Alberta Politics Thread v2

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

And how long you can live in your parent's basement before getting into the real world and dealing with real life issues. The average Canadian has 70 or so years on this planet. Don't waste it on stuff out of your control.

Erick Estrada - "You are free to vote as you please."

Just as long as you vote on things that are most important to you particularly, right?

[CaptainCrunch]

Right now, Climate change is a laudible goal. The bottom line is if Canada shuts down the energy industry for example, all that happens is that the American's and Saudi's and others are going to keep pumping Oil and they will merely move into our market share.


At the end of the day, at least we can control how we drill and how we mine and we can keep forcing the companies that are here doing it to research and find better ways to remove the harmful effects of what we're doing, while at the same time encouraging them to bring their dollars to Canada to take advantage of the resources we have.


Instead we're acting in a fairly punitive manner and almost treating these companies as if they are the enemy of the people.


We can't eat good intentions no matter how much hot sauce and pride we pour on it.


We're not going to stop climate change because the countries like India and China and the United States and Saudi Arabia have all put their economy in front of effective change, and no matter how much we preach and lecture on it as a country they're not going to change, that's the sad reality of it.


All they're going to do is laugh at Canada basically leaving the market and ramp up their production to take our place.


Its all nice and everything that the provinces like BC and Ontario and Quebec for example have actively moved to crush these pipelines based around a argument that oil is a evil bastard undesirable segment of the Canadian economy, but their arguments are naive and self serving politics.



If we're so concerned about climate change and the end goal is to stop being an oil producing nations, or shut down the oil sands then this country will literally shake apart economically and in terms of being a actual bound country. But its not going to change the global world view of it.



Personally we should continue to push for better ways of extraction and cleaner energy strategies and going after the market share of these other nations and that's the only way that you can force them to change. But killing the industry is going to do little to nothing.


And yes, I do believe that there is a storm coming in terms of the climate, but at the same time, its become a buzz word as we don't go after the noxious manufacturing segment in Ontario, that its ok to dump chemical and literally crap in the ocean.


We've really got our priorities and our strategy wrong here.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Climate change is very low on my list of priorities of what I look at in a provincial government. Everybody recycles now. Everyone is mindful not to waste. Plants are being held to ever increasing stringent regulations. This province has many, many, larger issues and fish to fry and a few party members opinion of climate change is totally irrelevant in the big picture. People basing their votes on nonsense like this are what ruins it for everyone that has mouths to feed. You are free to vote as you please but if your criteria for electing a party is based on a party member's Facebook post you are as much an idiot as he is.

Ditto.

I'm in no way a Climate Change denier, but I just accept the fact that as Albertans there is nothing we can do to meaningfully move that needle.

People like to point to the 'filthy oilsands' but the reality of the matter is very different, we're an enormous place with a small population, if anything we're likely a Carbon Sink.

I find it ludicrous that we're up in arms over climate change that we cant control and are killing ourselves over it.

I'd give Climate Change more consideration when the major polluters and culprits start taking it seriously, in the meantime theres no sense for us to worry about it to the degree that we have been and it certainly isnt a major concern of mine in terms of voting for local representation.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Flacker

That won't even take into account the fact they both pay PST. Their provincial personal tax rates are definitely higher, and I would think the federal rate is the same. We are the lowest taxed province in the nation, not sure how an Albertan wouldn't know that.

No sales tax, no inheritance tax, low property transfer tax, etc.

We have been under-taxed for far too long - that is why we have a revenue/service/deficit problem.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Climate change is very low on my list of priorities of what I look at in a provincial government. Everybody recycles now. Everyone is mindful not to waste. Plants are being held to ever increasing stringent regulations. This province has many, many, larger issues and fish to fry and a few party members opinion of climate change is totally irrelevant in the big picture. People basing their votes on nonsense like this are what ruins it for everyone that has mouths to feed.

Jesus Christ.

Oling_Roachinen: I want to be able to vote for a reasonable candidate who isn't posting conspiracy theories and hoaxes on his Facebook page.
UCP Posters: You're literally an idiot. That's just too much to ask for from our party.

Also:

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You are free to vote as you please but if your criteria for electing a party is based on a party member's Facebook post you are as much an idiot as he is.

So you admit he's an idiot? Why would you willingly vote for an idiot. How low are you willing to stoop to vote for a candidate because he has the right party by his name?

