Alberta Taxes

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by JobHopper

Just because other provinces have sales tax doesn't mean that we should too. It's also the reason or one of that this economy here is so good. Look how many people come to work here from places like beautiful BC, people will give up a lot when they see the bottom line. High taxes will kill the economy or at least slow it down.

Its the oil and gas, anything else is minor component. Hell I'll rate southern Alberta's chinooks to be a more important factor than our lack of sales taxes.

[edslunch]

as the OP I regret using education as the example since that has derailed half the thread. My real question is would you accept tax increases if the were used to replace spending royalty revenue and that revenue was invested and eventually the proceeds used to reduce taxes again?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Well considering you don't pay any provincial sales tax while the rest of Canada does (to unnoticeable economic effect) there's at least a bit more to go.

Your position is that the economy in Alberta is undifferentiated from that of Canada's other provinces? Because statistics like GDP per capita don't support that.

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

That's just petty.

Punishing parents and kids who want something different at school (and are willing to pay extra for it) won't solve the shortcomings of the system.

It's not punishing parents. I just don't want to pay for it.

Parents can still send their kids to a private school. On their own dime.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Deegee

It's not punishing parents. I just don't want to pay for it.

Parents can still send their kids to a private school. On their own dime.

Really? your only paying 70 cents on the dollar to send these kids to private schools. If you remove funding, you'll suddenly see an influx of students into the public system as parents either can't afford to pay for the private education, or simply believe that suplementing a public education with thier private dollars is more effictive. Now you baying 100 cents on the dollar for these students. Even if only 50% of the currently privately educated students are go to public schools (either immediatley or eventually), the cost in terms of infrastructure, schools, teachers, etc, will at least match the cost of paying 70% normal rates for educationg these children.

Ultimately your going to be paying for it either way. If they are getting a poorer education, sure, I can agree, cancel the funding, but if the education is equal or better, let the money follow the child. There is no reason to punish a child because their parents send them to private school. Furthur, there's no reason to take the money that the tax paying parents of the children who go to private schools saying that you don't want to pay for it, as in that case, your just forcing them to pay for your children's education, while they are paying double for their own. As far as I'm concerned, as a tax payer, 70c on the dollar is a bargain to provide a comparable or better education and provide competition to the public system (so that it's doesnt' become even more inefficient).

I'd like to see 100% of the money follow the child so long as the private school meets or exceeds the education standards set by the province (and does not exclude any part of the education standards), as this will result in a healthy competition among the different school systems that ultimately results in our children getting a better education for less money.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by edslunch

as the OP I regret using education as the example since that has derailed half the thread. My real question is would you accept tax increases if the were used to replace spending royalty revenue and that revenue was invested and eventually the proceeds used to reduce taxes again?

Not sure why they would need to reduce taxes, but I'd be willing to pay more if I could trust that they would actually use my money to replace royalty revenue, and that they would actually invest the royaly revenue wisely to ensure a stable provincial income in the eventual future where either our dominant energy form is no longer fossil fuels, or we have extract all the economically viable ones. However, I don't trust that the government will do either of these things, and as such, I'm opposed to any tax increases that are allegedly for this purpose. The only way I'd accept it is with a change to the provincial constitution that requires it.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by JobHopper

Just because other provinces have sales tax doesn't mean that we should too. It's also the reason or one of that this economy here is so good. Look how many people come to work here from places like beautiful BC, people will give up a lot when they see the bottom line. High taxes will kill the economy or at least slow it down.

No, the reason we should have a sales tax is that it's one of the taxes that least distorts the economy. It causes less wealth-destroying distortions on the market than other taxes that might create the same revenue for the government.

Originally Posted by edslunch

as the OP I regret using education as the example since that has derailed half the thread. My real question is would you accept tax increases if the were used to replace spending royalty revenue and that revenue was invested and eventually the proceeds used to reduce taxes again?

Tough to say if that's even possible, or if a big piggy bank would simply get raided by the other provinces through increased equalization or something like that.

[Mr.Coffee]

At the end of the day, Alberta better get it figured out sooner than later because the energy sector isn't exactly kicking ass these days. It's amazing to me how deep the province relies on the energy sector and how blissfully ignorant so many people are about its health and future.

