Kevin O'Leary's Letter to Premier Notley - Carbon Tax Discussion

[Slava]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Well instead of saying most effective I should have said cheapest method to reduce emissions. What I think gets lost is that that kind of statement is taken as because of the tax people drive less and reduce emissions. While that is part that is also a very small almost inconsequential part.

Much larger is how the pricing effects the commodity as a whole. By increasing the price is makes alternatives more profitable and lucrative. It incentivizes more research and development into alternatives. Solar and wind power is no where near ready to take over the grid, but unless we make it more cost effective to increase our development there it just won't happen.

Alberta is also in a unique position that it needs revenue badly. Cuts need to be made but there is a much larger revenue problem by decades of supplementing with oil money. I don't see that a revenue neutral carbon tax acts any differently unless all other factors remain the same, which they won't.

Many Albertans don't want any new taxes, but that just isn't an option anymore, oil can't bail us out. People keep pointing at BC for a revenue neutral carbon tax, but if we were to take BC's tax scheme we would have a much more progressive income tax regime (way more wealth redistribution than there is now) plus a 7% PST. I am all for it. The problem is people want revenue neutral and no other increased costs... unfortunately that just isn't possible.

The NDP dressed up a PST in a carbon tax dress and sent it to prom, I'm not denying that. But instead of administering two programs, we now only administer one, reducing beaurocracy and overall costs. Isn't that a good thing?

I was on that page myself, but I have to admit I'm coming around to the dark side. I took a spin through the revenues and populations of our neighbours and frankly Alberta seems to have higher revenues on a per capita basis than either BC or Saskatchewan. Granted, that is my "back of the envelope" calculation and its not perfect, but it does beg a particularly important question. If we have more revenue for the government per capita and ostensibly are providing the same services the is the problem revenue or spending?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Slava

I was on that page myself, but I have to admit I'm coming around to the dark side. I took a spin through the revenues and populations of our neighbours and frankly Alberta seems to have higher revenues on a per capita basis than either BC or Saskatchewan. Granted, that is my "back of the envelope" calculation and its not perfect, but it does beg a particularly important question. If we have more revenue for the government per capita and ostensibly are providing the same services the is the problem revenue or spending?

might be the interesting way that BC does it's accounting.

'Taxes' may not have gone up, but ICBC premiums, BC Hydro, MSP etc etc have all gone up considerably while services have fallen off a cliff.

I think in the last 5 years my MSP premiums have risen more than 40%

[IliketoPuck]

BC Hydro is also guilty of substantially overbuilding capacity, so there's that side of the coin too.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

BC Hydro is also guilty of substantially overbuilding capacity, so there's that side of the coin too.

This province is a giant ####show.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

might be the interesting way that BC does it's accounting.

'Taxes' may not have gone up, but ICBC premiums, BC Hydro, MSP etc etc have all gone up considerably while services have fallen off a cliff.

I think in the last 5 years my MSP premiums have risen more than 40%

Yeah I didn't delve super deep, and basically just looked at the overall revenues. But at the end of the day the money comes from the same pocket, right? We are either paying taxes or user fees or whatever. But if the province is taking in a chunk of money to provide service and it's not less than their neighbors, do we really need increased taxation?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yeah I didn't delve super deep, and basically just looked at the overall revenues. But at the end of the day the money comes from the same pocket, right? We are either paying taxes or user fees or whatever. But if the province is taking in a chunk of money to provide service and it's not less than their neighbors, do we really need increased taxation?

Well again, you're making a comparison to a poorly mismanaged province plagued by corruption.

Like, I had a friend come over after having some flooring re-done. We're talking about the quote for the company I used and balks when I tell him the cost. He tells me he had a guy come in for about 25% less to do some flooring in his house.

Turns out, the flooring in his house looks like ####. Gaps along the wall, a couple of loose boards, a squeak here and there.

If you asked me whether it was worth it to get a #### job done for 25% less I would say no.