This is a legitimate question. We have one UCP candidate who doesn't believe in science. We have another who was a member of closed Facebook group that had to delete every single one of their posts because of the numerous bigoted images. And yet another hopeful who opposed gay people, including saying they shouldn't be allowed to get married. All of this took place on their Facebook pages. Does none of that dissuade you from voting for those individuals? Or would you vote for each one simply because they are members of your political party?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by troutman

No sales tax, no inheritance tax, low property transfer tax, etc.

We have been under-taxed for far too long - that is why we have a revenue/service/deficit problem.

I know this sounds trite, but maybe the issue is where we spend as well. I know when this argument comes up the first thing people point to is healthcare, education, roads and of course we all want those things.

But the truth is there are a lot of programs funded by the government that could be eliminated. There are subsidies to businesses that could be eliminated or reduced. I haven't got the specifics and no, I won't be spending hours to dig through. But there is no doubt in my mind that these inefficiencies spending on these things exist. Governments are continually spending on handouts to business and funding pet projects that really have nothing to do with delivery of services and cuts could be made.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by troutman

No sales tax, no inheritance tax, low property transfer tax, etc.

We have been under-taxed for far too long - that is why we have a revenue/service/deficit problem.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Slava

I know this sounds trite, but maybe the issue is where we spend as well. I know when this argument comes up the first thing people point to is healthcare, education, roads and of course we all want those things.

But the truth is there are a lot of programs funded by the government that could be eliminated. There are subsidies to businesses that could be eliminated or reduced. I haven't got the specifics and no, I won't be spending hours to dig through. But there is no doubt in my mind that these inefficiencies spending on these things exist. Governments are continually spending on handouts to business and funding pet projects that really have nothing to do with delivery of services and cuts could be made.

I agree.

The fact of the matter is that we have to analyze both sides of the ledger because we cant keep relying on Royalty windfalls but there is also a limit to how much we can increase taxes, especially during a time of economic uncertainty as we are in now.

So we have to look at our spending.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Does none of that dissuade you from voting for those individuals? Or would you vote for each one simply because they are members of your political party?

All of that should be ignored and swept under the rug, and being complacent with global issues is just fine as long as I can get double meat on my sub

[nik-]

I don't even care anymore. This province and this country are over.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

This is a legitimate question. We have one UCP candidate who doesn't believe in science. We have another who was a member of closed Facebook group that had to delete every single one of their posts because of the numerous bigoted images. And yet another hopeful who opposed gay people, including saying they shouldn't be allowed to get married. All of this took place on their Facebook pages. Does none of that dissuade you from voting for those individuals? Or would you vote for each one simply because they are members of your political party?

Again, I won't comment or argue the accusations because I know nothing of them, but even assuming they're true, I'd still vote for a party with 1 or 10 bad apples if it means higher income and a more stable provincial economy for me and my family (and everyone else's obviously).

Sure one can deny science, one can be a bigot, but as long as they're not putting either of those into formal policies, who cares? I'm not going to pretend to be some virtue signaler, holier than thou type. I'd say getting more people employed and raising wages is way more important than if that one guy happens to be a ###### on his personal time on facebook.

[Vedder]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Nah, I don't think that's accurate. He campaigned on policies that ate around the edge of the issue that would justify service cuts. Things like increasing fees for campsites etc, when the 'structural revenue problem' couldn't be addressed without a significant cut to services or a significant raise in royalties, income and corporate taxes. The 'structural revenue problem' is a roughly 20% shortfall in revenue. That's ####ing massive.

I agree though that it is politically untenable in Alberta to raise revenue from taxes, but his policy proposals were still an extension of the fiscal policies that run counter to mainstream economics.

Any party looking to credibly claim to be conservative fiscally would need to directly address this shortfall in spectacular fashion. In my opinion the NDP have displayed a more fundamentally sound understanding of economics than any PC government since Lougheed, but no one would confuse them with being the most desirable stewards of the economy.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...-and-tax-hikes

On Tuesday, Mr. Prentice gave Albertans a sense of what’s to come: by 2018-19, only 75% of resource revenue would be used to fund program spending. The year after that, the cap would be reduced to 50%. The remaining money would be put into savings or used to pay down debt.
Mr. Prentice also acknowledged that program spending had risen faster than government revenues, absent resource royalties. The high price of oil allowed previous PC governments to avoid “difficult decisions.”
“Why did this happen in Alberta? Fundamentally, we’ve not always had realistic expectations and our leaders must bear a considerable part of the responsibility for that.”

