Alberta Politics Thread

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

If it were me, I would rebate the carbon tax as broad personal tax reductions (with a small rebate for those who don't pay provincial tax), and broad corporate tax reductions.

Considering that Alberta has a stable revenue problem I'd rather they didn't do that. This province overspends and undertaxes.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

To be fair, a guy working at a mine 12 hours a day in Canada today is very far from poor. Easily in the top 30 per cent in income.

Most of the working poor today work in service. They're the people who pour your coffee, help you find stuff at RONA, and delivery your pizza.

Ya I hate those pizza delivery guys. You actually want me to give you a tip on top of the delivery charge just because you brought me a pizza in a -30 blizzard while I chill on my sofa. Get a real job, lazy bastard. Mmmmmm pizza.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Anyone who has to tell you how humble they are probably aren't.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by jammies

Negatory!

Hmmm....I see...17 sloths? No?

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Their costs fluctuate all the time, the fact that they announce a move such as this isn't about their concerns for their customers, it's a way of creating public pressure to get rid of the tax all together. They could easily have just added it into their fuel charges per load as they would do with any regular increase, the fact that they are making an announcement like this indicates to me that there is a motive behind it that has nothing to do with the fact that it will cost their customers more, unless they have a long history of announcing increases/decreases to their fuel costs publicly.

It's not about creating public pressure, it's about transparency in the costs associated with freight. It's expected of these carriers, by their customers, that they separate out the added cost of this carbon tax and communicate the impact of it prior to implementation.

It seems to me you're just upset that this carbon tax is going to cost people real dollars, and you don't like the fact that it is being made public. Would you prefer that the additional cost be passed on to the consumer, but not communicated where the increase came from, or that there was even an increase at all? I choose transparency over blissful ignorance, every time.

[Red]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

It's not about creating public pressure, it's about transparency in the costs associated with freight. It's expected of these carriers, by their customers, that they separate out the added cost of this carbon tax and communicate the impact of it prior to implementation.

It seems to me you're just upset that this carbon tax is going to cost people real dollars, and you don't like the fact that it is being made public. Would you prefer that the additional cost be passed on to the consumer, but not communicated where the increase came from, or that there was even an increase at all? I choose transparency over blissful ignorance, every time.

Fuel costs have been fluctuating all the time. Just few days ago gas went up by 12 cents, 3x the rate of the CT.
This has nothing to do with transparency. Airlines and others add fuel surcharges at times of extreme cost increases. 4 cents a litre increase in times where were see 10 cent fluctuations daily is nothing. It's an excuse to gauge.

Today gas is 95c. Next month it may be 75c + 4 for the CT. Who is better off?

Wonder if similar announcement went out when gas prices dropped to 70c some months ago....would be shocked if there was one or a discount in prices.

[Kavvy]

Request to a poster who has time to hold my hand, as this info is probably in this thread and not a super hard online search away.. but..

What is the key differences between AB carbon tax and BC's?

What was Harper's plan compared to JT?

Assuming a carbon tax HAS to be implemented, what would we change about ours?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

It's not about creating public pressure, it's about transparency in the costs associated with freight. It's expected of these carriers, by their customers, that they separate out the added cost of this carbon tax and communicate the impact of it prior to implementation.

Yes, and it should be expected, the same way they explain the fuel cost charges when gas prices increase. The media is IMO trying to make a bigger issue out of this than it is, these things happen whenever prices fluctuate, but they don't report it every time. After rereading my post, I realize the way I worded it came off as an issue with the company rather than how this is being reported.

It seems to me you're just upset that this carbon tax is going to cost people real dollars, and you don't like the fact that it is being made public. Would you prefer that the additional cost be passed on to the consumer, but not communicated where the increase came from, or that there was even an increase at all? I choose transparency over blissful ignorance, every time.

I don't know how you reached this conclusion. At what point have I argued that a tax will not cost anyone real dollars? I maintain that I don't believe the overall cost increases will be as catastrophic as many seem to believe. Using the trucking industry as an example, the cost increases get divided up by the consumer products being transported, which can significantly change the impact. Fuel for a load costs X more for each load, each load contains Y amount of consumer items, so the cost passed on to consumers for each item will essentially be X divided by Y.

Groceries seems to be the most common example of a commodity that will go up in price. Let's say the value of X for a full load of groceries, after all stops along the way for the individual loads from different vendors then to the distribution centre and finally to the store, is $1000(which seems like an extremely high number). If the value of Y for that full load of groceries is 50k individual items to be sold(a very conservatively low number for a full load of groceries) the added cost to each item to make up for the carbon tax related extra costs in transportation would be about 2 cents per item.