This is where BC is at and I don't know if Albertans should be looking this way with admiration. I just did some work with some conservation officers who were telling me that they receive more than twice as many calls about conservation act and other laws being broken but have seen their actual staffing number decline massively over the same period. An excellent Walrus article about derelict vessels and the water act along the BC coast paints a similar picture.

So while BC residents are using conservation services at twice the rate they were ten years ago, conservation services have about 30% less staff to handle these calls as they did 10 years previous. Enforcement, prosecutions and convictions have predictably tumbled as well.

The same is true with things like the BC Ambulance service, mental health services, or education where BC has the second lowest per capita education spending in the country.

There is an optimal standard for taxation but BC has blown right by it and are doing everything in their power to keep the Vancouver housing gravy train going. Without it, though, BC would be in the same position Alberta is in, woefully under taxed and struggling to find ways to fill the revenue gap. BC is just keeping their heads above water by making one-time land title sales to push the budget back into the black. Their actual taxation policy however is leaving the province in the red.

[Fuzz]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...929133?cmp=rss

"It's disappointing that the company is choosing to increase their costs — which is a business decision should they so choose — but to blame the carbon levy is more than a little misleading to consumers," Bilous said.

I'm sorry, but how is it not 100% accurate to blame the carbon tax for the increased cost, when the source of the increase in cost is the carbon tax?

Yes, they made the mistake of overcharging, but the principle remains.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...929133?cmp=rss

I'm sorry, but how is it not 100% accurate to blame the carbon tax for the increased cost, when the source of the increase in cost is the carbon tax?

Yes, they made the mistake of overcharging, but the principle remains.

The key quote of the entire article:

But then Rowat asked her accountants to double-check — and they found they were off by a decimal point.

[Fuzz]

No, that's the honest mistake part which the business immediately rectified, apologized for and corrected.. The key part is the minister stating it is "disappointing" that a business is choosing to pass the cost directly on to the customer, and that by stating on a bill that the business is being misleading. How TF is that misleading? It seems the government position is that it is up to business to eat the tax, not pass it on.

[Ozy_Flame]

While I don't doubt they are sorry for the "decimal" mistake, it happened on two people's bills, and this likely wouldn't have been corrected had the story not made it to the media, or if the two families dinged didn't make a stink.

Keep in mind, these are businesses and they charge stupid fees for stuff all the time. Since most people don't know how much / what is appropriate for end-to-end funeral services, it would be quite easy to slip an admin fee (or something equivalent) and customers be none the wiser as to how much the fee should actually be. My experience has been that car dealerships and event planning services do this regularly, wouldn't surprise me if other businesses do it too.

[White Out 403]

Wait, a business acted with questionable ethics? Must be the first time. And a funeral home too. They're the most honest and trustworthy of all businesses.

Shocking.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

No, that's the honest mistake part which the business immediately rectified, apologized for and corrected.. The key part is the minister stating it is "disappointing" that a business is choosing to pass the cost directly on to the customer, and that by stating on a bill that the business is being misleading. How TF is that misleading? It seems the government position is that it is up to business to eat the tax, not pass it on.

At the time of the quote did the Minister know it ended up just being a miscalculation? One of the biggest problems with Australia's carbon tax and why it ended up being revoked was the profiteering that went on. Carbon tax increases costs 1%, company ups their prices 10% and blame it on the carbon tax.

This kind of action is disappointing, and when asked about $100 bill tacked on to a cremation bill that is exactly what it looks like. I would prefer the exact carbon price amount be shown, like the GST, if necessary. Highway 9's carbon surcharge of 0.8% is perfectly reasonable to me and transparent to the customer. $100 handwritten add-on is neither.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

While I don't doubt they are sorry for the "decimal" mistake, it happened on two people's bills, and this likely wouldn't have been corrected had the story not made it to the media, or if the two families dinged didn't make a stink.

If you are doing a calculation for the first time and you screw it up, I would not be surprised if you screw it up the same way the next time. Or the time after that until you realize and fix your formula/spreadsheet/calculation.

