Alberta Politics Thread

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

That article also says that after someone gave him actual numbers and not just grapevine boogeyman boogaloo he was less inclined to move.

Sure, but what did he expect, tens of thousands of dollars in carbon tax?
How much of new tax would it take before you decided to pick up and leave the country?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Torture

Sure, but what did he expect, tens of thousands of dollars in carbon tax?
How much of new tax would it take before you decided to pick up and leave the country?

For Murray Edwards it was a couple of percentage points.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Torture

How much of new tax would it take before you decided to pick up and leave the country?

As much as is currently planned, if you're Koch Oil Sands.

http://boereport.com/2016/12/16/read...nd-carbon-tax/

Very irrational of them to not choose to make a little profit here (maybe) as well as more profit elsewhere instead of just making that more profit elsewhere.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Bootsy

Correct it has nothing to do with the environment it is a wealth redistribution tax. It's why socialists and communists are the biggest environmental activists. It has nothing to do with the environment but they know average voters will never accept their economy killing policies, however if they sneak them in under the guise of "save the environment" people might accept it.
I think Notley is finding out that not all Albertans were born yesterday and the backlash will only get bigger.

Aren't all taxes, by their very nature, wealth redistribution?

[llwhiteoutll]

Farce of a calculator from CBC.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ator-1.3900339

Love the assumption that groceries are only going up 1.5% and they didn't even bother to try and calculate any of the indirect costs. We already know that the city is going to be paying another $6 million for fuel, not including electricity and natural gas, all of which will be included as a property tax hike.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bootsy

Correct it has nothing to do with the environment it is a wealth redistribution tax. It's why socialists and communists are the biggest environmental activists. It has nothing to do with the environment but they know average voters will never accept their economy killing policies, however if they sneak them in under the guise of "save the environment" people might accept it.
I think Notley is finding out that not all Albertans were born yesterday and the backlash will only get bigger.

It's a communist plot!

I'm no fan of the carbon tax as it is (I don't think it will do anything to actually curb our use of fossil fuels so is ultimately pointless) but do people really believe they cooked this up to take money from some Albertans and give it to other Albertans?

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's a communist plot!

I'm no fan of the carbon tax as it is (I don't think it will do anything to actually curb our use of fossil fuels so is ultimately pointless) but do people really believe they cooked this up to take money from some Albertans and give it to other Albertans?

If it was to mitigate the impact of GHGs on the environment or drive people to be more sustainable, the everyone would pay it.

The money (all of it) would also not go into general revenues, but be used for green initiatives and programs to spur more sustainable behaviors.

[Red]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

If it was to mitigate the impact of GHGs on the environment or drive people to be more sustainable, the everyone would pay it.

The money (all of it) would also not go into general revenues, but be used for green initiatives and programs to spur more sustainable behaviors.

So why are they doing this then? What needs to happen for the NDP to say that this was a successful "cover up"?

[Mr.Coffee]

To avoid a massive amount of criticism (and to actually commit to following through on what they're saying) I don't understand why they don't just come out and say the carbon tax is not going to general revenues and will be handled separately and towards green initiatives or at least x% portion of it to green initiatives.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Red

So why are they doing this then?

They're desperate for revenue, they know a PST is political suicide, so they adopted what is essentially a graduated tax under the fig leaf of environmental stewardship.

[Mr.Coffee]

I don't think a PST is political suicide though, that's the thing. The way they've handled this is more political suicide than that.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

If it was to mitigate the impact of GHGs on the environment or drive people to be more sustainable, the everyone would pay it.

The money (all of it) would also not go into general revenues, but be used for green initiatives and programs to spur more sustainable behaviors.

It's funny your thinking like a socialist here. The point of a Carbon tax is it reduces carbon emissions without intervening in the market. You don't have green initiatives and pick winners and losers.

A carbon tax works by making things that emit carbon more expensive. This has two affects reduce consumption and most importantly make less carbon intensive alternatives more attractive because of their reduced cost.

Because the tax is a consumption tax whether or not you get a rebate from the government or not your choices on what to buy are affected by the tax. The low income person is just as incentivized to spend on less carbon intensive options as the wealthier person.

Now Notley missed the part about lowering general taxes in order for the Carbon tax not to be a tax grab but using a tax grab to subsidize green tech is just picking winners. The tax is the incentive to change behaviour.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

They're desperate for revenue, they know a PST is political suicide, so they adopted what is essentially a graduated tax under the fig leaf of environmental stewardship.

Political suicide? Have you not been paying attention to provincial, national, or global politics over the last few years? There's no such thing, unless it's a picture of you holding your dick.

And even then... it's probably just a speed bump at this point.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Aren't all taxes, by their very nature, wealth redistribution?

No. not all taxes have the purpose of wealth redistribution. But even if that were true what's your point? Since some wealth redistribution is ok, then all wealth redistribution is ok?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Farce of a calculator from CBC.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ator-1.3900339

Love the assumption that groceries are only going up 1.5% and they didn't even bother to try and calculate any of the indirect costs. We already know that the city is going to be paying another $6 million for fuel, not including electricity and natural gas, all of which will be included as a property tax hike.

How would you calculate the indirect costs? When you look at the areas that the carbon tax will cause an increase in, like transportation, utilities for facilities etc, and then divide that by the number of items sold by a grocery store, you should be able to come to the conclusion that there will not be a massive increase. Notley's argument about gas prices fluctuating was poorly explained on her part, but you have to look at what the reality is, gas and energy prices fluctuate, grocery prices do the same thing.

When gas goes up 20-30 cents a litre do you notice a massive increase in your grocery prices? No, because grocery prices from vendors also fluctuate. Stores use these fluctuations to set the prices on the shelves in a way to maintain customers, they can adjust prices based on which vendors are giving them the best deals, hence why prices change on a weekly basis.

Sale prices on buying multiples is another method grocers use to increase their buying power in order to buy and sell products at lower prices, grocery companies aren't stupid, they are one of the most proactive businesses in finding ways to avoid passing costs on to customers.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Political suicide? Have you not been paying attention to provincial, national, or global politics over the last few years? There's no such thing, unless it's a picture of you holding your dick.

And even then... it's probably just a speed bump at this point.

Have you ever heard of Alison Redford?

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

As much as is currently planned, if you're Koch Oil Sands.

http://boereport.com/2016/12/16/read...nd-carbon-tax/

Very irrational of them to not choose to make a little profit here (maybe) as well as more profit elsewhere instead of just making that more profit elsewhere.

Yet Koch is pressing ahead with other projects (apparently as many as 11 other projects)

http://www.jwnenergy.com/article/201...ear-lindbergh/

This also must be Notley's fault

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Farce of a calculator from CBC.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ator-1.3900339

Love the assumption that groceries are only going up 1.5% and they didn't even bother to try and calculate any of the indirect costs. We already know that the city is going to be paying another $6 million for fuel, not including electricity and natural gas, all of which will be included as a property tax hike.

Uh... Electricity won't increase under the 2017 carbon tax as it is already covered under earlier carbon tax rates

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/c...pact-1.3901367

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Have you ever heard of Alison Redford?

Who was she?

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

Yet Koch is pressing ahead with other projects (apparently as many as 11 other projects)

http://www.jwnenergy.com/article/201...ear-lindbergh/

This also must be Notley's fault

So, Koch withdrew a 60000 bpd phased application in March, and an approved 10000 bpd pilot this month and added a new application for a joint venture 12500 bpd operation.

Is that a win in your books?

Wouldn't it have been better to have had all three?