Alberta Politics Thread

[The Coppernian One]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The funny thing though, is that the rich and ultra rich that can eat this without trouble make up a pretty small slice of the tax payer pie.

Its sounds good in an election campaign when you angrily slam the podium and yell "Cornswarnit, we'll make the rich pay more", and sure they should thats why they pay more taxes percentage wise then the middle class or poor. But as governments are finding out there aren't billions and billions of dollars being mined from the rich and super rich because they make up a fairly small percentage of the population, I think its in the area of 1%.

So then its back to the podium, "Conswarnit, we'll tax everyone" which fine, but when you spend foolishly, or come up with an ill conceived notion that "If you buy a $10,000 dollar furnace and buy a new car, you'll pay a bit less in taxes". At which point the lower and lower middle class start to wonder what dog food tastes like.

To further this, some may may just opt to pay, but even that has consequences. I could trade my truck in for a more fuel efficient car, but given where I live and the amount of driving that I do, especially in winter, that's not going to happen. What will happen is that I will pay the increased prices and not have that money available to spend on other things that help keep other people working and in turn generate taxes. That means less money spent in restaurants, for entertainment, buy lumber at the local hardware store for hobby projects, etc. both in my local community and elsewhere.

The tax will also cause property tax increases (right now municipalities and school boards are not exempt) which also means less to spend elsewhere.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Locke

I find it particularly funny when people point to the antique Tax Rates that the top earners were required to pay in the 75% range in the early 1900s.

Yeah, because at that time moving your money or your offices to Venezuela or Ireland wasnt a viable alternative while today, it most certainly is.

Now, we can yell at clouds for the unfairness of it all, or we can accept this new reality and roll with it.

Again, the remonstrating about the artificially low taxes in Alberta due to Oil Revenue, theres value to that statement, but we also lowered taxes to bring in investment dollars.

Look at all the companies that relocated their Toronto Head Offices to Calgary.

We dont own these companies and they dont owe us, if you make the environment undesirable they can and will either fold up shop or leave and now you get nothing.

Its a fairly simple concept.

My two cents: There are other ways to attract investment rather than just low taxes: infrastructure, human capital (creative, educated workforce), political stability, etc. Relying too heavily on low taxes to attract investment runs the risk of a race to the bottom.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Makarov

My two cents: There are other ways to attract investment rather than just low taxes: infrastructure, human capital (creative, educated workforce), political stability, etc. Relying too heavily on low taxes to attract investment runs the risk of a race to the bottom.

Tax rich people at 90% for a marginal tax rate and see how much value a 'creative educated workforce' brings to an economy above what is lost due to high taxes. I wonder how 'creative' Monterry's workforce is, and yet everyone wants to build their manufacturing plant there.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Makarov

My two cents: There are other ways to attract investment rather than just low taxes: infrastructure, human capital (creative, educated workforce), political stability, etc. Relying too heavily on low taxes to attract investment runs the risk of a race to the bottom.

Wel this goes against everything they taught me in post secondary. So if i open a store i can raise the prices to cover my high taxes. The good roads and creative employees will ensure i'm successful. I'll let tim hortons know tomorrow.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Tax rich people at 90% for a marginal tax rate and see how much value a 'creative educated workforce' brings to an economy above what is lost due to high taxes. I wonder how 'creative' Monterry's workforce is, and yet everyone wants to build their manufacturing plant there.

(a) is anyone proposing a 90% income tax rate on anyone?; and
(b) I wonder how the corporate tax rates in New York City, London, Berlin, Paris, and Amsterdam compare to those in Monterry? And yet everyone wants to build their corporate headquarters there.

[stampsx2]

I swear i hope one day canada becomes communist just like so many people in canada Are ok with. It's the direction we're going so let's just do it.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Wel this goes against everything they taught me in post secondary. So if i open a store i can raise the prices to cover my high taxes. The good roads and creative employees will ensure i'm successful. I'll let tim hortons know tomorrow.

You really don't think that creative, well-educated employees and efficient transportation infrastructure play a role in the success of the Tim Horton's corporation? May I ask what type of degrees you earned? Or where you earned them?

[CliffFletcher]

High taxes drive talent away. No smart people want to work in the San Francisco Bay area. Or Copenhagen. Or New York. Or Tokyo.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

High taxes drive talent away. No smart people want to work in the San Francisco Bay area. Or Copenhagen. Or New York. Or Tokyo.

I think you're confusing taxes with real estate prices

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

High taxes drive talent away. No smart people want to work in the San Francisco Bay area. Or Copenhagen. Or New York. Or Tokyo.