And I guess if you are a larger individual, it would cost you more to burn you up.

[Fuzz]

The problem is, no one knows the exact cost. You know what it is on your gas bill, not so much how it has affected the electricity part. You know what it is on your vehicle fuel, but not how your suppliers may be passing it on to you. That's where it gets into a big grey area.

[InglewoodFan]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

No, that's the honest mistake part which the business immediately rectified, apologized for and corrected.. The key part is the minister stating it is "disappointing" that a business is choosing to pass the cost directly on to the customer, and that by stating on a bill that the business is being misleading. How TF is that misleading? It seems the government position is that it is up to business to eat the tax, not pass it on.

I do find it misleading in that they made it a line item. If I see a line item tax on an invoice, my expectation is that portion of the invoice is being remitted directly to the government - for example the GST. You've commented yourself that it is impossible to know the exact cost of the carbon tax, so why give the impression that they know the exact value by making it a specific line item. Liquor taxes are an exact amount and they aren't itemized on my liquor store receipt, why would the carbon tax be?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by InglewoodFan

I do find it misleading in that they made it a line item. If I see a line item tax on an invoice, my expectation is that portion of the invoice is being remitted directly to the government - for example the GST. You've commented yourself that it is impossible to know the exact cost of the carbon tax, so why give the impression that they know the exact value by making it a specific line item. Liquor taxes are an exact amount and they aren't itemized on my liquor store receipt, why would the carbon tax be?

Well other businesses have done this as well. I've seen the carbon tax surcharge itemized as a line item and I presume that is so the business doesn't field a million questions from people about why they increased their prices (if they buried it).

This isn't really new though. Airlines all added fuel surcharges years ago when prices were high. It's itemized, but it's not going to the government either.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Isn't it listed as a surcharge to defray the carbon tax? That's a reasonable line item to include on a bill, much as you get a fuel surcharge despite the fact that it doesn't necessarily correlate to your share of the fuel costs for the flight. It's, "we have to pay for this thing, and we're passing the cost on to you by charging you $X in addition to what we would otherwise charge if we didn't have to pay it... but we're also telling you that we're doing that rather than just including it as part of the overall price." Nothing remotely misleading about that.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Isn't it listed as a surcharge to defray the carbon tax? That's a reasonable line item to include on a bill, much as you get a fuel surcharge despite the fact that it doesn't necessarily correlate to your share of the fuel costs for the flight. It's, "we have to pay for this thing, and we're passing the cost on to you by charging you $X in addition to what we would otherwise charge if we didn't have to pay it... but we're also telling you that we're doing that rather than just including it as part of the overall price." Nothing remotely misleading about that.

It's a marketing scheme so they can leave the advertised price lower and so the consumer blames the government instead of the business.

If the number is accurate it is not misleading at the time of purchase but if different businesses apply different post price fees its more difficult compare real costs for the consumer and therefore could be misleading.

Kind of like a $99 air fair to London.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

It's a marketing scheme so they can leave the advertised price lower and so the consumer blames the government instead of the business. If the number is accurate it is not misleading at the time of purchase but if different businesses apply different post price fees its more difficult compare real costs for the consumer and therefore could be misleading.

Kind of like a $99 air fair to London.

Yes, that's true, it's basically "don't blame us, we don't want to charge you this much. Teh gov'mint is making us do it." But you know what you're paying and what the components of it are you're not being misled. I know what I'm paying for that flight to London before I give them my credit card number, and I know how much of it is airport fee, tax, fuel surcharge etc.

[chemgear]

Not sure what makes the auto industry different, probably because it's centered around Ontario I guess.

http://business.financialpost.com/ne...ssions-sources


Canadian auto industry executives are asking government ministers on Wednesday to mitigate the costs of reducing carbon emissions under a new program designed to help fight climate change, two sources familiar with the matter said.

“This could be more burdensome for manufacturers, if Canada is doing cap-and-trade but Trump is cutting back regulations,” said one of the sources.