Sales tax in Alberta?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by ken0042

That most of us do not believe that a PST will be revenue neutral. In the 80s we were told the GST would be used to pay down the national debt. Fool me once..........

Well in case you forgot the deficit for the federal government was all eliminated through the 1990's. Coincidentally, as soon as the GST was cut the government was back into deficit.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Ah yes, we all remember the huge recession Alberta was ushered into because of government cutbacks in the 90's.

Must be the most laughable suggestion in this thread.

I wonder if negative economic impacts from government cuts might have been offset by substantial increases in natural gas production and crude oil prices during that same period? Or is the only economic factor that matters tax rates and government spending?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I wonder if negative economic impacts from government cuts might have been offset by substantial increases in natural gas production and crude oil prices during that same period? Or is the only economic factor that matters tax rates and government spending?

You know how this goes: if the economy is roaring ahead and you like the party in power then they are amazing fiscal managers; if you hate the party in power and the economy is receding then their terrible policies have caused that.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by darklord700

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/po...050/story.html

That a look at this AHS expense story before shout out sales tax so quickly.

Despicable. This alone could be reason to put any talk of tax increases to bed. I'd like to see how much the budget for AHS has increased since 2003.

[Voodooman]

Originally Posted by Makarov

In fact, the GST was introduced also introduced as a revenue neutral tax. It replaced a hidden 13.5% Manufacturer's Sales Tax. When the proposed GST was reduced to 7%, it became more of a tax cut than anything.

Although the introduction of the GST was a tax cut, as I recall, it did not lead to any decrease in prices. Manufacturers simply absorbed the 13.5% into their finished goods price for an increase in their bottom line. In general, consumption taxes are "better" from the consumer perspective, as they are imposed in the light of day. Manufacturing or Excise Taxes that are imposed at a production level tend to be disproportionately regressive to the consumer. For example, when BC imposed the Carbon Tax of 2.3 cents per litre in 2008, the price at the pump jumped between 5 and 7 cents in most areas. When Alberta increased liquor taxes a few years ago (and then dropped them shortly thereafter), the increase was about 75 cents on a bottle of wine, but store prices jumped 1 to 2 dollars. Manufacturing tax increases give producers an easy opportunity to increase their prices at the same time, while blaming the increase on governments.

I agree that Alberta should implement a sales tax. They should sign on with the HST program, and implement a 5% provincial portion, for a total of 10%. Signing on to the HST regime is the only way this makes sense, as it allows the province to increase the revenue stream with almost zero administration costs (as the CRA performs all administration tasks for HST provinces, and the feds just cut the provinces a cheque for their portion, minus a small fee).

To ensure the tax is not punative to lower income earners, I would propose a couple of measures. First, increase the personal income tax exemption from $17,000 to $30,000, which results in a reduction of $1,300 in taxes for someone earning the $30,000 limit. When compared to the HST, this income earner would have to purchase $26,000 in taxable goods to pay the same overall amount of taxes as prior to the change.

Secondly, mirror the federal GST credit for individuals earning less than $40,000 per year.

Lastly, although not connected to lower income earners, I would change the flat tax scheme. 10% on incomes from $30,000 to $150,000, 15% from $150,000 to $500,000 and 20% on income over $500,000.

Apologies in advance to the CP 1%.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

Despicable. This alone could be reason to put any talk of tax increases to bed. I'd like to see how much the budget for AHS has increased since 2003.

Criminals.

Loved this comment from the article. Exactly why more taxes won't fix anything.

This will mean that AHS will need to add a Vice-President, an Assistant Vice-President, an Executive Vice-President, a Director, an Assistant Director, a Managing Director, all with associated administrative assistant support, for each region, to deal with this issue.

And of course travel will be involved so they can have business meetings, with each other, all 'properly expensed' in accordance with the 'new policy'.