In order to attract industries, commerce and investment capital to places like Alberta (or Canada in general), there needs to be an edge over the largest markets or countries with easy access to multiple markets. Typically, that's an educated workforce, relatively low taxes, and a stable government. Stable doesn't just mean avoiding juntas, coups and death squads, it means a reliable government that is either pro business or very cautious and pragmatic in their economic policy.

Alberta is at risk of losing two of three. The third (educated workforce) is mobile.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Makarov

(a) is anyone proposing a 90% income tax rate on anyone?; and
(b) I wonder how the corporate tax rates in New York City, London, Berlin, Paris, and Amsterdam compare to those in Monterry? And yet everyone wants to build their corporate headquarters there.

Let's be honest, Calgary is never going to be able to compete with NYC, London, Berlin, Paris or Amsterdam (or Bay area) for talent.

We will be competing with Houston, Denver, Dallas, Milwaukee, vancouver, toronto and montreal (to some degree).

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Let's be honest, Calgary is never going to be able to compete with NYC, London, Berlin, Paris or Amsterdam (or Bay area) for talent.

We will be competing with Houston, Denver, Dallas, Milwaukee, vancouver, toronto and montreal (to some degree).

I have known plenty of peers who have moved away from calgary to pursue careers in silicon Valley, Seattle, Austin, lonoon, NYC, and SE Asia. We may not compete to draw talent already in those areas but we sure compete to prevent the talent that is here from leaving.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

I have known plenty of peers who have moved away from calgary to pursue careers in silicon Valley, Seattle, Austin, lonoon, NYC, and SE Asia. We may not compete to draw talent already in those areas but we sure compete to prevent the talent that is here from leaving.

Sure. My point was looking at what elite world cities have in terms of taxes is not a good model for Calgary.

His point is, "hey, the Bay Area has high taxes and people go there" but there's a trade off there because of the city.

That doesn't apply to calgary.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

High taxes drive talent away. No smart people want to work in the San Francisco Bay area. Or Copenhagen. Or New York. Or Tokyo.

High taxes and the cold, bald ass prairie FTW then?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Makarov

(b) I wonder how the corporate tax rates in New York City, London, Berlin, Paris, and Amsterdam compare to those in Monterry? And yet everyone wants to build their corporate headquarters there.

Amsterdam is an interesting example... because of tax treaties and the particular treatment income gets in a Dutch BV, it's an attractive jurisdiction for tax reasons for Canadians and others. It's still advantageous from a tax perspective, not so much for the local rate but for the ability to re-patriate income. So, yes, there are other ways to make a jurisdiction attractive, tax wise, than a low corporate rate.

[CliffFletcher]

The Swedish approach is interesting. A low corporate tax rate to attract business, and high income and sales taxes to pay for social programs.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

High taxes drive talent away. No smart people want to work in the San Francisco Bay area. Or Copenhagen. Or New York. Or Tokyo.

Which is why Montreal is the corporate capital of Cana.... Oh, wait. No it isn't. High taxes and poor political climate pushed everyone away.

Huh.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Which is why Montreal is the corporate capital of Cana.... Oh, wait. No it isn't. High taxes and poor political climate pushed everyone away.

Huh.

On the flipside, look at the economic dynamos of Tennesee and Montana to see how low taxes always work their magic.

Alberta doesn't need to have high taxes. But having a tax rate far lower than anywhere else in Canada, while expecting the same level of public services - or better - than elsewhere in the country was always delusional folly supported only by energy royalty windfalls.

Before the last election, if Alberta had adopted the tax regime of the next lowest taxed province (Saskatchewan), it could have balanced the budget. The dogmatic mantra of lower taxes lower taxes is no less ideological claptrap than the NDPs mantra of making corporations and the rich pay.

Everyone in Alberta is going to have to pay more and get less now that energy royalties aren't massively subsidizing the operation of our schools, roads, and hospitals.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The Swedish approach is interesting. A low corporate tax rate to attract business, and high income and sales taxes to pay for social programs.

If the government had anyone of intelligence crafting policy, they would have looked to this model instead of immediately jacking the corporate tax rate to please the simple minded bleeding hearts that comprise their base. Investment is far more mobile than individuals - they would have been better off from a revenue perspective by implementing an equivalent increase in personal income tax. Because of this horrendous policy combined with dithering on royalties we have essentially lost a year of capital spending in the province.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Zarley

If the government had anyone of intelligence crafting policy, they would have looked to this model instead of immediately jacking the corporate tax rate to please the simple minded bleeding hearts that comprise their base. Investment is far more mobile than individuals - they would have been better off from a revenue perspective by implementing an equivalent increase in personal income tax. Because of this horrendous policy combined with dithering on royalties we have essentially lost a year of capital spending in the province.

No need to be a Richard.