Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-15-2016, 11:01 AM   #5261
Ozy_Flame

Posted the 6 millionth post!
 
Ozy_Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lubicon View Post
maybe I'm mistaken but that is not my understanding. The amount paid to Justin will be the difference between whatever the Feds have decided to levy and what the Province levies. So in this instance we would pay 430 to Rachel and $20 to Justin for a total of $50.
Dat math tho
Ozy_Flame is offline  
Old 12-15-2016, 11:06 AM   #5262
OMG!WTF!
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
"The City of Calgary fills many many, many tanks of gas every single day, Our best estimate is that not being rebated the carbon tax on all those tanks…that we fill every day, the first year in 2017 will be about $2.6 or $2.7 million, rising to $6.5 million," Nenshi said. "To put that in context, that's a half point increase on the property tax – only for paying another order of government its taxes."
So .5% on 3k is only about $15 bucks but that's still 15% of what Notley thinks it will cost the average Joe outside of gas and heat. That's going to leave $90 to cover everything.
OMG!WTF! is offline  
Old 12-15-2016, 11:07 AM   #5263
OMG!WTF!
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

nvm
OMG!WTF! is offline  
Old 12-15-2016, 11:16 AM   #5264
llwhiteoutll
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
So .5% on 3k is only about $15 bucks but that's still 15% of what Notley thinks it will cost the average Joe outside of gas and heat. That's going to leave $90 to cover everything.
Then add in the increases to Enmax, which if their website estimator is to be believed, is around $100 a year. So between paying for the property tax increase and home utilities, all the supposed increase is accounted for.

By this assumption, there will be no increases to gas or any other consumer goods.
llwhiteoutll is offline  
Old 12-15-2016, 11:40 AM   #5265
redforever
Franchise Player
 
redforever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14 View Post
Given how many child deaths this agency has under reported by, it is a complete certainty that this has happened to white children too. And every other race. But it happens disproportionately to Native children, which still validates your argument.
And part of the problem lies with kinship fostering. The department has assumed this is always in the best interests of Native children when that is clearly not the case.
redforever is offline  
Old 12-15-2016, 12:45 PM   #5266
Ironhorse
Franchise Player
 
Ironhorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dion View Post
More hypocrisy from Notley on the child intervention system...
http://edmontonjournal.com/news/poli...fare-conflicts
Well that didn't take long...

Ironhorse is offline  
Old 12-15-2016, 01:40 PM   #5267
Resolute 14
In the Sin Bin
 
Resolute 14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Exp:
Default

^Was funny when the Wildrose MLA used Notley's own words against her underling in the Leg. I'm betting Notley somehow missed the irony.
Resolute 14 is offline  
Old 12-15-2016, 02:21 PM   #5268
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redforever View Post
And part of the problem lies with kinship fostering. The department has assumed this is always in the best interests of Native children when that is clearly not the case.
This is another case where the public looks for easy answers to complex and intractable problems.

Many native children grow up in high-risk households. So the government can:

A) Take them out of the home and hope a foster home provides a better environment. This exposes them to condemnation if something bad happens to the child in foster care, and adds to politically unwelcome statistics on native children being removed from their homes.

B) Keep them in the high-risk environment and hope the parents can turn things around, or nothing too terrible happens to the children. This exposes them to accusations of not stepping in and doing something to protect children in a home they knew was unsafe.

If they put the child in foster case, they can:

A) Put them in foster care with a kinship (native) family to meet the political mandate to keep native children in native households. Since there's rarely an abundance of healthy and secure households in that kinship, this may mean putting the child in an less safe household than if they sent them outside the kinship.

B) Put them in foster care outside the kinship group. This means upsetting political considerations and native groups by taking native children out of native homes and putting them in non-native homes. Also, a great many of these non-native foster care homes already have 4-6 children in them. Not exactly an ideal home for vulnerable children.

Given the chronic shortage of foster homes, child services is often faced with choosing from several bad options.

Foster-parent shortage across Canada reaching a crisis point

Quote:
In 2014-15, Ontario had about 21,314 kids being served in care – down about 2,000 from the year before. There were 4,800 average homes available for foster care in 2014-15, down from about 6,000 in 2010-11.

