[News Roundup] CSEC/City arena deal UPDATED: Third Party Facilitator

[PuckSlap]

O-k-guys enough-is- enough


Bo is absolutely correct about the people on these forums. They are primarily ndp and or have liberal opinions on everything. It’s an echo chamber.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PuckSlap

O-k-guys enough-is- enough


Bo is absolutely correct about the people on these forums. They are primarily ndp and or have liberal opinions on everything. It’s an echo chamber.

Awww. Have they invaded your safe place?

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by PuckSlap

O-k-guys enough-is- enough

Was this a stroke?

There's no echo chamber here. Plenty of the people you're accusing of being in an echo chamber routinely disagree about a wide variety of topics.
There may be an echo chamber specifically pertaining to some prospect development but that's it.

The strongest block, as logically follows by this ridiculous projection, is the hard right liners here. Bo Levi is just the current mouthpiece of the mouthbreathers.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by PuckSlap

O-k-guys enough-is- enough


Bo is absolutely correct about the people on these forums. They are primarily ndp and or have liberal opinions on everything. It’s an echo chamber.

The right has gotten so stupid and far removed from reality its hard to support them anymore

these aren't the progressive conservatives from years past. Things like human rights are not political opinions, if you oppose them or support those that do you deserve to be mocked and booed for being on the wrong side of history.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

If lowering tax rates has a minimal impact on attracting investment -as you claim- then there is no conundrum at all as your tax strategy would have "minimal" impact.

I mean no.

That’s not what I wrote.

But all you did was make my point for me. Lowering corporate taxes isn’t providing the investment , or impact we want -but is costing us

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Awww. Have they invaded your safe place?

Be nice. For some of these guys this board is the only interaction they have with anyone outside their limited bubble. They see one post about being a nicer person and suddenly they’re off telling cousin Jedediah they found a place on the internet that’s all full up with communist homos.

He’s just on his path to discovering the big ole’ world out there.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by PuckSlap

O-k-guys enough-is- enough


Bo is absolutely correct about the people on these forums. They are primarily ndp and or have liberal opinions on everything. It’s an echo chamber.

I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or no but if not I think it’s funny you posted this when you did

Because I think Bo and I were agreed on many other issues here. I could be wrong but I think it’s the same poster.

Which would make your point incorrect

[FanIn80]

Wait... so are we getting an arena?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Things like human rights are not political opinions, if you oppose them or support those that do you deserve to be mocked and booed for being on the wrong side of history.

Are you saying we shouldn’t support a party that does things like implement minimum wage legislation that discriminates against a person based on their age, an area protected in our provincial human rights act?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Wait... so are we getting an arena?

My understanding based on the last few pages is not unless we lower our taxes.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mull

I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or no but if not I think it’s funny you posted this when you did

Because I think Bo and I were agreed on many other issues here. I could be wrong but I think it’s the same poster.

Which would make your point incorrect

Originally Posted by Mull

t this increase in investment can be pretty minimal,

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with your points.

I am showing that your points are contradictory.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by PuckSlap

O-k-guys enough-is- enough


Bo is absolutely correct about the people on these forums. They are primarily ndp and or have liberal opinions on everything. It’s an echo chamber.

Are you not familiar with Fiscal Conservatism?

[Mull]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with your points.

I am showing that your points are contradictory.

But they aren’t.

We have discussed two types of positive impacts of lowering corporate taxes.

1. Increased local investment

-our corporate tax rates are so low they have diminishing returns on investment
-studies have shown that we are rates are low enough the investment increased by them does not offset the cost of reduced taxes


2. Stealing business
-when one jurisdiction set artificial low rates (ie Alberta ) it creates a prisoner dilemma because other jurisdictions feel the need to match or loose business
-yet - the amount of business that actually moves is highly debated but - the kicker is you’re not creating investment just leeching it.
- do you create a race to the bottom to push taxes lower - all the while getting less and less positive investment due to diminishing returns? This hurts all of society
- this is similar to price waring with corporations -avoid at all cost. The increased demand doesn’t outpace the losses from the reduced cost unless you eliminate your competitors- we can’t eliminate Saskatchewan


We need to strive for minimum business taxes that allow for efficient reinvestment- setting rates below that creates a race to the bottom gaining society very little

Edit/ we need to strive for an agreement on minimum tax rates - and acknowledge there can be good reason to go above them but set the floor across jurisdictions.

[terryclancy]

It’s almost like that guy said when Reagan and the people he fronted for eviscerated the tax base: “Trickle-down theory would be great if not for all the sponges at the top.”

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mull

But they aren’t.

We have discussed two types of positive impacts of lowering corporate taxes.

1. Increased local investment

-our corporate tax rates are so low they have diminishing returns on investment
-studies have shown that we are rates are low enough the investment increased by them does not offset the cost of reduced taxes


2. Stealing business
-when one jurisdiction set artificial low rates (ie Alberta ) it creates a prisoner dilemma because other jurisdictions feel the need to match or loose business
-yet - the amount of business that actually moves is highly debated but - the kicker is you’re not creating investment just leeching it.
- do you create a race to the bottom to push taxes lower - all the while getting less and less positive investment due to diminishing returns? This hurts all of society
- this is similar to price waring with corporations -avoid at all cost. The increased demand doesn’t outpace the losses from the reduced cost unless you eliminate your competitors- we can’t eliminate Saskatchewan


We need to strive for minimum business taxes that allow for efficient reinvestment- setting rates below that creates a race to the bottom gaining society very little

The fallacy you are describing is that the pie of "investment" is fixed. Economic activity can grow the pie.

