Alberta Politics Thread

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So what do you suggest? You've really just dodged the question with this response. I hope your next response isn't simply "that's up to them to figure out"

He and many others have already told you many times, the government has a spending problem. They need to cut their spending.

You're ignoring this every time it gets mentioned to you.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So what do you suggest? You've really just dodged the question with this response. I hope your next response isn't simply "that's up to them to figure out"

So what do they say when someone says taxing me harms me?

Are you for serious? I have been saying the same thing in this thread over and over and over. I havent dodged anything.

They could have raised the personal tax rates, even the Corporate tax rates, incentivize people to get that money out of their companies and into their personal hands where the Government makes their cake.

What they should have done was stalled the minimum wage increase, canned the Carbon Tax entirely and said: "Hey, now isnt the time to do a Royalty Review" which, while they took their sweet time doing it Oil companies invested their dollars elsewhere.

On top which they should never have gotten into the boondoggle with the PPCs and wound up suing themselves and looking like idiots in the process.



Imposing tons of additional taxes and burdens during a recession while increasing Government costs? Yeah, this is going to set the future up really well.

I dont even know what else to say. Caution and patience would have been better. Practicality over Ideology.

At the moment they're acting like virgins at the Prom, they're just trying to ram through everything they can because they know they're not getting a second chance and the primary reason for the latter is the former.

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by Parallex

No. Because you should be increasing spending during an economic downturn (not cutting it). Then when the economy recovers you should cut spending so that you can pay back the debt you incur when you spend in the downturn. The opposite holds true for taxes (cut during downturn and raise during upturn) but during the last boom the PCAA did the opposite.

They should increase spending on what specifically? If your talking about infrastructure and other large scale projects that create jobs and help spark economic growth and activity, I agree.

But basically all we've seen so far is smiling Joe Ceci, borrowing $6 billion dollars just to cover government employee wages and operating expenses. Where are all these jobs the NDP are creating in the private sector?

[GGG]

^^ If you look at the conventional oil investment happening next year the royalty review probably influenced it. They cleaned up a lot of the problems on the conventional side.

To me the Royalty Review was a big win for how politics should be done. Evaluate, Listen to Experts, Implement the recommendations without politicizing them.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Parallex

No. Because you should be increasing spending during an economic downturn (not cutting it). Then when the economy recovers you should cut spending so that you can pay back the debt you incur when you spend in the downturn. The opposite holds true for taxes (cut during downturn and raise during upturn) but during the last boom the PCAA did the opposite.

I don't trust the WR or PCAA to either raise or even just stand pat on taxes if they're in charge during the next boom nor would I trust them to cut spending during a boom.

Is it optimal that the they're raising taxes now? No, but they have to do it now because the other guys won't do it later and they can't take for granted that they'll be in power later. Is it optimal that they're spending now? Yes, will they cut spending later? Hopefully, but probably not. So they're at least getting it half right... which is half more right then the other guys got it.

Oh man....really? This nonsense still? I thought we'd been over this a thousand times.

I'm not going into this again other than this short explanation:

The NDP are spending money on operations. Thats Government salaries, pensions, programs, etc. That is chump change and helps almost no one.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Locke

Oh man....really? This nonsense still? I thought we'd been over this a thousand times.

I'm not going into this again other than this short explanation:

The NDP are spending money on operations. Thats Government salaries, pensions, programs, etc. That is chump change and helps almost no one.

What alternative do you propose here. At 120k burden per employee you only need to layoff 50,000 of them to balance the budget.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

^^ If you look at the conventional oil investment happening next year the royalty review probably influenced it. They cleaned up a lot of the problems on the conventional side.

To me the Royalty Review was a big win for how politics should be done. Evaluate, Listen to Experts, Implement the recommendations without politicizing them.

I cant even imagine how many jobs that cost. Jobs of Albertan Taxpayers.

While they twiddled their thumbs learning that....holy crap this is fine, those companies took their money elsewhere.

That wasnt 'Politics at its finest' it was 'Ignorance, Ideology and Inexperience at its finest.'

And us non Government employees are the ones paying the Toll for it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Locke

I cant even imagine how many jobs that cost. Jobs of Albertan Taxpayers.

While they twiddled their thumbs learning that....holy crap this is fine, those companies took their money elsewhere.

That wasnt 'Politics at its finest' it was 'Ignorance, Ideology and Inexperience at its finest.'

And us non Government employees are the ones paying the Toll for it.

No one was investing at the time. It was the start of a downturn. Budgets were getting slashed every month.

They didn't just say everything was fine. They fixed the entire conventional royalty structure which long term should improve investment.

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by Locke

I cant even imagine how many jobs that cost. Jobs of Albertan Taxpayers.

While they twiddled their thumbs learning that....holy crap this is fine, those companies took their money elsewhere.

That wasnt 'Politics at its finest' it was 'Ignorance, Ideology and Inexperience at its finest.'

