Was talking to a family member tonight that works for one of the big players downtown. It sounds like things were already heading down to bad and have now moved to ugly.
I was talking with a friend in Houston at one of the majors. Things have been moving along very well since he moved down there but he said that they were told 30-40% of the staff will be cut by May. Many of the other majors down there have already started their cuts.
Yup drive more people into bankruptcy and out of the middle class to lower class while continuing to spend a deficit on the operating budget. Brilliant. Your plan would reduce individual spending making things even worse economically and probably increase operating and spending budget deficits.
Yup increase taxes on individuals, increase taxes on everyone and what profit. And You have to be careful on this whole thought that infrastructure stimulus is going to do anything, as its becoming impossible to build anything in the current regulatory environment and nobody is going to invest in it under your plan.
Well they could just borrow more money, the crushing interest rate of 0.986 percent is probably unbearable but if they borrowed 10 billion to stimulate the economy it would cost them 98 million or so this year. But the deficit, got to watch for that, despite the fact that interest rates are almost zero. If that rate is too high they could borrow for a ten year period at 0.73 percent and pay 73 million dollars.
I know most common sense people use “household budget” as the prime example of why you don’t run a deficit. I would love to know the household which goes on hard times and has an opportunity to borrow 50,000 dollars to help float it for a year while it gets back on its feet and balks because it will cost them $365 dollars or one dollar a day.
The answer seems pretty clear, Jason Kenney just needs to go out and explain he was wrong about deficits and put forward a stimulus package by borrowing money.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Aarongavey For This Useful Post:
The Alberta gov't could not have predicted coronavirus, but the $58 dollar estimate was always very optimistic.
Then they just weren't looking. The budget is only a week or two old and it's in tatters. If they couldn't see any ramifications of the virus, it's more incompetence than I would have imagined.
The Following User Says Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
Then they just weren't looking. The budget is only a week or two old and it's in tatters. If they couldn't see any ramifications of the virus, it's more incompetence than I would have imagined.
You can’t release a budget forecasting a 30 billion deficit because you believe the bottom will drop out of the market even if you believe it. A government predicting economic recession will create a recession.
You can’t release a budget forecasting a 30 billion deficit because you believe the bottom will drop out of the market even if you believe it. A government predicting economic recession will create a recession.
So what's worse? Using a price for oil that's actually reflective of the current situation or just making up a number to make the projections fit your narrative?
Yes. We need a more diverse revenue mix. Gasoline prices will drop, so the overall impact to the consumer here would be negligible compared to what they’ve been paying in recent years. As per HST, still a lower overall tax burden than every other jurisdiction.
I keep hearing this, but theres so much wrong with it still.
First of all, for all of the Pro-PST individuals I understand that its not the worst idea in the world, but theres also a reason it isnt here and that reason isnt just 'Political Suicide' or 'Sheer Hubris.'
PST isnt some sort of 'Magic Bullet.' Everyone screaming at the top of their lungs for PST seemingly has little understanding of its actual overall impact and a perfect example of that is the argument:
"If we had a PST we'd be out of debt right now!!!"
Because thats how Economics works right? You change one variable to produce a favourable result and all other factors concerning that variable will stay exactly the same. Nobody will make different decisions based on new circumstances. Its just 5% straight into our pockets that our Government will spend wisely on Teachers and Hospitals!!
Right? Thats how that works?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
It's almost like all of the 'no tax' goofs have no idea how the rest of the first world operates or functions.
Like the people living 4 hours away in Cranbrook are living in an economic wasteland.
It's almost like they aren't worth listening to about anything at all?
Yeah....I'm getting that impression about a lot of people and there are a few right at the top of the list....some of the most vocal actually.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
You absolutely can't release a budget that illustrates your economic expertise is a hollowed out husk of dust bin economic theories from 40 years ago because that might panic global investors.
What you need to do is release a budget that has a tangential relationship to the world we live that doesn't effectively address any of the shortcomings of provincial finances but over the long term actually aims to make them worse.
It's important to appear incompetent rather than malevolent because that time you dedicated your whole life to enhancing the pain and suffering of others, also 40 years ago, still has some traction in public discourse because your disgusting self hating diatribes are unfortunately still captured in video.
