Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[bizaro86]

I proposed something similar to the AB Liberals tax proposal on this forum in 2015. At that time, I estimated a 15% PST would be sufficient to completely eliminate the provincial income tax. 10% with a high bar for paying AB income tax and some corporate tax cuts thrown in seems like a reasonable compromise to me. If I thought the AB Liberals had any chance of electing someone in my riding I'd probably vote for them based on this.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...80&postcount=9

An alternative plan which I think is more economically sound is to cancel income taxes altogether, and introduce a 15% provincial portion of HST, for a total sales tax of 20%. This would raise revenues, while providing a bigger incentive to save rather than spend. Also, it would reduce or keep costs the same for those with low middle income. That is because those at very low income buy mostly exempt or zero rated goods (groceries, rent, utilities, transit passes) and the small non exempt purchases would be covered by the larger HST rebate. Middle income types still spend significant portions of income on exempt/zero rated goods (same as above but maybe mortgage/insurance instead of rent), so 15% on a portion is likely to be less than 10% on the majority of income. It's the upper income types who would pay the incremental taxes on SUVs, lattes, and newbuild McMansions where the increase would come from.

A 15% sales tax would be sufficient. In 2011 (latest data I could find) $4.1 billion of GST was collected in Alberta. (1) The province is bigger now, so its probably gone up, but you'd lose some shoppers in Lloydminister and things like that. Figure 15% gives you a $12.3 billion revenue increase. In the last fiscal update,(2) the AB gov't forecast $11.0 billion in personal income tax. So this would raise revenue slightly in the long term. An additional benefit is AB would get billions in cash right now from the Feds for implementing an HST instead of a PST, which we could use to ride out the current downturn and invest infrastructure/new schools while construction prices are low.



(1) http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/stts/g...able02-eng.pdf
(2) http://finance.alberta.ca/publicatio...cal-Update.pdf

Edited to add: If this didn't raise enough revenue, I'd be ok with an excise tax of a few percent on very high incomes. Something like 3% over some high bar (250k, maybe?).

[Weitz]

Are the AB liberals really relevant? Not really sure their tax platform is really worth discussing.

They rolled out a plan today to give municipal districts and the like more political powers and give them a veto over O&G projects

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Are the AB liberals really relevant? Not really sure their tax platform is really worth discussing.

They rolled out a plan today to give municipal districts and the like more political powers and give them a veto over O&G projects

That's like asking why are we talking about the Oilers since they aren't relevant.

Sometimes it's good to see what the others are up to.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by V

???

I don’t really understand what you’re saying here. Are you taking issue with my statement that she’s anti-oil? Or that she’s trying to sewer the industry?

Fortunately you’re right, in a way. She can’t do whatever she wants. She tried that earlier in the term, but kept getting slapped down with court challenges. So now she’s trying the more indirect route by appointing her demonstrated anti-oil friends to important positions with the regulator. And while she’s doing that damage, she’s taking the even more indirect route of doing nothing to actually help anything, and in fact downplays the importance of pipeline projects.

If you think that appointment makes a hill of beans difference in how the AER operates, than i think you are badly overestimating what one term of patronage can do against 4 decades of the same by the Tories.

[Bunk]

Good OPPO podcast episode dedicated to the Alberta election.

https://www.canadalandshow.com/podca...60000-problem/

[Corral]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Then I would expect that during a campaign she would be screaming from the rooftops how she will champion all the new pipelines we could possibly build and to get every ounce of oil out of the ground we can to really get the economy going and gets people working good paying jobs....etc, all while using the carbon tax to actually lower emissions (a lie) so there would be a positive trade off. She should be screaming bloody murder on C-69, but nary a peep.

Instead all she prattles on about is that Kenney was in Ottawa and while there...no new pipelines were built (which is patently false, but i digress) and that going forward we cant look to the past. Not sure what that has to do with her actively and pruposely helping destroy Northern Gateway and EE. At the very least I would never ever expect a sitting premier who wants pipeline capacity to be the most it can, to appoint a former Pembina Institute director and well known anti-oil activist (as well as being on the Tides payroll) to a 5 year stint on the AER. I would never have expected she would hire Bermman and I sure as hell would not expect her to appoint Shannon freaking Phillips as the Enviroment Minister. I mean its just absurd to not see whats going on unless you dont wish to.