This isn't "around the edges" type stuff. Raising taxes, health care premiums, and weaning the funding of the operating budget off of royalty revenues.

The political miscalculation was his refusal to raise corporate taxes. Notley was able to point to that and play to the electorate's favorite idea that someone else should pay for everything.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by nik-

I don't even care anymore. This province and this country are over.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by troutman

No sales tax, no inheritance tax, low property transfer tax, etc.

We have been under-taxed for far too long - that is why we have a revenue/service/deficit problem.

Ignoring the fact that there is a lot of bloated spending in government, and that government pensions are a massive cost, I think the issue is that the federal taxes are too high relative to the services provided, and in order to be competitive relative to the US, Alberta has had to keep their taxes relatively low to attract people and businesses. The situation has changed somewhat, but Alberta's need to be cheaper and more attractive to distinguish itself from people preferring other states and provinces with bigger markets, established industries and access to labour isn't going anywhere either.

There are already federal sales taxes, death taxes (deemed disposition), increased tax on trusts arising from estates, property transfer tax (non-principal residence), etc. that residents of Alberta already pay. The issue is, because of the equalization system, that federal tax doesn't return to Alberta. In essence, Alberta is therefore being asked to either raise tax and be less attractive and viable, or keep tax low and hope that other revenue streams make up, or that the tax base continues to grow. Neither are ideal.

The fairy tale solution is the reduction of the equalization system, and a global reduction in federal tax, allowing the provincial taxes (which actually are responsible for healthcare, education, roads, universities, and most electoral issues) to be increased without significantly increasing the combined tax burdens. It'll never happen because the federal government uses its power of taxation to dictate to the provinces on provincial matters like healthcare.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Again, I won't comment or argue the accusations because I know nothing of them, but even assuming they're true, I'd still vote for a party with 1 or 10 bad apples if it means higher income and a more stable provincial economy for me and my family (and everyone else's obviously).

But you don't just get to vote for the party If you're in Beddington, you're forced to vote for a science denier if you want to vote UCP. As one of his constitutes, he represents you, and I don't want someone who believes in hoaxes making political decisions for me. It doesn't have to, necessarily, reflect on the rest of the party, but I do think it does raise the question of how he won the nominee.

Originally Posted by Ducay

Sure one can deny science, one can be a bigot, but as long as they're not putting either of those into formal policies, who cares?

At least you're honest, but I certainly care if my MLA is a bigot. I think a lot of people would. I could never knowingly vote for a racist. I guess others have different priorities, which is democracy for you, but I hardly think that not-voting-for-a-bigot is hardly an unreasonable position to take.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Vedder

Notley was able to point to that and play to the electorate's favorite idea that someone else should pay for everything.

Spoiler!

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Again, I won't comment or argue the accusations because I know nothing of them, but even assuming they're true, I'd still vote for a party with 1 or 10 bad apples if it means higher income and a more stable provincial economy for me and my family (and everyone else's obviously).

Sure one can deny science, one can be a bigot, but as long as they're not putting either of those into formal policies, who cares? I'm not going to pretend to be some virtue signaler, holier than thou type. I'd say getting more people employed and raising wages is way more important than if that one guy happens to be a ###### on his personal time on facebook.

So uh, where are you getting this idea that "more people will be employed" and "raised wages" will occur under UCP rule?

Like, what in literally anything any UCP candidate has said makes you believe that they have the a) will, b) acumen, c) ideas or d) understanding to accomplish this?

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

But you don't just get to vote for the party If you're in Beddington, you're forced to vote for a science denier if you want to vote UCP. As one of his constitutes, he represents you, and I don't want someone who believes in hoaxes making political decisions for me. It doesn't have to, necessarily, reflect on the rest of the party, but I do think it does raise the question of how he won the nominee.


At least you're honest, but I certainly care if my MLA is a bigot. I think a lot of people would. I could never knowingly vote for a racist. I guess others have different priorities, which is democracy for you, but I hardly think that not-voting-for-a-bigot is hardly an unreasonable position to take.

I'm not quite sure why I'm replying as your mind is already made based on Facebook posts dating back over a decade ago.

Surely you know the basis of our system is having MLAs which stick to the party's plan. 1 individual in this election is not going to be able to destroy science and convince people that climate change is fake. Yes you wont agree with all of his views and actions, but what do you dislike more;

Your interpretation of his views from 11 years ago, or another 4 years of NDP fiscally fist f****** our economy?

