Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Manage the greed? You don't

Taxing profits assumes that the govt can allocate that capital more efficiently. It can't

How do you propose acid rain should have been solved then?

Are you against any regulation or taxation then? Capitalism should be allowed to run unfettered? Where and how do you put limits on it?

Efficiently allocating capital to generate surplus is not always in alignment with the best outcomes of society. Sometimes we need government to poorly allocate capital to areas which would get no capital in the absence of intervention.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I thought it was obvious that "employer" means the people that represent the employer

So I take it that you’re too scared to answer my direct questions. That’s fine but I’ll ask another one anyways.

The employees would likely be getting fired with cause for telling those same people to go #### themselves, are you suggesting that it would be unreasonable to not allow employees who tell their managers something like that?

I’m just trying to determine whether you’re being a hypocrite.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by GGG

How do you propose acid rain should have been solved then?

Are you against any regulation or taxation then? Capitalism should be allowed to run unfettered? Where and how do you put limits on it?

Efficiently allocating capital to generate surplus is not always in alignment with the best outcomes of society. Sometimes we need government to poorly allocate capital to areas which would get no capital in the absence of intervention.

I agree with this. I'm not an absolutist.

[Fuzz]

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/premier-s...-cut-1.7165400


Lol. Remember when this lying #### promised a tax cut, and all the greedy moronic rubes fell for it, because works every time on low IQ voters? Ya, thanks dummies.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/premier-s...-cut-1.7165400


Lol. Remember when this lying #### promised a tax cut, and all the greedy moronic rubes fell for it, because works every time on low IQ voters? Ya, thanks dummies.

I think this is a good broken promise. People were stupid to believe it but they are making the correct policy decision not to have a tax cut.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think this is a good broken promise. People were stupid to believe it but they are making the correct policy decision not to have a tax cut.

This is the same party that expedited the corporate tax cut the campaigned on in their last term.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

This is the same party that expedited the corporate tax cut the campaigned on in their last term.

It's too bad the corporation tax rate isn't zero.

only people pay taxes.

[Monahammer]

some insane neoliberal thought going on in here. 0% corporate tax rate? No regulations?

On the other end, also insanity. People en masse acting "good" with no perceived benefit? Y'all forget about basic human psychology? This is not something that actually happens.
The benefit is always personal: Tax, religious, spiritual, etc. Basically everyone engaging in philanthropy or volunteerism is usually doing it for a personal benefit, however esoteric it may seem to you externally.

BUT this reality is essentially what underpins the social contract of our modern society. We know that people will mostly be self interested over time and over a large population. So we collectively agree the government needs to exist to act unselfishly and do things contrary to the personal interest but in respect of the greater interest.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think this is a good broken promise. People were stupid to believe it but they are making the correct policy decision not to have a tax cut.

It's not good policy to lie to voters, but ya it is more on the voters than her. There were no secrets here.


The tax cut was dumb to start with as policy. I agree.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

This is the same party that expedited the corporate tax cut the campaigned on in their last term.

I’m of the mind set that when someone makes a policy you agree with you don’t complain about it and you give them a small amount of credit for it. I know that many disagree with this concept.

So there past terrible decisions aren’t really relevant when looking at this good decision

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

It's too bad the corporation tax rate isn't zero.

only people pay taxes.

Huh?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Huh?

If I had to guess, that was an attempt at sarcasm. Or saying corporations are people? Goats eat starfish? I dunno, all kinda nonsense goobly####

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I’m of the mind set that when someone makes a policy you agree with you don’t complain about it and you give them a small amount of credit for it. I know that many disagree with this concept.

So there past terrible decisions aren’t really relevant when looking at this good decision

It’s gotta be at least somewhat relevant when both decisions involve tax rates. If our finances aren’t in good enough shape to give a promised tax cut, then it should be fair to question how we ended up in this situation and whether previous policy decisions played a role.

[Fuzz]

Ya, and they can't use the easy excuse of oil prices, and tax returns were higher than expected. Smith was in power, what, 8 months before the election and the party long before that. She should be answering hard questions of how they got it so wrong.


Of course, we know the real answer. She has zero shame lying to voters to get elected. Hopefully people remember that next time.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GGG

I’m of the mind set that when someone makes a policy you agree with you don’t complain about it and you give them a small amount of credit for it. I know that many disagree with this concept.

So there past terrible decisions aren’t really relevant when looking at this good decision

Well, not really when it was a lie to get elected and they then do basically what the party they ran against said they'd do.

[PepsiFree]

Speaking of the whole do what I say/not as I do thing. It’s kind of funny that the UCP whines about the carbon tax and how bad it is for Albertans, showed us that they can just not charge us their portion of the carbon tax, and then put it back in anyway.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

some insane neoliberal thought going on in here. 0% corporate tax rate? No regulations?

On the other end, also insanity. People en masse acting "good" with no perceived benefit? Y'all forget about basic human psychology? This is not something that actually happens.
The benefit is always personal: Tax, religious, spiritual, etc. Basically everyone engaging in philanthropy or volunteerism is usually doing it for a personal benefit, however esoteric it may seem to you externally.

BUT this reality is essentially what underpins the social contract of our modern society. We know that people will mostly be self interested over time and over a large population. So we collectively agree the government needs to exist to act unselfishly and do things contrary to the personal interest but in respect of the greater interest.

the question is and always has been, to what degree is government involvement productive, and when does it become a negative drag on the common good.

We're well past the point where gov't is causing greater good....but how far past are we?

There are some easy things a gov't should handle - key infrastructure, border security, criminal law, a robust judiciary to ensure proper ownership rights, and others. But gov't no longer unlocks the wealth creation potential of the populace, but hinders it.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

some insane neoliberal thought going on in here. 0% corporate tax rate? No regulations?

On the other end, also insanity. People en masse acting "good" with no perceived benefit? Y'all forget about basic human psychology? This is not something that actually happens.
The benefit is always personal: Tax, religious, spiritual, etc. Basically everyone engaging in philanthropy or volunteerism is usually doing it for a personal benefit, however esoteric it may seem to you externally.

BUT this reality is essentially what underpins the social contract of our modern society. We know that people will mostly be self interested over time and over a large population. So we collectively agree the government needs to exist to act unselfishly and do things contrary to the personal interest but in respect of the greater interest.

There are probably better ways for gov't to generate revenue than corporate taxes (or really any income tax).

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

the question is and always has been, to what degree is government involvement productive, and when does it become a negative drag on the common good.

We're well past the point where gov't is causing greater good....but how far past are we?

There are some easy things a gov't should handle - key infrastructure, border security, criminal law, a robust judiciary to ensure proper ownership rights, and others. But gov't no longer unlocks the wealth creation potential of the populace, but hinders it.

ignore the bolding for a second, but i want to note that you said that.

Can you elucidate for me the reasons you think that government is now hindering wealth creation?

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

There are probably better ways for gov't to generate revenue than corporate taxes (or really any income tax).

Yeah, I actually agree with this to some extent, but I'll use a more specific example of why I think this is happening:

The government could, for example, greatly increase the royalties it collects on resource extraction. After all, the crown ultimately owns the minerals and other things we stand on. But, if this were the case, it would be difficult for venture capital to access the resource development market because they'd be calculating the cost to access the resources before their profit is established, making the project economics more difficult. Taxing the profit instead removes this impediment, and allows for better tax handling for corporations and development.

It breaks down when you apply this to roads or infrastructure development... should we have tolls on basically everything? At this point IMO the argument becomes for efficiency.

It's not a perfect system, and we could change it, but ultimately taxes on corporate and individual profits are potentially less inefficient than other models.