Instead she actually suggests that petro-chemical plants are the wave of the future for this province industrial sector.......all the while there are literally hundreds of billions of dollars just sitting in the ground that can be extracted and sold as among the most responsibly mined resources on earth.

She is a great leader for that party and certainly has a charisma that people bought into 4 years ago and may so again. That does not preclude her from being very anti-oil. Her hiring and appointments only reinforce that.

To believe anything else is beyond naive.

Bill C 69 is already being killed by the Senate and frankly it is difficult to really understand what substantive changes it would make anyways. Most people who clamour on about Bill C 69 have no real idea what is in it. Why bother?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Corral

If you think that appointment makes a hill of beans difference in how the AER operates, than i think you are badly overestimating what one term of patronage can do against 4 decades of the same by the Tories.

Really, you're going to downplay how awful it looks for the NDP to appoint someone to one of roles of director overseeing the regulator for oil and gas in this province with someone who took money from foreign environmental groups for the sole purpose of destroying said industry?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Are the AB liberals really relevant? Not really sure their tax platform is really worth discussing.

They rolled out a plan today to give municipal districts and the like more political powers and give them a veto over O&G projects

I didn't read much into that, but wasn't it just a veto on drilling within municipalities? Which sounds just fine to me. But maybe it was more than that.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Really, you're going to downplay how awful it looks for the NDP to appoint someone to the role of regulating oil and gas in this province with someone who took money from foreign environmental groups for the sole purpose of destroying said industry?

Yes because i know it is a partisan appointment at the end of a term to a position with next to zero authority to even have a say in how the AER operates. Does anyone here even know what a single AER director actually does over there? Nothing on the ground, i can tell you that for sure.



If the NDP really wanted to change the culture at the AER, it would have done so back in 2016.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Corral

Bill C 69 is already being killed by the Senate and frankly it is difficult to really understand what substantive changes it would make anyways. Most people who clamour on about Bill C 69 have no real idea what is in it. Why bother?

Oh the irony.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Corral

Yes because i know it is a partisan appointment at the end of a term to a position with next to zero authority to even have a say in how the AER operates. Does anyone here even know what a single AER director actually does over there? Nothing on the ground, i can tell you that for sure.



If the NDP really wanted to change the culture at the AER, it would have done so back in 2016.

He's one of only 5 board members who oversee the regulator. He sure as heck has more influence than most!

[V]

Originally Posted by Corral

If you think that appointment makes a hill of beans difference in how the AER operates, than i think you are badly overestimating what one term of patronage can do against 4 decades of the same by the Tories.

So now instead of it being impossible that she’s anti-oil you’re now saying it’s irrelevant? Just trying to understand.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I was just doing some reviewing of the electoral math on 338 and I just noticed how 'bozo-eruption proof' Kenney's majority government poll position actually is.

Take a look at each region, Southern Alberta, Northern Alberta, Calgary, & Edmonton:

http://alberta.338canada.com/

44 Seats are needed for a majority. There are 19 seats in Southern Alberta, 22 in Northern Alberta, 26 in Calgary, & 20 in Edmonton.

There are only 2-3 seats they could realistically lose in Southern & Northern Alberta regions which gives them a minimum of 38 seats before even having to win anything inside Calgary or Edmonton:

http://alberta.338canada.com/districts/south.htm

http://alberta.338canada.com/districts/north.htm

Now take a look at Edmonton. Since the Education platform was announced the GSA issue has clearly cost them there as you can see the popular vote vs. the NDP diverge, but there's still two solidly UPC ridings (Edmonton South & Edmonton South West) that adds two seats bring the total up to 40:

http://alberta.338canada.com/districts/edmonton.htm

Now look at Calgary:

http://alberta.338canada.com/districts/calgary.htm

The popular vote stayed stable through the Education platform announcement and they are projecting 18 seats. Given that they have basically 40 in their back pocket going into Calgary, they only need 4-5 seats in Calgary to form a majority government. Of those ridings there are some very safe UCP seats. They could take a beating in the popular vote over the next 3 weeks, but their vote is so efficient and the rural ridings so gerrymandered relative to population that it would be highly difficult for the NDP to break through. If that was my intelligence, no wonder the Kenney camp didn't feel they needed to break with their grassroots on the GSA issue.