I'll take the derpy fiscal conservative of a decade ago 10 times out of 10.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

I'm not quite sure why I'm replying as your mind is already made based on Facebook posts dating back over a decade ago.

Your interpretation of his views from 11 years ago, or another 4 years of NDP fiscally fist f****** our economy?

I'll take the derpy fiscal conservative of a decade ago 10 times out of 10.

To be clear, they had started 11 years ago, until just a month before he won the nomination. He had posted for over a decade the same thing.

He did not just post once 11 years ago. Quite the difference.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Vedder

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...-and-tax-hikes



This isn't "around the edges" type stuff. Raising taxes, health care premiums, and weaning the funding of the operating budget off of royalty revenues.

The political miscalculation was his refusal to raise corporate taxes. Notley was able to point to that and play to the electorate's favorite idea that someone else should pay for everything.

Well, in my opinion it is. The majority of the budget savings were coming from a roughly 10% cut to spending. The prentice budget forecast raising roughly 2.5 billion from new taxation, in the same frame as saying the province was looking at a 7 billion dollar hole just based on the price of oil at the time.

In my opinion, that's eating around the edges. The political miscalculation wasn't only on not raising corporate taxes, it was that income tax raises on high income earners weren't enough, and were labeled as 'temporary'. Again, that isn't addressing the fundamental structural problem of tax revenue in the province.

Adam Legge, president of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, said he sees little negative impact from ditching the flat tax.

“I think they probably could have gone even further. Some of the increases, while growing over time, could have been more significant from the start,” he said.

And that's just it in my mind. It wasn't addressing the fundamental lack of revenue, it was proposing significant program cuts that for many albertans was the second time in a generation they've had to live through that. The revenue problem is 30 years old. Cuts were not going to address that and I think implicitly the voter base understood that, and further, didn't trust a PC government who had dug the hole in the first place to dig them out.

While the government says it wants to protect the province's health and education budgets, both of which together represent 61 per cent of government spending, Mr. Campbell's press secretary didn't rule out cuts for those sectors. However, if the government were to leave health and education untouched, the rest of program spending would face cuts of 17 per cent to ensure the same level of savings.

"We're focused on protecting core services and looking for efficiencies in government, but everything else is on the table," Kevin Zahara told The Globe and Mail.

The decline in oil prices since the summer has forced a 17-per-cent decline in the province's revenues. So far, Mr. Prentice has ruled out raising corporate taxes, energy royalties or introducing a provincial sales tax.

With the Conference Board of Canada and CIBC warning that the province's economy could contract over the coming year and see large increases in unemployment, Mr. Prentice has conceded to running several deficits and vowed to not make deep cuts that would trip the province further into recession.

The size of the announced cuts didn't come as a surprise to Todd Hirsch, the Calgary-based chief economist of ATB Financial. "They've got a big gap to cover and $7-billion is a big hole for a province the size of Alberta to fill. However, a cut of that size will be unpleasant for a lot of people," said Mr. Hirsch.

It is truly stunning when the CCPA and the Fraser Institute can agree on economics, but both agreed the province needed to look immediately at weening resource revenue off entirely. A return to the Lougheed 30% days, at least. They had wildly different proposals on how to do that, but everyone and their mother could see the status quo wasn't working.

Last week, he unveiled new austerity measures, including a promise to disband 80 of the province’s 320 boards, agencies and commissions by the end of the fiscal year.

On Tuesday, he shelved a planned rollback on the charity tax credit that would have added $90 million to Alberta’s bottom line.

Charities said the rollback punished the needy and Prentice agreed.

Political analyst Bob Murray said it is a big gamble for Prentice.

“Sure he was able to say ‘Look at the correction that we made (on charity tax credits) because we listened to Albertans,’ but he’s very quickly destroyed his own narrative,” said Murray, vice president of research with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

“Now he’s opened up to these accusations that he’s willing to negotiate the key pieces of the fiscal plan when two weeks ago he was telling us that he’s not afraid to make the tough decisions whether or not they’re all that popular.”

I can give Prentice definite credit for listening somewhat to economists who warned about the impact massive cuts would have on the economy, but his budget still fell very short of addressing the foundational aspects of the budget shortfall.

His budget over promised and under delivered when he said it would be radical. You don't get yourself out of a 7-10 billion dollar hole by raising cigarette and alcohol taxes, or taxing fuel that most of the province uses to operate the economy. To me, that's eating around the edges.