“It continues to go down,” Ms. Demers said. “There really is a crisis.”
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline  
Old 12-15-2016, 02:22 PM   #5269
iggy_oi
Franchise Player
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacks View Post


Where?
Read my posts

Quote:
Well if we are referring to transporation companies they can quite easily move their operations if their costs get too high. Many of those companies are starting to utilize dispatchers and other office staff that are out of province already since they can easily work remotely. I spoke with a dispatcher, from an Alberta based company, last week about a shipment from Calgary to Cranbrook and she was in Nova Scotia. Moving the physical warehouse equipment is a bit of a pain but not really a big deal if they are going to save on power, rent, labour, fuel, etc. The reason they are in Alberta to begin with is for a low cost environment, take that away and there is no reason to stay.
You are over simplifying the industry. Yes you can move a warehouse or cross loading facility, same as any other business. However when it comes to training staff for a new facility, the fines and penalties for late loads, in addition to loss of customers due to these issues can make it very difficult for a company to successfully make the transition. The savings on certain business expenses can be outweighed greatly by the loss of business and extra costs associated with a change in operation like that. It's not uncommon in that industry to have a company fold due to these factors. A very good example of this would be target's Canadian expansion. Moving the equipment would be a headache? That's likely one of the easiest parts of a move like that.

Quote:
You're not adding 100's of kilometres in travel, you're just making that up. Transportation companies travel long distances through many jurisdictions and their trucks hold thousands of liters of fuel. If the price here gets higher than in surrounding provinces/states for instance they will have their drivers fill the tanks before entering Alberta, this is already common practice. Those companies work on very slim margins and fuel prices are a major expense.

As for greenhouses, yes they would see increased transportion costs if they moved but they have to look at overall costs. From my understanding their biggest costs are utilities and labour, they are going to be seeing big increases on both fronts thanks to this government. At some point, which we are already seeing, they will simply close shop in Alberta because they can't compete with produce coming out of the states. All of this of course means higher food costs which affects lower income people the most. It's not like people can just stop eating.
Am I making up that Saskatoon is over 6 hours away from Calgary? If you have a warehouse servicing Alberta from Calgary, you don't think there will be an added cost to the bulk of the shipments made to Alberta locations? Like Calgary for example? Saving 2 cents per litre is not going to offset the additional costs on fuel and labour costs for that load, and it's highly debatable whether or not it would offset the other costs of business.

To use your example of food costs going up, if a company spends $5000 on a load of food that will make them $50000, do you really feel that if the cost of the initial load is 5% higher because of the carbon tax, so $5250 total now, that the company will have to increase the costs to the consumer by 5% overall? What costs are they covering by increasing their revenue generated by that load to $52500? It's not as if grocery items are shipped individually by themselves, there will be an increase but if you do the math it's pretty easy to see that anything significant in this example would not be due to the carbon tax, it would be due to someone using the carbon tax as an excuse to price gouge.

Quote:
You seem to have this mentality that as long as we don't make this bad enough for businesses to leave that's a good thing, you should be thinking how can we make things good enough to retain our current businesses and attract new ones.
The other side of the coin would be to suggest that you should be thinking of how we can try to make it not so bad for the people living in this province. The carbon tax affects everyone. The fact that the Feds are planning to implement one nationally should be enough to keep businesses here as it would be pointless to make a move for such a short term benefit. Should workers just accept any tax increase thrown at them so that businesses can have a break every time? As if those businesses are going to pay us back down the road? It doesn't matter when you choose to try and make a businesses piece of the pie smaller, the same threats always come up, "we'll never survive" "people will lose jobs", and people panic. At the end of the day businesses want to make money, and will make a little less than make nothing at all, same goes with workers. People work, make businesses money by being employees and consumers. Do we get paid to work? Sure, but they also make money from running their business. And guess who makes more? If the average joe can afford the extra expense, albeit not happily, then a business can too.

New businesses are attracted to making money, if a company that makes $1M in profits in one location can expand to another region, but will only make $500k in that region, do you really think they will choose to not go after that market just because it's not as profitable? Do you think they will simply let their competition take that market?