Interesting info. Thanks for posting.

That sets up an interesting potential scenario where Kenney loses Edmonton in a landslide, barely wins or perhaps even doesn’t in YYC, and still forms government. It would be a big problem for Alberta to have the government not clearly supported in either place.

[V]

Interesting that the NDP didn’t fix this before their term was up. Probably should have.

[CliffFletcher]

It's funny how we shake our heads at the effed up gerrymandering of seats in the U.S., but ignore the egregious rural/urban gerrymandering here in Alberta. Why this isn't an issue with urban voters is beyond me. I'd honestly vote for a party solely on a promise to redistrict the provincial ridings to assure all votes in the province are equal (and yes, I know it's done by a panel, but the government has some say in it).

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It's funny how we shake our heads at the effed up gerrymandering of seats in the U.S., but ignore the egregious rural/urban gerrymandering here in Alberta. Why this isn't an issue with urban voters is beyond me. I'd honestly vote for a party solely on a promise to redistrict the provincial ridings to assure all votes in the province are equal (and yes, I know it's done by a panel, but the government has some say in it).

Im surprised the AB Party hasn't promised this as they have promised almost everything to everybody everywhere else.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Oh the irony.

Yeah I'm pretty sure CAPP, the government of Saskatchewan, Petroleum Services Association of Canada, Suncor, CNRL, Cenovus, Enbridge, Transcanada, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, multiple banks, and others didn't even read the bill. Their opposition mostly focuses around the appropriation of "69" from sexual position term to legislation connotation.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It's funny how we shake our heads at the effed up gerrymandering of seats in the U.S., but ignore the egregious rural/urban gerrymandering here in Alberta. Why this isn't an issue with urban voters is beyond me. I'd honestly vote for a party solely on a promise to redistrict the provincial ridings to assure all votes in the province are equal (and yes, I know it's done by a panel, but the government has some say in it).

How so? Location based with roughly 40,000-50,000 in each location (outside of one or two districts including the new one). I don't think there's nearly as nefarious plots to create gerrymandered districts here. They aren't looking at Calgary communities and deciding that if they split Temple from Rundle they can stop the Alberta Liberals from claiming a seat.

You could do some form of percentage distribution to allocate the seats, but then how do you decide who represents which district? The current system, in theory, has you electing an MLA who represents your location.

Maybe you don't like the system, fair enough, but to call it gerrymandering is misinterpreting what gerrymandering means; which is manipulating boundaries to split votes and ensure you're party gets more seats. I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with any actual cases of that. What you seem to want is a change to the system which is different.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Corral

Bill C 69 is already being killed by the Senate and frankly it is difficult to really understand what substantive changes it would make anyways. Most people who clamour on about Bill C 69 have no real idea what is in it. Why bother?

Please show me where Bill C-69 is going to be killed by the Senate, while they are doing a study of it, its likely that the "Independent" Senators nee Liberals will pass the bill through the senate without substantive changes.


And yeah, I'm pretty secure in the knowledge that Bill C-69 which opens up consultations to every environmental group that wants to plug projects up, takes gender and down stream emission effects into consideration and allows cabinet ministers like the Minister of Environment to simply kill projects is a deal breaker for anyone that's looking to do any project here.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Yeah I'm pretty sure CAPP, the government of Saskatchewan, Petroleum Services Association of Canada, Suncor, CNRL, Cenovus, Enbridge, Transcanada, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, multiple banks, and others didn't even read the bill. Their opposition mostly focuses around the appropriation of "69" from sexual position term to legislation connotation.

Everyone on your list would bark at any proposed legislation that purports to require an assessment of their projects.

Truth be told - there is still no public word on exactly what projects the impact assessment act will apply to. The requirements in that proposed legislation are not much different from what is currently in existence - and how many projects has that stopped? Maybe a handful over 8 years. The pipeline delays have nothing to do with what is in bill c 69. In fact, I suspect nobody on either side of the political spectrum really loses any sleep over whether bill c 69 survives or not.