Alberta Politics Thread v2

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This is the type of thing an economic idiot says:

https://twitter.com/jkenney/status/1054783799714672640

Or maybe he's not an idiot, maybe he's just a craven self serving snake oil salesman willing to say or do whatever it takes to attain power.

Oh well, I'm sure I've changed some hearts and minds.

Sounds like par for the course for most politicians unfortunately.

[White Out 403]

From the twitter lol.

[CaptainCrunch]

You could replace the name of Jason Kenney with any politician. Justin Trudeau, Rachel Notley, Andrew Scheer.


They all lied. Trudeau abandoned most of his campaign promises, Rachel didn't have a carbon tax in her platform, Scheer's just kind of a muppet.

[Flash Walken]

Both sides, many sides.

And yet, I only ever pick the same one.

Weird how that happens.

[DFO]

Kenny and the UPC will fail simply because they will not address the non-royalty revenue side of the equation. In fact I wouldn't be surprised that they cut taxes. Prentice was at least on the right track by acknowledging both potential cuts and need for increased revenue (consumption tax?) before Albertans threw a hissy fit.

[corporatejay]

I don't even know what fiscally conservative is. I guess in its truest form Al Duerr was the most fiscally conservative mayor we had. Kept taxes low. Meanwhile, nothing got built and the city has been playing catch up for 20 years. Not sure that's a better solution. Nice things cost money.

The thing that concerns me the most about the NDP is the expansion of the public sector labour force. Those are expensive jobs with pensions that will cost us down the line. Not sure how the rest is a problem. She thought the Carbon tax would buy us social license (a commonly held view at the time) turns out we were all wrong, and that's not on Notley.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You could replace the name of Jason Kenney with any politician. Justin Trudeau, Rachel Notley, Andrew Scheer.


They all lied. Trudeau abandoned most of his campaign promises, Rachel didn't have a carbon tax in her platform, Scheer's just kind of a muppet.

and I've been accused of Whataboutism? lol.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I don't even know what fiscally conservative is. I guess in its truest form Al Duerr was the most fiscally conservative mayor we had. Kept taxes low. Meanwhile, nothing got built and the city has been playing catch up for 20 years. Not sure that's a better solution. Nice things cost money.

The thing that concerns me the most about the NDP is the expansion of the public sector labour force. Those are expensive jobs with pensions that will cost us down the line. Not sure how the rest is a problem. She thought the Carbon tax would buy us social license (a commonly held view at the time) turns out we were all wrong, and that's not on Notley.

Fiscal conservative is that you balance both sides of the ledger. If you want low taxes, you accompany that with low spending (like Al Duerr). If you want high spending, you accompany that with high taxes.

Modern conservatives just cut taxes without cutting spending. Modern Liberals raise spending without raising taxes. Both sides are total garbage.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Fiscal conservative is that you balance both sides of the ledger. If you want low taxes, you accompany that with low spending (like Al Duerr). If you want high spending, you accompany that with high taxes.

Modern conservatives just cut taxes without cutting spending. Modern Liberals raise spending without raising taxes. Both sides are total garbage.

Both sides, many sides.

Every center-left political party on Canada raises taxes upon gaining power to pay for their programs, or more recently, to get their respective province out of deficit spending.

"Fiscal conservative" as a label hasn't carried any weight in 25-30 years.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Fiscal conservative is that you balance both sides of the ledger. If you want low taxes, you accompany that with low spending (like Al Duerr). If you want high spending, you accompany that with high taxes.

Modern conservatives just cut taxes without cutting spending. Modern Liberals raise spending without raising taxes. Both sides are total garbage.

I disagree. Fiscal conservatism is not one dimensional in that it only applies to the government ledger or financial position. Government fiscal policy exists not only to provide services to the populace, but also to create a competitive environment for businesses in a global sense. A high tax, high spend government is never 'fiscally conservative' regardless of the position of government finances.

Real 'Fiscal conservatism' is running government finances in a sustainable manor while keeping taxes in check to create a constructive and stable environment for enterprise. We've only really seen some examples of this in in Canada, and neither Conservative nor Liberal governments own exclusive claim to such examples.

[DFO]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Real 'Fiscal conservatism' is running government finances in a sustainable manor while keeping taxes in check to create a constructive and stable environment for enterprise. We've only really seen some examples of this in in Canada, and neither Conservative nor Liberal governments own exclusive claim to such examples.

Great in theory but it doesn't work here - already among the lowest taxed jurisdictions in the country. There are not enough cuts to finances to fully offset the deficit (more so if we don't want to rely on O&G royalties).

[Regorium]

So which government is more fiscally conservative?

A low tax high spend government (ie. most Republican/Conservative government) with a 25 billion deficit.

A high tax high spend government (haven't seen this yet in NA) with a balanced budget.

Balanced budgets is one of the main tenets of fiscal conservatism. For me, it's by far the most important thing, and I personally don't care if they do it through service cuts or increased taxation. According to wikipedia, I fit in the "deficit hawk" category of fiscal conservatives.