These days there exists material challenges with getting product to market. We have US politicians doing their thing to stop the construction of Keystone. If you've been following along, the Canadian government has ramped up its' political rhetoric regarding its approval. Obama is pressured by environmentalists and made promises on greenhouse emission reductions, he seems reluctant to get this thing through. We have a western corridor rife with staunch environmentalists, rejecting the notion of Northern Gateway. We have a price differential on nat gas where the longer we wait the worse the international price picture gets, because more international LNG projects are coming online and scooping up Asian contracts as they try and anchor in supplies. We have First Nation bands delaying the process because you have to deal with 17 different bands at once that all make land claims based on the required territory of the pipe crossing their ancestral nomadic patterns. So nat gas prices have been crushed as the US, usually a reliable customer, has unlocked their own shale gas plays on the eastern seaboard and no longer need western Canadian gas. Nat gas storage is at all time highs, not going anywhere fast. Supply is at all time highs. We have the reserves, we have the technology to extract, the price has been crippled and won't move until an Asian buyer actually gets the ability to move the gas that's liquefied to Asia. But the price they can buy internationally is still cheaper.

We are one of the most expensive oil and gas regions in the world. A declining, mature basin. Not a ton of upside. Not a lot of areas untapped. Literally 100's of thousands of wells, and LOTS of abandonments and reclamation liabilities facing us.

We are primarily a nat gas basin, but the upside on oil, the oil sands seem trapped and production has a ton of regulatory red tape and long lead times (right or wrong), plus it really isn't great for the environment (still not as bad as coal though which accounts for the bulk of our electric generation).

Some of the majors are really struggling. Penn West, Encana, Talisman, all seem to be spinning their wheels a bit. Layoffs are going down quietly. And while the odd company is making it largely due to good management, so many more have lean capital budgets.the Jr. Sector has been smashed. Borrowing is extremely difficult for start ups. You basically need a minimum of $100 million to get going now because Johnny rig worker needs to be paid 250k a year. It literally costs around$15 million to drill a Duvernay hz. While that is a major well, that's an insane price tag to drill one well.

So anyway why do I go on this super huge tangent?? Because I'm not super pumped about our provinces future, and things seem alarmingly risky these days. We better hope that we aren't only a petro province. Hell, the energy sector largely drives the economy of Canada let alone our province. If your asking me, nothing's more important than a true plan of action for our future economy. What goes up must come down. While AB may be the greatest in Canada today... How do we preserve that? I don't think we get there by taxes or VLT's. We need a true, material secondary drive into our economy.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by JobHopper

Just because other provinces have sales tax doesn't mean that we should too. It's also the reason or one of that this economy here is so good. Look how many people come to work here from places like beautiful BC, people will give up a lot when they see the bottom line. High taxes will kill the economy or at least slow it down.

The economy is good because the lack of a sales tax? Honestly, the problem is that, while inefficiencies in the system do exist, they are more difficult to remove than merely stating that there is an inefficiency that does exist.

Everyone always wants top notch services and yet no-one wants to pay for them.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

The economy is good because the lack of a sales tax? Honestly, the problem is that, while inefficiencies in the system do exist, they are more difficult to remove than merely stating that there is an inefficiency that does exist.

Everyone always wants top notch services and yet no-one wants to pay for them.

No, but a lower tax burden has economic benefits. A consumption tax is more efficient than income taxes, but its likely that it would be added to existing taxes, as opposed to replacing them.

Replacing spending of royalty revenues with a consumption tax, and then saving the royalty revenues for the future would also be good, but not very probable. Politicians have a way of spending all the money available to them.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

No, but a lower tax burden has economic benefits. A consumption tax is more efficient than income taxes, but its likely that it would be added to existing taxes, as opposed to replacing them.

Replacing spending of royalty revenues with a consumption tax, and then saving the royalty revenues for the future would also be good, but not very probable. Politicians have a way of spending all the money available to them.

This is basically your own cynicism and bias though. There is no reason that consumption taxes couldn't replace income taxes, but for some reason people have such a distrust in our leaders that they won't consider it as a viable alternative.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Slava

This is basically your own cynicism and bias though. There is no reason that consumption taxes couldn't replace income taxes, but for some reason people have such a distrust in our leaders that they won't consider it as a viable alternative.