Those of you against PST, please explain why you think it's a bad idea? Yes, people will be instantly hit with a % increase on purchases, but what are the bigger picture impacts that we may not be factoring in, in your opinion?
And if one were to sit down and factor based on a family's monthly spend, would the PST increase be more or less of an impact that some of the impending impacts due to the recent budget? Those include likely a large increase to property tax, some career steams seeing income impacts, education funding impacts etc.
And please, I ask this question from a place of honesty and not a partisan agenda. I truly want to know if implementing a PST would be far more detrimental than I may realize.
I keep hearing this, but theres so much wrong with it still.
First of all, for all of the Pro-PST individuals I understand that its not the worst idea in the world, but theres also a reason it isnt here and that reason isnt just 'Political Suicide' or 'Sheer Hubris.'
PST isnt some sort of 'Magic Bullet.' Everyone screaming at the top of their lungs for PST seemingly has little understanding of its actual overall impact and a perfect example of that is the argument:
"If we had a PST we'd be out of debt right now!!!"
Because thats how Economics works right? You change one variable to produce a favourable result and all other factors concerning that variable will stay exactly the same. Nobody will make different decisions based on new circumstances. Its just 5% straight into our pockets that our Government will spend wisely on Teachers and Hospitals!!
Right? Thats how that works?
Yeah....I'm getting that impression about a lot of people and there are a few right at the top of the list....some of the most vocal actually.
Well Locke, I'll trust that Trevor Tombe has at least a little understanding of Economics given that he's well, an Economist.
Even when (if?) we balance the books in 2022, a massive revenue challenge will remain. We will rely on over $8.5 billion in volatile resource revenues. This, more than anything else, is Alberta's budget challenge. Addressing it won't be easy.
Do you want your taxes to rise and fall by thousands of dollars from one year to the next?
Do you want public services to similarly rise and fall by billions?
Do you want to use public debt to absorb the shocks and smooth out good times and bad?
Currently in Alberta, those are your options.
It's fair enough to pick one, but we need to be open and honest about the choice that we're making. That's not what Budget 2020 does. It's a budget in denial of reality.
Many will debate and discuss the pros and cons of tax changes and spending restraint contained in Alberta's latest budget. Such discussion is valuable and healthy.
But regardless of whether you want low spending or high, or higher taxes or not, there's a problem that needs fixing: our reliance on oil and gas revenues.
I don't doubt the government's resolve to eliminate the deficit by 2022. But Budget 2020 presented no credible plan to get there. Something will have to change, unless pure luck intervenes.
Pretending a problem does not exist doesn't make it so.
So matching the next lowest province in taxes would give as an extra $14.4 billion dollars? We could still be the lowest taxed province and bring in an extra $10 billion, if we wanted. Our house is run by fools.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
So matching the next lowest province in taxes would give as an extra $14.4 billion dollars? We could still be the lowest taxed province and bring in an extra $10 billion, if we wanted. Our house is run by fools.
And people who take being taxed as a personal affront.
So matching the next lowest province in taxes would give as an extra $14.4 billion dollars? We could still be the lowest taxed province and bring in an extra $10 billion, if we wanted. Our house is run by fools.
Uh huh.
And look, I get Locke's point that it's not as simple as "bring on PST, rake in $14.4B". But this is a conversation Alberta needs to have. Maybe you only get 70% of those revenues and it's not going to be 100% efficient, but there's a lot of room between 0 taxes and the next lowest province.
Personally, I don't think it's responsible to run our budget/deficit on oil royalties simply because we don't like the idea of paying taxes.
We essentially have three choices (or a blend of all three) and it doesn't have to be partisan politics. Quite simply, we can either:
1. Raise Revenue
2. Cut Expenditures
3. Run up huge deficits
So far, all we're doing is #2 and #3 and we're not even going to consider #1 because "Alberta Advantage". We're betting on the price of a historically volatile commodity to fund everything. That doesn't seem rational to me. And yes, I know the NDP didn't really address #1 either aside from Carbon Tax. This doesn't have to be a partisan issue.
At some point, you have to feel really bad for Albertans who have just been on a never-ending rollercoaster for six years and you have to feel very vindictive towards Alberta politicians who keep making the same bets on the same resource in an increasingly volatile market.
At some point, you have to blame both groups for their continued reliance on each other.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