Your emphasis on tax cuts and "business environment" is apparently a second group of fiscal conservatives that think tax cuts are the solution. This is definitely the largest faction of fiscal conservatives, but I would argue that it's the most ineffective form of fiscal conservatism. Both Bush and Trump subscribe to this philosophy, and both have added trillions of dollars to the debt without any gains in the government ledger.

[woob]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

and I've been accused of Whataboutism? lol.

DRINK!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Fiscal conservative is that you balance both sides of the ledger. If you want low taxes, you accompany that with low spending (like Al Duerr). If you want high spending, you accompany that with high taxes.

That's really not it. Fiscal conservatism is low tax, small government. High tax, high spending tends to be socialism, as usually the taxes hit the rich more and the spending helps the poor.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by SebC

That's really not it. Fiscal conservatism is low tax, small government. High tax, high spending tends to be socialism, as usually the taxes hit the rich more and the spending helps the poor.

I disagree. I basically subscribe to this fiscal conservative definition from Michael Bloomberg.

To me, fiscal conservatism means balancing budgets – not running deficits that the next generation can't afford. It means improving the efficiency of delivering services by finding innovative ways to do more with less. It means cutting taxes when possible and prudent to do so, raising them overall only when necessary to balance the budget, and only in combination with spending cuts. It means when you run a surplus, you save it; you don't squander it. And most importantly, being a fiscal conservative means preparing for the inevitable economic downturns – and by all indications, we've got one coming.

When I mean "high tax high spend" - perhaps I should say just "appropriate level of taxation for level of service."

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Regorium

So which government is more fiscally conservative?

A low tax high spend government (ie. most Republican/Conservative government) with a 25 billion deficit.

A high tax high spend government (haven't seen this yet in NA) with a balanced budget.

Balanced budgets is one of the main tenets of fiscal conservatism. For me, it's by far the most important thing, and I personally don't care if they do it through service cuts or increased taxation. According to wikipedia, I fit in the "deficit hawk" category of fiscal conservatives.

Your emphasis on tax cuts and "business environment" is apparently a second group of fiscal conservatives that think tax cuts are the solution. This is definitely the largest faction of fiscal conservatives, but I would argue that it's the most ineffective form of fiscal conservatism. Both Bush and Trump subscribe to this philosophy, and both have added trillions of dollars to the debt without any gains in the government ledger.

I don't think tax cuts are always part of budgetary solutions. I think there needs to be an acknowledgement of the health of the tax base when making budgetary decisions. You seem to not care as long as government finances are balanced. The government doesn't exist for the sake of government it does for the sake of the people it governs.

I would argue that both of your examples are failures in fiscal conservatism. A high tax, high spend government has no levers to pull when things get volatile and likely due to high taxes probably has a smaller tax base (all other things being equal), whereas the low tax high spending government has more levers to pull (Higher tax base), but is starting from a bad place.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I disagree. I basically subscribe to this fiscal conservative definition from Michael Bloomberg.



When I mean "high tax high spend" - perhaps I should say just "appropriate level of taxation for level of service."

too bad the PC's forgot this part
"It means when you run a surplus, you save it; you don't squander it. "

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I don't think tax cuts are always part of budgetary solutions. I think there needs to be an acknowledgement of the health of the tax base when making budgetary decisions. You seem to not care as long as government finances are balanced. The government doesn't exist for the sake of government it does for the sake of the people it governs.

I would argue that both of your examples are failures in fiscal conservatism. A high tax, high spend government has no levers to pull when things get volatile and likely due to high taxes probably has a smaller tax base (all other things being equal), whereas the low tax high spending government has more levers to pull (Higher tax base), but is starting from a bad place.

We all have different opinions of what 'high taxes' mean and I agree that tax cuts aren't always part of budgetary solutions. It's largely what prevents me from voting for political parties that represents them as the only solution.

Kenney is suggesting repealing notleys carbon tax and going back to stelmachs, but the major players in albertas energy economy, and thus Alberta seem to think notleys is preferable, and their removal seems to be contribute to a less stable and constructive business environment.

Notley may be less than ideal but Kenney would be a catastrophe.

[Muffins]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

We all have different opinions of what 'high taxes' mean and I agree that tax cuts aren't always part of budgetary solutions. It's largely what prevents me from voting for political parties that represents them as the only solution.

Kenney is suggesting repealing notleys carbon tax and going back to stelmachs, but the major players in albertas energy economy, and thus Alberta seem to think notleys is preferable, and their removal seems to be contribute to a less stable and constructive business environment.

Notley may be less than ideal but Kenney would be a catastrophe.

The major players like Notley's because it puts a cap on the oil sands. Essentially it helps them keep the competition out.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

too bad the PC's forgot this part
"It means when you run a surplus, you save it; you don't squander it. "

Yeah, I’m not sure anyone thinks living paycheque to paycheque and blowing your Christmas bonus is great financial management. Better than racking up your credit cards and applying for payday loans when the money runs out, but neither earns you a label of “fiscally conservative.”