Alberta Politics Thread

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

No they are not.

If you get cancer or any other health issue you EVERY Canadian gets access to health care. It is an insurance program that is available to EVERY Canadian.

If you have a baby, EVERY Canadian gets parental leave. It is a social assistance program available to EVERY Canadian.

With the CTax rebate, 40% of Albertans do not receive it.

Your example is not correct.

Ok, child tax benefits grind your gears then? To counter your point further, every Albertan who qualifies for CTax rebates will get them, not sure what point you are trying to make here.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

In fact as crazy as it sounds, I wonder if you could make a human rights case over not being eligible for social programs due to having an income that is higher than the government's threshold.

You could never deny someone the right to access a program based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc....why then should someone not get access to a social program based on income? That is outright discrimination.

The reason it sounds crazy is because it is. Wealth is not a human right.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Red

Nope, PCs had some critics, but not to the same level as the NDP. Not even close. And really, add it all up and those tax increases were much higher that what we face now.

Guys moving to Mexico to save on carbon tax? Makes for a great headline to slander Notley with, but that's about it.

As I said, you are being incredibly selective with what you want to hear. The PCs had a lot of critics for those tax increases. The reasons why you are trying to defend Notley with some sort of silly double standard argument are the facts that (1) Prentice was kicked out of government not long after he introduced those taxes and (2) the carbon tax isn't the only new or increased tax Notley has introduced. She actually kept most of Prentice's increases then added more of her own on top. While also adding to the costs of doing business in other areas and taking actions that could only suppress investment in this province.

So, sorry to burst your bubble, but that was a tremendously poor effort at defending Notley.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by belsarius

BC also charges 6.67c carbon tax on fuel and doesn't charge PST in order to maintain the revenue neutrality of their carbon tax system. It is exempt in Sask and Man but no in every other Province. I don't think his $850 number is right, but I do think that a 5% PST in Alberta would cost a lot more than the carbon tax will.

Absolutely, but I think the cost would depend a lot more on your income and spending habits. People who spend freely would likely incur a hard hit than they would with a carbon tax, but a carbon tax hits vulnerable and struggling Albertans much harder than a PST would, everything else being the same.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by belsarius

BC also charges 6.67c carbon tax on fuel and doesn't charge PST in order to maintain the revenue neutrality of their carbon tax system. It is exempt in Sask and Man but no in every other Province. I don't think his $850 number is right, but I do think that a 5% PST in Alberta would cost a lot more than the carbon tax will.

The $850 figure was just an approximation of what $10k in annual taxable spending would be monthly, pepsifree was using the figure of $1000 per month. When you look at what goods are currently taxed (including fuel and a fair amount of groceries) under gst, it's not a stretch to say you can spend in that ballpark. Think about bills which are taxed, phone, heat, electricity. Add to that things like vehicle maintenance costs and purchases like clothing, eating out etc. It adds up very quickly.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

As I said, you are being incredibly selective with what you want to hear. The PCs had a lot of critics for those tax increases. The reasons why you are trying to defend Notley with some sort of silly double standard argument are the facts that (1) Prentice was kicked out of government not long after he introduced those taxes and (2) the carbon tax isn't the only new or increased tax Notley has introduced. She actually kept most of Prentice's increases then added more of her own on top. While also adding to the costs of doing business in other areas and taking actions that could only suppress investment in this province.

So, sorry to burst your bubble, but that was a tremendously poor effort at defending Notley.

Please....I am not trying to defend anyone here. Just pointing out that some of (read most) the PC crowd was much less vocal about Prentice's taxes.
Double standards.
Don't agree? Oh well, say it and move on, don't have to "burst my bubble"....so personal some of you...

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The reason it sounds crazy is because it is. Wealth is not a human right.

But using the levers of the state to confiscate other's wealth is?

We do have income inequality in this country, but we also have effort inequality.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Red

Please....I am not trying to defend anyone here. Just pointing out that some of (read most) the PC crowd was much less vocal about Prentice's taxes.
Double standards.
Don't agree? Oh well, say it and move on, don't have to "burst my bubble"....so personal some of you...

No, you were using your own selective bias to accuse others of selective bias. Though I can understand why you are both getting a little upset at having your pot-kettle moment called out, and why you are now seeking to avoid having to support your claim with facts and things. It appears that you didn't actually post in a discussion forum to encourage a discussion. If all you want is an echo chamber that supports your side, might I suggest /r/Alberta?

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The $850 figure was just an approximation of what $10k in annual taxable spending would be monthly, pepsifree was using the figure of $1000 per month. When you look at what goods are currently taxed (including fuel and a fair amount of groceries) under gst, it's not a stretch to say you can spend in that ballpark. Think about bills which are taxed, phone, heat, electricity. Add to that things like vehicle maintenance costs and purchases like clothing, eating out etc. It adds up very quickly.

Sorry I misinterpreted the $850 figure. I thought it was increase in costs from PST instead of $850 in taxable spending.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, you were using your own selective bias to accuse others of selective bias. Though I can understand why you are both getting a little upset at having your pot-kettle moment called out, and why you are now seeking to avoid having to support your claim with facts and things. It appears that you didn't actually post in a discussion forum to encourage a discussion. If all you want is an echo chamber that supports your side, might I suggest /r/Alberta?