[Bonded]

I always thought a wide scale consumptative tax based model would be interesting to experiment with. I say we give it a year try in Alberta. Scrap provincial taxes and make it a flat consumption tax. My only concern is that it will not be progressive because it hinges on the idea of rich people buy more things, but people could really save if they change their spending habits.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I wonder if negative economic impacts from government cuts might have been offset by substantial increases in natural gas production and crude oil prices during that same period? Or is the only economic factor that matters tax rates and government spending?

Of course all that matters. The effect of tax rates largely outpaces any effects of a slight reduction in provincial government spending but that's beside the point.

Only one person (or side of the political spectrum perhaps?) continually insinuates the Wildrose platform projections were the only ones off. That's why it's important to mention the Liberals' imaginative projections and bring some reality to the debate.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Of course all that matters. The effect of tax rates largely outpaces any effects of a slight reduction in provincial government spending but that's beside the point.

Only one person (or side of the political spectrum perhaps?) continually insinuates the Wildrose platform projections were the only ones off. That's why it's important to mention the Liberals' imaginative projections and bring some reality to the debate.

You can add me to that list!

I don't doubt for a second that the other parties had issues with their projections as well; the fact is that people making projections and predictions are largely terrible at doing so. I just have no faith that the Wildrose got it right and frankly haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

You can add me to that list!

I don't doubt for a second that the other parties had issues with their projections as well; the fact is that people making projections and predictions are largely terrible at doing so. I just have no faith that the Wildrose got it right and frankly haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

So what's your point? They are all bad and they all miss on projections but you continually point a finger at the Wildrose. Some balance would be nice.

The Wildrose definitely got it right in saying this government has a spending problem and their budgeting would lead to a huge deficit. Chalk one up there.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

So what's your point? They are all bad and they all miss on projections but you continually point a finger at the Wildrose. Some balance would be nice.

The Wildrose definitely got it right in saying this government has a spending problem and their budgeting would lead to a huge deficit. Chalk one up there.

I can only assume that the Wildrose suggesting a deficit wasn't just a stroke of luck. They knew darn well that they weren't able to balance the budget and if they couldn't then they weren't sure how anyone else could either. That's hardly commendable.

We have no idea how they were going to balance the budget. The only suggestion we heard from them was the Carbon Capture, and I believe its been noted dozens of times that this wasn't enough to do it because

A) It wasn't $2B because most of that was spent

B) The government had already entered into a number of JV's and presumably those partners wouldn't be thrilled with a sudden change in course just based on a whim.

The funny thing about the CCS for the Wildrose is that it sounds exactly like the NDP and left-wingers when they talk about re-regulating the electricity markets. Its just not that simple, and would end up costing a fortune because of the lawsuits that would inevitably follow.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

I can only assume that the Wildrose suggesting a deficit wasn't just a stroke of luck. They knew darn well that they weren't able to balance the budget and if they couldn't then they weren't sure how anyone else could either. That's hardly commendable.

We have no idea how they were going to balance the budget. The only suggestion we heard from them was the Carbon Capture, and I believe its been noted dozens of times that this wasn't enough to do it because

A) It wasn't $2B because most of that was spent

B) The government had already entered into a number of JV's and presumably those partners wouldn't be thrilled with a sudden change in course just based on a whim.

The funny thing about the CCS for the Wildrose is that it sounds exactly like the NDP and left-wingers when they talk about re-regulating the electricity markets. Its just not that simple, and would end up costing a fortune because of the lawsuits that would inevitably follow.

Once again you are totally missing the point. Regardless of the numerous budget cutting measures they suggested both during the election and afterwards that you ignore and/or pretend don't exist... it doesn't change the fact that the Liberal or NDP projections were equally as bad or likely even worse.

It's a plain fact that the Wildrose party would have had the smallest budget deficit, if at all, of any of the 4 parties.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Once again you are totally missing the point. Regardless of the numerous budget cutting measures they suggested both during the election and afterwards that you ignore and/or pretend don't exist... it doesn't change the fact that the Liberal or NDP projections were equally as bad or likely even worse.