In his defense, was there any political party proposing a consumption tax that would replace income tax on a one for one basis?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

This has been so by a concerted, misleading, dishonest campaign by right wing politicians, nihilistic capitalists, and other sociopaths to build a four decade long campaign to erode the public's trust in government.

Are you suggesting that all of the politicians in Canada have been right wing crazies or rather that whenever a left wing party gets in they try to rebuild trust but can't undo the damage of the left?
Or perhaps that it is only in Alberta with our 40 year PC run where we don't trust the government. BC being the left wing paradise where everyone has full trust in their government and never does things like vote out an efficient tax for an inefficient one.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Really? your only paying 70 cents on the dollar to send these kids to private schools. If you remove funding, you'll suddenly see an influx of students into the public system as parents either can't afford to pay for the private education, or simply believe that suplementing a public education with thier private dollars is more effictive. Now you baying 100 cents on the dollar for these students. Even if only 50% of the currently privately educated students are go to public schools (either immediatley or eventually), the cost in terms of infrastructure, schools, teachers, etc, will at least match the cost of paying 70% normal rates for educationg these children.

Ultimately your going to be paying for it either way. If they are getting a poorer education, sure, I can agree, cancel the funding, but if the education is equal or better, let the money follow the child. There is no reason to punish a child because their parents send them to private school. Furthur, there's no reason to take the money that the tax paying parents of the children who go to private schools saying that you don't want to pay for it, as in that case, your just forcing them to pay for your children's education, while they are paying double for their own. As far as I'm concerned, as a tax payer, 70c on the dollar is a bargain to provide a comparable or better education and provide competition to the public system (so that it's doesnt' become even more inefficient).

I'd like to see 100% of the money follow the child so long as the private school meets or exceeds the education standards set by the province (and does not exclude any part of the education standards), as this will result in a healthy competition among the different school systems that ultimately results in our children getting a better education for less money.

The problem is that by paying marginally more money the private school can get the best teachers which lowers the quality of education in the public systems. If you want the best education pay for it out of your own pocket entirely and don't use government dollars to reduce the quality of the public system.

Again I am all for a privately delivered public funded system provided no significantly different fees are charged. But if you want to charge tuition to deliver better education pay for it all.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

In his defense, was there any political party proposing a consumption tax that would replace income tax on a one for one basis?

No, but at the Economic Forum in the spring it was proposed by a couple of panel members and met with the same derision and scepticism. Just because no party wants to endorse it as policy doesn't mean its a bad idea!

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, but at the Economic Forum in the spring it was proposed by a couple of panel members and met with the same derision and scepticism. Just because no party wants to endorse it as policy doesn't mean its a bad idea!

I'd love a consumption tax replacing income tax, and if I was elected dictator of Alberta for a day that's what I'd do. (If it was Canada I'd quash supply managemnt, but that's another thread).

I don't disagree that cynicism towards politicians is what I'm showing here. I also think that's perfectly reasonable.

[Zarley]

I too would love to see the income tax eliminated and replaced with a consumption tax. However, I don't have faith in any political party to implement this properly and I don't think your average peon is going to understand the benefits of a sales tax over the provincial income tax.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I too would love to see the income tax eliminated and replaced with a consumption tax. However, I don't have faith in any political party to implement this properly and I don't think your average peon is going to understand the benefits of a sales tax over the provincial income tax.

BC's HST/PST debacle proves that people don't understand tax efficiency arguments.

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

BC's HST/PST debacle proves that people don't understand tax efficiency arguments.

It's also a good example of why direct democracy doesn't work; they weren't able to think outside of their own self interest.

BCers were upset about the increased tax burden, but outside of the increased taxes on eating out and other areas that were PST exempt, most prices remained the same.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by JobHopper

Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. I understand and don't mind paying taxes but there comes a time when you just can't anymore.

Don't respond to an accusation that you are over simplifying political discourse with an idiom.

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

<Wall of text about Alberta's future>

Sounds like a problem for the next generation! Why do you hate Alberta?

Economic diversification and a government that doesn't rely on energy royalties to sustain itself? Sounds like communism, comrade.