Unless you are pro-conservative, then this echo chamber works for you.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, you were using your own selective bias to accuse others of selective bias. Though I can understand why you are both getting a little upset at having your pot-kettle moment called out, and why you are now seeking to avoid having to support your claim with facts and things. It appears that you didn't actually post in a discussion forum to encourage a discussion. If all you want is an echo chamber that supports your side, might I suggest /r/Alberta?

Yes, my selective bias got in the way. Good thing we have your impartial opinions to bring us all to order.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Red

Yes, my selective bias got in the way. Good thing we have your impartial opinions to bring us all to order.

I've never made any claims of impartiality. But keep deflecting, Red. Anything to avoid having to support your claims.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I just want a socially progressive and financially conservative government with low taxation.

Where should I move?

That's how I'd classify the SaskParty. EDIT: should add, that is how I perceive them, anyway

It's funny, the way the left wants to portray Brad Wall as being a climate change denier or anti-environment, yet his government is the only one in Canada that is actually capturing carbon, AFAIK. He's against the carbon tax, as it doesn't do a damn thing to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, but he is for investment into carbon capture technology, as can be seen with Saskatchewan's Boundary Damn Project.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I've never made any claims of impartiality. But keep deflecting, Red. Anything to avoid having to support your claims.

Sorry but what the heck are you even talking about? Support my claims? Is there a 260 page thread on here talking about the PCs taxes? Was there an article bashing Prentice in pretty much every paper every day for a year? Circumstances didn't allow for it because of the elections but my point stands. A year later no one mentions Prentice's taxes. All forgotten. Why?

Seriously, I can't quantify that for you, nor do I care to be proven right about it. I really don't care about that.
My point is that Notley is under constant heat and has been since getting elected because of this carbon tax. Every day of the week, it's a bit unfair. For right or wrong, that's what's happening.
The PCs were mostly criticized for things like sparing the rich and "math is hard" arrogance. But funny thing is that a lot of discussions resolved about how a PST would have been better. Because you know, we need revenue. So the PCs were ok with a tax, PST or other, but when Notley proposes one it's the end of the world.

But maybe it's just me that sees it that way. I am ok with that.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Ok, child tax benefits grind your gears then? To counter your point further, every Albertan who qualifies for CTax rebates will get them, not sure what point you are trying to make here.

As I have tried to explain several times....

Roads are a rational and moral use of government funds because every Canadian has access to them and can use them.

Heath care is available and accessible to all Canadians as well.

The CTax rebate is discriminatory because it is not available to 40% of the population. It is not that hard to understand.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

As I have tried to explain several times....

Roads are a rational and moral use of government funds because every Canadian has access to them and can use them.

Heath care is available and accessible to all Canadians as well.

The CTax rebate is discriminatory because it is not available to 40% of the population. It is not that hard to understand.

Just make less money if you want to qualify.

No one is holding a gun to your head saying you need to live in a million dollar home.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Just make less money if you want to qualify.

No one is holding a gun to your head saying you need to live in a million dollar home.

LOL....ok. This is what we have come to? Don't work hard to qualify for government programs.

I have a lot of respect for 99% of the posters here, and this has gotten beyond disagreement. Some of the opinions and thoughts being floated in this thread are ridiculous and cancerous.

I am going to go home and tell my children to not work as hard and not make as much money as they can so they can qualify for subsidies.



Merry Christmas guys.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

LOL....ok. This is what we have come to? Don't work hard to qualify for government programs.

I have a lot of respect for 99% of the posters here, and this has gotten beyond disagreement. Some of the opinions and thoughts being floated in this thread are ridiculous and cancerous.

I am going to go home and tell my children to not work as hard and not make as much money as they can so they can qualify for subsidies.



Merry Christmas guys.

Well, unlike many canadians/Albertans you seem to have a choice to make lots of money or be on government assistance and have obviously chosen the former. There is literally nothing stopping you from living off the dole but yet you choose to work and make money, so obviously you think it is a better trade off to be employed.

Maybe if you're feeling the pinch you could downsize your lifestyle, or, if you really want those big government programs you should vote for more socialist candidates in your next elections.

Surely you are not a small goverent conservative asking for a government handout?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Some of the opinions and thoughts being floated in this thread are ridiculous and cancerous.

Chief ridiculous thought among them... wondering if you could make a human rights case over not being eligible for social programs due to having an income that is higher than the government's threshold.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

As I have tried to explain several times....

Roads are a rational and moral use of government funds because every Canadian has access to them and can use them.

Heath care is available and accessible to all Canadians as well.

The CTax rebate is discriminatory because it is not available to 40% of the population. It is not that hard to understand.

This makes no sense.

CTax rebate is available to everyone as much as any other service is.

If I work all year EI isn't available to me. If I lose my job next year I suddenly have access to EI funding.

I didn't have a kid last year, child benefits were not available to me. This year I have a daughter and I get benefits for her.

I didn't have healthcare available to me because I was healthy. Next year I might not be healthy and that funding then becomes available to me.

I am not getting a CTax rebate one this year because I make too much, but next year if I make a lot less it becomes available to me.

I really don't see how you see a difference.