And us non Government employees are the ones paying the Toll for it.

The Royalty Review sure made their "Albertans aren't getting their fair share" rhetoric look really stupid.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

No one was investing at the time. It was the start of a downturn. Budgets were getting slashed every month.

They didn't just say everything was fine. They fixed the entire conventional royalty structure which long term should improve investment.

What? They didnt do anything.

One moment Albertans werent getting their 'Fair Share' and the next "Nope, all is well here.'

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Locke

The NDP are spending money on operations. Thats Government salaries, pensions, programs, etc. That is chump change and helps almost no one.

... if it's "chump change" why are you complaining about it? Ultimately, It's money circulating into the marketplace and that's not a bad thing during a downturn.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Locke

What? They didnt do anything.

One moment Albertans werent getting their 'Fair Share' and the next "Nope, all is well here.'

Also, "now isn't the time for a cash grab"

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by GGG

I disagree I think this recession is the best time to implement change in taxation policy. The general terribleness of the economy provides the political cover to do it. It's much harder to justify tax increases when your posting surpluses and piling money into the heritage fund.

We should also be doing the service cuts now as well as in boom times the built in excuse of keeping up with the boom leads to waste.

The simple fact is that the last 10 years of tax level and services were subsidized by a unsustainable commodity price. it needs to be fixed, now is the to do it.

Unfortunately the political will is cyclical with the economy and the best practices are probably anti-cyclical. In the boom was the best time to increase taxes, royalties and run surpluses. It would slow down investment to a certain extent but probably to a more sustainable level while lining the government coffers. It is also the best time to keep spending down and save, a healthy economy needs less from government that a recessive one.

On the counter in a recession is the time to drop the taxes and rely on those surplus to keep government spending up to help counteract the loss of activity in the private sector. Maintain employment levels and keep consumer spending higher and maintaining services when they are needed most.

Lougheed understood this very well and the whole Heritage Fund was built on the idea of collecting in the good times to spend in the lean. You are right the politics of it are hard for people to swallow, but the economics of it are sound.

The problem now is we have a government willing to maintain spending in the recession but was left with a tax base that was far too low to be sustainable and no savings from a 10 year boom. Even with drastic cuts tax increases are necessary, no government, even the Wildrose was going to be able to tackle the budget with no new taxes

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Locke

What? They didnt do anything.

One moment Albertans werent getting their 'Fair Share' and the next "Nope, all is well here.'

You're letting hysterics get in the way.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oilp...ties-1.3424045

What did change in the review is the manner in which conventional oil and gas drillers calculate their royalties Currently there is a hodgepodge system that resulted in every well in the province paying a different royalty rate.

Alberta royalty review pleases oil industry but draws fire from opposition
Alberta NDP warns that oil's continued slide could delay campaign promises
While that system will continue for existing wells for a decade, for new wells that begin drilling in 2017, it will be much more straightforward. They will pay a five per cent royalty rate until they have paid off the capital costs of drilling the well. Once that happens, a higher royalty rate will kick in.

What's key here is that the government will determine what the capital costs of drilling the well should be, based on an industry average. That means that companies that can drill wells cheaper than average get to pay a lower royalty rate for longer, while those who are less efficient will start to pay higher royalties before earning back the cost of drilling the well.

'"I think it's sobering for people who might have the impression of an industry that is always raking in lots of money," said Gary Leach, executive director of Explorers and Producers Canada, which represents junior energy companies.

Leach said he is glad the report was done during an economic downturn.

"Doing this review against this backdrop is very sobering for governments," Leach said. "In fact, the panel report shows that this industry actually has a very low rate of return on capital invested."

According to one member of the royalty panel, Alberta's energy sector is in an existential crisis — prices are low, the province has no tidewater access, costs are high and the U.S. is producing its own oil and gas and starting to export. The world does not need to come to Canada to get oil anymore.

That existential crisis was heightened by the election of a government that was thought to be antagonistic to the industry.

But that perceived antagonism seemed to have been trumped by data. Most energy companies came out of the royalty consultations feeling good.

Here’s a conclusion many people didn’t see coming.

The NDP government’s royalty changes next year “will make Alberta significantly more attractive for investment,” says a laudatory new report from economist Jack Mintz at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

Mintz, a tax expert who has previously criticized the NDP over some of its fiscal policies, says the changes will drop Alberta’s marginal effective tax and royalty rate on conventional oil and gas below many of its key competitors.

When the new rules take effect Jan. 1, it will make Alberta more competitive than neighbouring Saskatchewan and British Columbia, as well as U.S. states such as Colorado, North Dakota and Texas, he said.

“I don’t think anyone really expected that would be the outcome of the royalty review,” Mintz told reporters Monday. “So I would say, great, I think that’s one thing they’ve done very positively.”

It’s worth remembering the royalty review was a political creation, one of the cornerstone promises made by the NDP during the 2015 election campaign that saw Rachel Notley topple the four-decade-old Tory regime.

