Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Uneducated like haven’t lived thru last NDP government in power.

No. Uneducated like someone who posts only headlines or one liners and can't defend their position.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's ridiculous a party can't run on a corporate tax hike that realistically has zero effect on voters other than providing stable government funding for the population. But it's toxic to even mention, but if you don't, you get burned for not campaigning on it. I hate how uneducated voters are.

While (still) being the country's lowest corporate tax rate and eliminating the corporate tax altogether for small corps. Meanwhile, conservative voters are unwilling to turn their critical eye to their own party's fiscal decisions.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's ridiculous a party can't run on a corporate tax hike that realistically has zero effect on voters other than providing stable government funding for the population. But it's toxic to even mention, but if you don't, you get burned for not campaigning on it. I hate how uneducated voters are.

People have been paying higher provincial taxes than the NDP years since the ICP took but are still worried about taxes under the NDP. I don’t know what you expect from the electorate.

[GGG]

Remember when Kenny raised taxes by de-indexing the brackets

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

No. Uneducated like someone who posts only headlines or one liners and can't defend their position.

It’s always good to hear perspective from those in the minority of voting issues.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Yoho

It’s always good to hear perspective from those in the minority of voting issues.

That 52% is really going to your head eh?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's ridiculous a party can't run on a corporate tax hike that realistically has zero effect on voters other than providing stable government funding for the population. But it's toxic to even mention, but if you don't, you get burned for not campaigning on it. I hate how uneducated voters are.

Blaming the voters and saying they’re wrong just proves my point. The NDP fell into the same trap I saw with the Alberta Liberals years ago. They’re more concerned with being right than they are with being elected.

You know that raising taxes and taking that path is the third rail. You know the attack from the conservatives is coming right there. And you know the voters concerns with you are going to raise taxes and spend. But you put out the easy target that says “we’ll raise taxes and spend”.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's ridiculous a party can't run on a corporate tax hike that realistically has zero effect on voters other than providing stable government funding for the population. But it's toxic to even mention, but if you don't, you get burned for not campaigning on it. I hate how uneducated voters are.

As opposed to the educated voters who assume corporate tax hikes would have no impact on investment, economic activity, jobs, or prices for consumers? And that increasing the tax rate would be guaranteed to generate government revenue in direct proportion to the increase, with zero decline in the activity being taxed?

As with all tax increases, there are tradeoffs in corporate tax rates. The NDP are being either disingenuous or economically illiterate when they pretend otherwise.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Slava

Blaming the voters and saying they’re wrong just proves my point. The NDP fell into the same trap I saw with the Alberta Liberals years ago. They’re more concerned with being right than they are with being elected.

You know that raising taxes and taking that path is the third rail. You know the attack from the conservatives is coming right there. And you know the voters concerns with you are going to raise taxes and spend. But you put out the easy target that says “we’ll raise taxes and spend”.

No. Sorry. Just like voters in Alabama who keep voting against their interests, Alberta has proven its voters are Bama north. Or Mississippi. Sometimes the customers isn't right, and, sometimes yes, the voters get it wrong.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

As opposed to the educated voters who assume corporate tax hikes would have no impact on investment, economic activity, jobs, or prices for consumers? And that increasing the tax rate would be guaranteed to generate government revenue in direct proportion to the increase, with zero decline in the activity being taxed?

As with all tax increases, there are tradeoffs in corporate tax rates. The NDP are being either disingenuous or economically illiterate when they pretend otherwise.

When Kenney reduced it to 8 it had no impact on investment, economic activity, jobs or prices. The economic theory you are subscribing to has been proven false over and over.

[Ozy_Flame]

The tax cut Kenney gave went straight to creating operational efficiencies, reinvesting in new tech like RPA ans SCADA automation, and back into the pockets of shareholders, who are always the primary recipient of organizational objectives.

Kenney couldn't show job creation from that tax cut if it was drawn with crayons on a map.

Also, trickle down economics doesn't work. Proven repeatedly.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Blaming the voters and saying they’re wrong just proves my point. The NDP fell into the same trap I saw with the Alberta Liberals years ago. They’re more concerned with being right than they are with being elected.

You know that raising taxes and taking that path is the third rail. You know the attack from the conservatives is coming right there. And you know the voters concerns with you are going to raise taxes and spend. But you put out the easy target that says “we’ll raise taxes and spend”.