If you buy 100 items today at the grocery store, what do you think the bill would come to? Let's say the average item costs $2(which is also a conservatively low figure, even if you shop at superstore) your total bill would be $200, add 2 cents per item and you are looking at a 1% increase in your price being passed on to consumers through transportation cost increases, and realistically that number is likely much much lower than that. This obviously varies from industry to industry, but I've used this example because it appears to be the industry the majority of people are concerned about being impacted by costs being passed on to consumers.

I agree whole heartedly with your statement on transparency vs blissful ignorance, which is why I wish people would try to actually look at numbers and facts rather than just tell themselves this will cripple our economy or that if you are not adamantly opposed to it you are somehow being a disservice to yourself, your family and your country. ( That last part might sound a little extreme, but it was said so I can't exactly be accused of over exaggerating some people's reactions)

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Do conservatives all share the same talking points among themselves about coming from humble beginnings, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, and god damn it, why can't everyone do what I did?

I don't even know how to speak to conservatives anymore, they're so far in their own little right wing bubble.

Honestly, you are so far in your own little left wing bubble that I'm amazed you can even see a right wing bubble.

[Red]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Yes, and it should be expected, the same way they explain the fuel cost charges when gas prices increase. The media is IMO trying to make a bigger issue out of this than it is, these things happen whenever prices fluctuate, but they don't report it every time. After rereading my post, I realize the way I worded it came off as an issue with the company rather than how this is being reported.


I don't know how you reached this conclusion. At what point have I argued that a tax will not cost anyone real dollars? I maintain that I don't believe the overall cost increases will be as catastrophic as many seem to believe. Using the trucking industry as an example, the cost increases get divided up by the consumer products being transported, which can significantly change the impact. Fuel for a load costs X more for each load, each load contains Y amount of consumer items, so the cost passed on to consumers for each item will essentially be X divided by Y.

Groceries seems to be the most common example of a commodity that will go up in price. Let's say the value of X for a full load of groceries, after all stops along the way for the individual loads from different vendors then to the distribution centre and finally to the store, is $1000(which seems like an extremely high number). If the value of Y for that full load of groceries is 50k individual items to be sold(a very conservatively low number for a full load of groceries) the added cost to each item to make up for the carbon tax related extra costs in transportation would be about 2 cents per item.

If you buy 100 items today at the grocery store, what do you think the bill would come to? Let's say the average item costs $2(which is also a conservatively low figure, even if you shop at superstore) your total bill would be $200, add 2 cents per item and you are looking at a 1% increase in your price being passed on to consumers through transportation cost increases, and realistically that number is likely much much lower than that. This obviously varies from industry to industry, but I've used this example because it appears to be the industry the majority of people are concerned about being impacted by costs being passed on to consumers.

I agree whole heartedly with your statement on transparency vs blissful ignorance, which is why I wish people would try to actually look at numbers and facts rather than just tell themselves this will cripple our economy or that if you are not adamantly opposed to it you are somehow being a disservice to yourself, your family and your country. ( That last part might sound a little extreme, but it was said so I can't exactly be accused of over exaggerating some people's reactions)

We also need to remember that we were in a $1 - 1.30 per L of gas for years not so long ago. We also need to remember that our natural gas cost 3 to 4 times to what it costs now a few years ago as well. So really, the utilities and gasoline costs are not any higher even with the CT applied. In fact, they are much cheaper than our 10 year average.

We all hate new taxes, but let's look at the whole picture here, there should be no hikes in food prices etc. It's not like food got cheaper when heating and transportation costs plunged. Not to mention the borrowing costs are much cheaper too. I get it, businesses need to make money, but they are not going to be any worse off than in many times in the last decade or two. They should not be crying.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Request to a poster who has time to hold my hand, as this info is probably in this thread and not a super hard online search away.. but..

What is the key differences between AB carbon tax and BC's?

What was Harper's plan compared to JT?

Assuming a carbon tax HAS to be implemented, what would we change about ours?

Alberta's: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=5599

Alberta's with my commentary: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=5626

BC's: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=5627

TLDR:
BC reduced taxes for businesses and people across all income brackets so people and businesses have money to seek efficiency if they decide such is economically expedient (they have). In this model, everyone is charged the tax, but people and businesses who use less are better off through tax rebates, which encourages the piggies to make their own decisions to use less.