At the time, the NDP accused the ruling Progressive Conservatives of failing to earn for Albertans “full and fair value for their oil and gas by maintaining one of the world’s lowest oil royalty rate structures.”

After the election, Energy Minister Marg McCuaig-Boyd assembled a royalty panel led by ATB Financial president Dave Mowat to examine the issue.

But if the NDP’s suspicion was the province was getting a raw deal, it turned out that wasn’t the case. Instead, the panel concluded earlier this year that Albertans were getting an “appropriate share” of royalties.

Acting on the report, the government left oilsands royalties intact, but revamped rates on conventional oil and gas production.

New wells will pay a flat royalty of five per cent until payout, and then face a higher rate once these costs are recovered.

Mintz, who is also a director at Imperial Oil Ltd., and report co-author Daria Crisan examined the new fiscal regime and say it will lower the marginal effective tax and royalty rate from about 35 per cent today to 26.7 per cent next year.

That compares to 28.7 per cent in B.C. and 32.6 per cent in Saskatchewan.

http://calgaryherald.com/business/en...n-report-finds

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

They should increase spending on what specifically? If your talking about infrastructure and other large scale projects that create jobs and help spark economic growth and activity, I agree.

But basically all we've seen so far is smiling Joe Ceci, borrowing $6 billion dollars just to cover government employee wages and operating expenses. Where are all these jobs the NDP are creating in the private sector?

Operating expenses in 2015/16 were 43,189M and are forecast this year to be 44,938M. Not great at 4%, they need to keep it to 2% imo, but a far cry from $6B

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by Locke

What? They didnt do anything.

One moment Albertans werent getting their 'Fair Share' and the next "Nope, all is well here.'

To be fair, they did come up with new Royalty framework for the year 2017 and on. But you're right that they changed nothing for pre 2017 oil and gas wells.

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Operating expenses in 2015/16 were 43,189M and are forecast this year to be 44,938M. Not great at 4%, they need to keep it to 2% imo, but a far cry from $6B

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

They could have raised the personal tax rates, even the Corporate tax rates, incentivize people to get that money out of their companies and into their personal hands where the Government makes their cake.

Can you explain how they would incentivize people to get that money out of their company?

What they should have done was stalled the minimum wage increase, canned the Carbon Tax entirely and said: "Hey, now isnt the time to do a Royalty Review" which, while they took their sweet time doing it Oil companies invested their dollars elsewhere.

So in the last paragraph you were wanting employees to be paid more, but you don't want them getting a raise? I seem to recall when the minimum wage was being discussed, numerous posters were adamant that it would have a ripple effect and everyone would be getting a raise, while I don't agree with that, if they are right wouldn't that help employees get paid more?

On your second point, you can blame the royalty review all you want for oil companies investing elsewhere, but can you say with certainty that the actual cause wasn't the price of oil dropping to $30/barrel?

Imposing tons of additional taxes and burdens during a recession while increasing Government costs? Yeah, this is going to set the future up really well.

In your first paragraph you suggested raising taxes, but you don't want them to spend it on anything? So you're suggesting people who are struggling in a bad economy should pay more money so the government can make a nice rainy day fund instead of either side being able spend that money to stimulate the economy? I understand your disagreement with where some of the money is being spent, but you can't seriously be under the impression all this extra money is going towards operations.

I dont even know what else to say. Caution and patience would have been better. Practicality over Ideology.

Caution and patience could have been better, or it could have been worse. We will find out. If oil bounces back to $80/barrel, my guess is we would have a bounce back one way or another. Now consider these scenarios with all these changes they are making, would it be more stable to have these already in place when things start to turn around so when businesses start investing here they know what they are getting into, or would it be more stable to introduce these changes with unknown impact just because more people are employed here buy companies that historically pack up and leave when they feel it's not worth operating here?

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

If you don't want to respond that's fine but why not have the class to not call an opinion that is different than yours "mindless drivel".

But your posts are mindless drivel. You keep inventing numbers wholesale that support your narrative while blindly ignoring things like "reality" and "facts". Enjoy your opinion. It doesn't jive with the real world.

Have you not noticed that you keep demanding that people debate you, only to get outright ignored? It's because nobody wants to waste their time debating a simpleton who has no comprehension as to how things work and gets the fundamentals wrong every single time.

In your entire posting history, the only number I've ever seen you get right is the number of milk jugs that come on a pallet. So get back to work refilling the yogurt and stop pulling BS out of your ass.

My point is valid and relevant

No. No it isn't

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

That's Capital Plan numbers. Infrastructure spending, not operating spending.

And while the forecast this year is calling for 6.5B to be direct borrowing only 1.75B is for the increase in operating costs you are talking about. The rest is Capital Plan, Disaster relief (that's 1B on it's own), etc. They are not spending tonnes of money to keep the lights on as much as people think.