Last edited by iggy_oi; 12-15-2016 at 02:25 PM.
iggy_oi is offline  
Old 12-15-2016, 03:16 PM   #5270
Handsome B. Wonderful
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Handsome B. Wonderful's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
New businesses are attracted to making money, if a company that makes $1M in profits in one location can expand to another region, but will only make $500k in that region, do you really think they will choose to not go after that market just because it's not as profitable? Do you think they will simply let their competition take that market?
Given that the budget for expansion is not unlimited, why would you expand in to a region where you make $500,000 per location when you can expand in a region where you make $1,000,000 per location? Are we really going to drag the thread down this hole yet again? Are you really going going to demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of basic math yet again?
Handsome B. Wonderful is offline  
Old 12-15-2016, 03:40 PM   #5271
Jacks
Franchise Player
 
Jacks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
Read my posts
Actually I'm not going to bother. Let's just say that I have actually overseen the complete relocation of a transportation company personally in my career so I'm not going to bother debating you on it.
Jacks is offline  
Old 12-15-2016, 04:03 PM   #5272
iggy_oi
Franchise Player
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacks View Post
Actually I'm not going to bother. Let's just say that I have actually overseen the complete relocation of a transportation company personally in my career so I'm not going to bother debating you on it.
I've seen multiple, what's your point? They all go flawlessly?
iggy_oi is offline  
Old 12-15-2016, 04:11 PM   #5273
iggy_oi
Franchise Player
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful View Post
Given that the budget for expansion is not unlimited, why would you expand in to a region where you make $500,000 per location when you can expand in a region where you make $1,000,000 per location? Are we really going to drag the thread down this hole yet again? Are you really going going to demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of basic math yet again?
You're under the assumption that there will always be another region to expand to that can make you that $1M?

Here's a basic math question for you:

Which scenario earns you more money, making a smaller profit or no profit at all?
iggy_oi is offline  
Old 12-15-2016, 04:16 PM   #5274
puckedoff
First Line Centre
 
puckedoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post

Which scenario earns you more money, making a smaller profit or no profit at all?
You need to keep in mind that capital (ie the money that would be used for expansion in this scenario) competes with all types of returns.

If my options are take risk (and as you say above, expansions don't all go flawlessly) to make a smaller profit, I can decide instead to put that money to work in the stock market, real estate, foreign countries etc. I am not forced to choose to expand and destroy capital despite the Govt's invention of a new tax.
puckedoff is offline  
Old 12-15-2016, 04:30 PM   #5275
iggy_oi
Franchise Player
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by puckedoff View Post
You need to keep in mind that capital (ie the money that would be used for expansion in this scenario) competes with all types of returns.

If my options are take risk (and as you say above, expansions don't all go flawlessly) to make a smaller profit, I can decide instead to put that money to work in the stock market, real estate, foreign countries etc. I am not forced to choose to expand and destroy capital despite the Govt's invention of a new tax.
True, however you also need to keep in mind there is competition in business. If your business won't invest and grow where it can, another company will. If all businesses follow a similar path, eventually you run out of places to expand and businesses will begin to stagnate which would eventually lead to recession, which will have a ripple effect across most of the other investment options you listed.
iggy_oi is offline  
Old 12-15-2016, 04:36 PM   #5276
jammies
Basement Chicken Choker
 
jammies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
I've seen multiple, what's your point? They all go flawlessly?
He said "overseen". Not the same level of experience.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
jammies is offline  
Old 12-15-2016, 04:58 PM   #5277
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Pickle Jar Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
You're under the assumption that there will always be another region to expand to that can make you that $1M?

Here's a basic math question for you:

Which scenario earns you more money, making a smaller profit or no profit at all?
You just made up numbers in your scenario though, of $1 million and $500 000. Have you considered that it may go from $250 000 to -$250 000, making it unprofitable?
Fuzz is offline  
Old 12-15-2016, 05:21 PM   #5278
iggy_oi
Franchise Player
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies View Post
He said "overseen". Not the same level of experience.
While I've never been responsible for completely overseeing a single relocation project, I have overseen many different aspects of relocations, as well as taken part in planning as well as actual training and labour to get it done. I have no idea what jacks' title is, but saying you've overseen a relocation could mean a few things, and it doesn't make him an expert by any means, the fact that the only headache in the process he mentions is transferring equipment between sites, which frankly as I've mentioned is a very minor part of the process, causes me to question the legitimacy of his actual experience claims.

The CEO of macdonalds technically oversees millions of happy meals being served each day, I'll bet he'd be lost if you asked him to serve you one though.
iggy_oi is offline  
Old 12-15-2016, 05:34 PM   #5279
iggy_oi
Franchise Player
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
You just made up numbers in your scenario though, of $1 million and $500 000. Have you considered that it may go from $250 000 to -$250 000, making it unprofitable?
Have you considered that I meant profits when I was using those examples?
iggy_oi is offline  
Old 12-15-2016, 06:30 PM   #5280
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Pickle Jar Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
Have you considered that I meant profits when I was using those examples?
Fuzz is offline  
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:32 AM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy