PST alternative.

Indirect cost: we calculate the carbon tax to give an overall increase of less than 1% to our total budget. I am assuming that some suppliers will be passing 1- 3% to us. so another $2000 to $4000 in indirect costs for the relevant purchases.

So with direct and indirect costs, my organization gets a better deal on a carbon tax than we would on a PST implementation.

While certainly would prefer not to see these increases, they are still less impact than we experienced in the 2006-2007 boom (or even the 2011-2013).Fuel prices where 25% higher. Heating was 3 times higher.


This province prays daily that energy prices will increase. We knew that When these prices increase our energy costs where going to go up again.We hate more taxes but this is still less than going to a PST.

Maybe I am just resigned I always knew that prices are going to go back up. The proposed carbon tax is still less of an increase that what we paid at the pump when the oil patch was booming.

[Fuzz]

Thanks for the numbers, I was specifically referring to residential energy bills.