When you talk about reducing tax rates, and the cost of that - how would you describe those costs? The public sector as it stands has ballooned to a far larger scale than is useful for enabling economic activity and the creation of wealth. So I consider any cost to reducing taxes as dubious.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Mull

But they aren’t.

We have discussed two types of positive impacts of lowering corporate taxes.

1. Increased local investment

-our corporate tax rates are so low they have diminishing returns on investment
-studies have shown that we are rates are low enough the investment increased by them does not offset the cost of reduced taxes


2. Stealing business
-when one jurisdiction set artificial low rates (ie Alberta ) it creates a prisoner dilemma because other jurisdictions feel the need to match or loose business
-yet - the amount of business that actually moves is highly debated but - the kicker is you’re not creating investment just leeching it.
- do you create a race to the bottom to push taxes lower - all the while getting less and less positive investment due to diminishing returns? This hurts all of society
- this is similar to price waring with corporations -avoid at all cost. The increased demand doesn’t outpace the losses from the reduced cost unless you eliminate your competitors- we can’t eliminate Saskatchewan


We need to strive for minimum business taxes that allow for efficient reinvestment- setting rates below that creates a race to the bottom gaining society very little

Edit/ we need to strive for an agreement on minimum tax rates - and acknowledge there can be good reason to go above them but set the floor across jurisdictions.

You're also leaving out that the primary reasons for investment are almost never "the tax rate". Sometimes, those investment decisions include Operating costs, which would include yearly corporate tax, property tax, utilities, etc, but much more of the balance in these costs is actually labor. Labor availability and Talent are also generally much higher priorities. Finally, resource availability and construction costs.

Corporate taxes matter most to advanced companies and fresh startups. Growing companies in the mid growth stage probably aren't considering tax rates too much. Fresh startups deserve incentives- it's hard to start a business and we shouldn't punish risk takers who are trying to create additional jobs, products, and future tax revenues in the jurisdiction. But advanced corporations? Those tax breaks are going to stock buy backs and executive bonuses.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

The fallacy you are describing is that the pie of "investment" is fixed. Economic activity can grow the pie.

When you talk about reducing tax rates, and the cost of that - how would you describe those costs? The public sector as it stands has ballooned to a far larger scale than is useful for enabling economic activity and the creation of wealth. So I consider any cost to reducing taxes as dubious.

You keep going back I don’t know why. The concept of the growth of the pie was never rebutted by me- what I said was that pie grows at a reduced rate when taxes are too low and it’s not efficient.

To answer your question - well even the most ardent tax hater would like to reduce our deficit.

But I don’t agree with the argument our public sector is as bloated as you say.

Where is the excess cost? I would bloat it more with capital investments in roads, trains, etc (not arenas).

What do you want to cut? You say it’s bloated fine - what in the Alberta budget should be cut.

Because I can think of many things that might save us money if we spent more now. Like mental health and addiction services.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

You're also leaving out that the primary reasons for investment are almost never "the tax rate". Sometimes, those investment decisions include Operating costs, which would include yearly corporate tax, property tax, utilities, etc, but much more of the balance in these costs is actually labor. Labor availability and Talent are also generally much higher priorities. Finally, resource availability and construction costs.

Corporate taxes matter most to advanced companies and fresh startups. Growing companies in the mid growth stage probably aren't considering tax rates too much. Fresh startups deserve incentives- it's hard to start a business and we shouldn't punish risk takers who are trying to create additional jobs, products, and future tax revenues in the jurisdiction. But advanced corporations? Those tax breaks are going to stock buy backs and executive bonuses.

I don’t disagree with this but it I think I covered it with speaking to the reduced efficiency of lower taxes

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mull

You keep going back I don’t know why. The concept of the growth of the pie was never rebutted by me- what I said was that pie grows at a reduced rate when taxes are too low and it’s not efficient.

To answer your question - well even the most ardent tax hater would like to reduce our deficit.

But I don’t agree with the argument our public sector is as bloated as you say.

Where is the excess cost? I would bloat it more with capital investments in roads, trains, etc (not arenas).

What do you want to cut? You say it’s bloated fine - what in the Alberta budget should be cut.

Because I can think of many things that might save us money if we spent more now. Like mental health and addiction services.

Without wandering too much...I'll go back to your previous point about the dilemma you describe.

You are suggesting two things:

1. that jurisdictions have a dilemma about whether to lower taxes or not
2. that tax strategy does not draw investment

Both of these claims cannot be true at the same time.

[PuckSlap]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Are you saying we shouldn’t support a party that does things like implement minimum wage legislation that discriminates against a person based on their age, an area protected in our provincial human rights act?

Implementation of a minimum wage is good.

Now, add taxes, hour cuts, inflation. You are back to square one. Nobody can survive off of what minimum wage is. It’s not about minimum wage, it’s about small businesses not being able to keep employees at that rate, give them the hours they need to survive.