It's a plain fact that the Wildrose party would have had the smallest budget deficit, if at all, of any of the 4 parties.

Actually this is an opinion you are representing as fact because you are a staunch Wildrose supporter. But if it's a fact go ahead and post the evidence.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Once again you are totally missing the point. Regardless of the numerous budget cutting measures they suggested both during the election and afterwards that you ignore and/or pretend don't exist... it doesn't change the fact that the Liberal or NDP projections were equally as bad or likely even worse.

It's a plain fact that the Wildrose party would have had the smallest budget deficit, if at all, of any of the 4 parties.

Based on what exactly? I have no idea what they projected for commodity prices and where they would've managed to cut. You apparently do though, so lets hear it. Facts require evidence and we certainly haven't seen it. I've laid out exactly where I think that they can't balance the budget, so in fairness you should be able to tell me exactly what they've projected for these things.

As an aside, what does this have to do with a more efficient collection of revenue?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Slava

As an aside, what does this have to do with a more efficient collection of revenue?

You have said this a few times now. (I think it was you anyway)
Replacing income taxes with consumption taxes is a more efficient tax. I don't think anyone disagrees with that statement. It just seems like an odd conversation when we have a huge deficit. Making a more efficient tax is a discussion that should have taken place years ago, the conversation has shifted away from tax efficiency to deficit reduction. This will have to be done through increasing revenue, decreasing spending or more likely a combination of the two. Or debt, but that seems like the least popular idea, although I would guess that it is also the most likely solution.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Based on what exactly? I have no idea what they projected for commodity prices and where they would've managed to cut. You apparently do though, so lets hear it. Facts require evidence and we certainly haven't seen it. I've laid out exactly where I think that they can't balance the budget, so in fairness you should be able to tell me exactly what they've projected for these things.

As an aside, what does this have to do with a more efficient collection of revenue?

It was all in their election documents, they used the lowest oil price forecast of any party. They provided many examples of cuts far beyond your single criticism that you continue to harp on, and had by far the lowest spending promises. Go back and see for yourself.

As an aside, it doesn't have anything to do with efficient taxes but you continue to throw unfair criticisms at the only fiscally conservative party in the province, what kind of response do you expect?

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by edn88

Prices are not higher because there is no sales tax. If prices are higher, it is because there is more demand.

I lived in BC too, and remember making trips to Alberta to save 7 percent in Grand Prairie - and the prices were not higher.

I agree that I prefer consumption taxes, but take away my income tax first.

Prices for a lot of things are way higher here. It is not because of demand. Things in Calgary (milk, bottled water, beer) are almost double the price as in Ontario.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't think its "standard messaging". I asked at a public forum, as well as on tiwtter and couldn't get a reply. You'll have to factor in part of my bias that I want to know what the plan is before I put an "x" beside someone.

Don't you guys ever tire of just labelling me as a Liberal rather than talking about the underlying issues? It's frankly amazing that I'm here defending Jack "freaking" Mintz and still the Wildrosers here find reasons to argue!

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...894/story.html

Wildrose starts getting specific about where they would cut.

[GP_Matt]

I love their idea of measurable decisions on infrastructure.
Governments have been appeasing the squeaky wheel for far too long, building the projects that vocal people want rather than the projects that the silent majority need.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...894/story.html

Wildrose starts getting specific about where they would cut.

I hope you guys are sitting down....I agree with this approach.

I read their plan on capital spending yesterday though, and there are a lot of holes. Frankly, some of them are so big you could drive a truck through (pun intended). I'm not convinced that they're plans are feasible without borrowing and in all honesty with the current extremely low interest rate environment I am far from convinced that we shouldn't be borrowing for these projects. The position of no borrowing seems entirely based on ideology though, and that's misguided in my opinion.