This is the crux of the problem. Do you want a party leading that gets elected for being right, or one that gets elected because they lie well enough to win the election? Obviously the latter is the path to the same cynical destructive politics and governments we've seen recently. Yet the electorate chooses the second option, and somehow blaming them is wrong? Sorry that facts paint the electorate as voting against their best interests, which to me, makes the dumb, but here we are. People are dumb. News at 11.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by belsarius

When Kenney reduced it to 8 it had no impact on investment, economic activity, jobs or prices. The economic theory you are subscribing to has been proven false over and over.

I think Cliffs point is that the NDP in their budget assumed a linear increase in funds from 8%-11%. We know that corporate taxes create some economic drag so tax return on increasing rates is non-linear.

So if you include linear rates in your budget you aren’t making a correct forecast.

That can be true at the same time as reducing to 8 doesn’t produce a societal benefit.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think Cliffs point is that the NDP in their budget assumed a linear increase in funds from 8%-11%. We know that corporate taxes create some economic drag so tax return on increasing rates is non-linear.

So if you include linear rates in your budget you aren’t making a correct forecast.

That can be true at the same time as reducing to 8 doesn’t produce a societal benefit.

We "know" that tax increases will create economic drag in the same way we "know" reducing taxes will increase economic activity. That was my point in brining up the tax reduction. What I am disputing is that underlying assumption that it will create drag. Because that assumption is based on the same models that aren't producing the increased activity.

So I will trust an economist like Todd Hirsh to have checked the numbers and determined that any drag would have been minimal. I would expect any drag to be offset by increased demand side drivers because the government was taking that increase in taxes and injecting it back into the economy.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by belsarius

We "know" that tax increases will create economic drag in the same way we "know" reducing taxes will increase economic activity. That was my point in brining up the tax reduction. What I am disputing is that underlying assumption that it will create drag. Because that assumption is based on the same models that aren't producing the increased activity.

So I will trust an economist like Todd Hirsh to have checked the numbers and determined that any drag would have been minimal. I would expect any drag to be offset by increased demand side drivers because the government was taking that increase in taxes and injecting it back into the economy.

Respected economist Trevor Tombe was one of the main critics of the tax increase and was vocal about the revenue calculation and impacts proposed by Hirsch. It wasn't all model based and included evidence from previous increases.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Yoho

It’s always good to hear perspective from those in the minority of voting issues.

Yes, like your takes in the Canadian and American political threads.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Respected economist Trevor Tombe was one of the main critics of the tax increase and was vocal about the revenue calculation and impacts proposed by Hirsch. It wasn't all model based and included evidence from previous increases.

he didn't criticize the tax increase, he criticized the math, and I believe the conclusion was the math didn't take it into account, but that it wouldn't be so big as to negate the effect. The net result is still an overall benefit to government coffers.


I caught Smith on the radio today still using the fully discredited numbers about the cost of the carbon tax and plans to pursue policy using them, which I find a much bigger sin.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Respected economist Trevor Tombe was one of the main critics of the tax increase and was vocal about the revenue calculation and impacts proposed by Hirsch. It wasn't all model based and included evidence from previous increases.

And one of my only criticisms of Trevor Tombe is that he is part of the Calgary School of Public Policy which is basically an offshoot of the Frasier Institute. So while I do agree with him on a lot of his findings, much of his research/math is based on neoliberal (trickle-down) economic assumptions. In fact, in his twitter thread that disputed the NDP's numbers, he quoted FI research.

So yes, there will be disagreement on both sides of economists on how it might play out. But I disagree with any assertion that "we know" how it will play out. And I base that on 40 years of trickle-down economists saying "I know" and it never working out that way.

[Faust]

Alberta Premier Smith suggests 'other arrangements' as lab services struggle to meet demand

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...to-meet-demand

[Fuzz]

At the time, then-health minister Jason Copping said the move would create “efficiencies” and save taxpayers $18 million to $36 million per year.

“This change really sums up the rationale for contracting: enhanced services at a lower cost,” Copping said. “First and foremost, it will give Albertans more and better services.”

Nobody should ever trust this UCP government again. What a miss.

When pressed on what she would do if Dynalife doesn’t meet performance expectations, Smith suggested outsourcing.

LOL. Privatization has failed us, so we will look to the private sector to bail us out.

Alberta gets what it deserves for leaders, absolute morons elected by apparent absolute morons.