Alberta is spending it on NDP priorities (wealth transfers, centrally planned electricity generation initiatives, transit, government jobs, penalties to coal generators and their communities) on our behalf. It is not returning to the economy from whence it came, except indirectly and less efficiently as it's being filtered through a myriad of government programs.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Red

Fuel costs have been fluctuating all the time. Just few days ago gas went up by 12 cents, 3x the rate of the CT.
This has nothing to do with transparency. Airlines and others add fuel surcharges at times of extreme cost increases. 4 cents a litre increase in times where were see 10 cent fluctuations daily is nothing. It's an excuse to gauge.

Wonder if similar announcement went out when gas prices dropped to 70c some months ago....would be shocked if there was one or a discount in prices.

I keep typing rebuttals to this, then erasing. I think we're arguing from different points of view... myself, I look at it from a retailer's perspective. Fuel surcharges, and how price changes in fuel effect the fuel surcharge, are completely transparent to me. I know exactly what I'm paying for freight based on today's fuel price, and exactly what I'd pay based on a hypothetical fuel price I just made up. I expect that same transparency when the carbon tax comes into play, and it sounds like carriers (Rosenau Transport) are going to provide it.

As for a drop to 70c, and wondering if there's a discount in prices. Yes, there usually is. Retailers compete against each other, and so when the cost of goods (including freight) decreases, so too does the retail price, typically. Obviously there are other variables involved, but assuming that the product you are buying is one in good supply, the retail price boils down cost + margin. If cost decreases, and margin stays the same, then retail price decreases. Most people probably think the retailer just uses that opportunity to capture extra margin, but in a competitive market that just isn't true.

Originally Posted by Red

Today gas is 95c. Next month it may be 75c + 4 for the CT. Who is better off?

I can't follow this logic.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

Alberta's: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=5599

Alberta's with my commentary: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=5626

BC's: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=5627

TLDR:
BC reduced taxes for businesses and people across all income brackets so people and businesses have money to seek efficiency if they decide such is economically expedient (they have). In this model, everyone is charged the tax, but people and businesses who use less are better off through tax rebates, which encourages the piggies to make their own decisions to use less.

Alberta is spending it on NDP priorities (wealth transfers, centrally planned electricity generation initiatives, transit, government jobs, penalties to coal generators and their communities) on our behalf. It is not returning to the economy from whence it came, except indirectly and less efficiently as it's being filtered through a myriad of government programs.

And thats exactly what people have been saying. Take the Carbon tax and use it to incentivize the reduction in Carbon usage.

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I can't follow this logic.

I see your problem...you called it 'logic' and so you were starting off wrong.

[Red]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I keep typing rebuttals to this, then erasing. I think we're arguing from different points of view... myself, I look at it from a retailer's perspective. Fuel surcharges, and how price changes in fuel effect the fuel surcharge, are completely transparent to me. I know exactly what I'm paying for freight based on today's fuel price, and exactly what I'd pay based on a hypothetical fuel price I just made up. I expect that same transparency when the carbon tax comes into play, and it sounds like carriers (Rosenau Transport) are going to provide it.

As for a drop to 70c, and wondering if there's a discount in prices. Yes, there usually is. Retailers compete against each other, and so when the cost of goods (including freight) decreases, so too does the retail price, typically. Obviously there are other variables involved, but assuming that the product you are buying is one in good supply, the retail price boils down cost + margin. If cost decreases, and margin stays the same, then retail price decreases. Most people probably think the retailer just uses that opportunity to capture extra margin, but in a competitive market that just isn't true.



I can't follow this logic.

The logic is that we have been paying $1 + for years and it was fine, but when the NDP puts a 4 cent tax when gas is far cheaper all of a sudden all businesses can't function.

There is a lot of crying from businesses over the CT, but as my post above says, we had it much worse in the past and things seemed to be honky dory....

To me it's just whining for the sake of whining because we don't like taxes and "saving the planet" is a dirty word in this part of the country. Oversimplified, for sure, but there is a lot of that.

[Bownesian]

@Kavvy, regarding JT's plan vs. SH's plan

JT's is to impose collection, but not to dictate redistribution - so the provinces get to choose what to do with their jurisdiction's part of the collected taxes. There is no act of parliament yet so we haven't really seen what their import/export plans are, nor the fine details of what happens if a province is non-compliant.

SH's stated plan was regulation on large emitters (which is more expensive per GHG unit reduced as we're seeing with the Enmax coal deal), but in practice, his plan was to do nothing and let the provinces deal with it if they wanted to.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Locke

And thats exactly what people have been saying. Take the Carbon tax and use it to incentivize the reduction in Carbon usage.

I agree.

The BC (also the original, pre-Elizabeth May Green Party) model does this the most efficient way possible - by empowering businesses and individuals to make those choices for reasons of their own self-interest.

For me, it might be biking to work more and/or replacing my leaky sliding glass door to cut my gas bill, for you it might be getting a smaller car. For others, it might be doing nothing, but that's fine because those folk pay the way for those of us who might make changes to make changes.

For businesses, maybe they go paperless, or telecommute, or do remote meetings, or buy more efficient equipment, or change processes to be more efficient than their competitors.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

I agree.

The BC (also the original, pre-Elizabeth May Green Party) model does this the most efficient way possible - by empowering businesses and individuals to make those choices for reasons of their own self-interest.

For me, it might be biking to work more and/or replacing my leaky sliding glass door to cut my gas bill, for you it might be getting a smaller car. For others, it might be doing nothing, but that's fine because those folk pay the way for those of us who might make changes to make changes.

For businesses, maybe they go paperless, or telecommute, or do remote meetings, or buy more efficient equipment, or change processes to be more efficient than their competitors.

Agreed, but instead its just being used like a vegetarian would.

To generate revenue while having the defence of pseudo-morality against anyone who disagrees.

"You hate the Carbon tax?!?! Because you hate Mother Gaia and her Earth Spirit while you consume her animals!!"

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

I agree.

The BC (also the original, pre-Elizabeth May Green Party) model does this the most efficient way possible - by empowering businesses and individuals to make those choices for reasons of their own self-interest.

For me, it might be biking to work more and/or replacing my leaky sliding glass door to cut my gas bill, for you it might be getting a smaller car. For others, it might be doing nothing, but that's fine because those folk pay the way for those of us who might make changes to make changes.

For businesses, maybe they go paperless, or telecommute, or do remote meetings, or buy more efficient equipment, or change processes to be more efficient than their competitors.

I'm not suggesting that the Alberta regime couldn't be significantly improved, but won't it still have an incentivizing effect? High carbon emitting products and services will become proportionally more expensive than low carbon emitting products and services thereby incentivizing the low carbon emitting products and services (and disincentivizing the high emitting products and services? That's the idea anyway, no?

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Red

The logic is that we have been paying $1 + for years and it was fine, but when the NDP puts a 4 cent tax when gas is far cheaper all of a sudden all businesses can't function.

Are businesses saying they can't function?
All I'm saying is that a carbon tax increases my cost of goods, much like a fuel price increase, and so I will be increasing my retail price accordingly, much like a fuel price increase. Nothing changes for me... the customer is the one footing the bill here.

As for other businesses saying they'll pull out of their Canadian operations due to the carbon tax, well I don't believe it's because they can't function, I believe it's because after the carbon tax is introduced, they'll see better investment returns in other jurisdictions. Jurisdictions that are more tax friendly.

In the case of the Come by Chance refinery warning that it'll go under after a carbon tax is introduced (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfou...-tax-1.3900923), that is because they're in a unique situation where they cannot pass this additional cost of a carbon tax onto their customers, like most other businesses can.

"Only 10 per cent of the fuel the refinery produces is used in Newfoundland and Labrador, as most of it is exported to the United States, where the refineries it competes against don't have to pay similar costs."


That is it in a nutshell.
If the business can pass the increase in cost down to it's customers, like it does when fuel prices are high, then the business will be just fine. Customer pays the increased cost. If the business cannot pass the increase to it's customers, like it does when fuel prices are high, then a lot of businesses will struggle to swallow that cost.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I'm not suggesting that the Alberta regime couldn't be significantly improved, but won't it still have an incentivizing effect? High carbon emitting products and services will become proportionally more expensive than low carbon emitting products and services thereby incentivizing the low carbon emitting products and services (and disincentivizing the high emitting products and services? That's the idea anyway, no?

I think it will work exactly the same way to incentivize changes in behavior. Yes the BC system is revenue neutral, but they also have a 7% PST being added to their revenue stream. If we wanted a revenue neutral carbon tax then we should add a PST in order to prop our revenue to the point where revenue neutral was affordable.

What the NDP have done is forgone the increased PST taxes that are sent to general revenues for a carbon tax which has specific goals. The carbon revenue is being directed where it can be best used to help advance the non-carbon future and not just lost in the shuffle of general spending.