Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Dion

Notley used American style politics in the last election and was decimated at the polls. She might still be Premier had she focused on defending what she did right and told Albertans what she was going to do for them in the future.

I agree but somehow she also understated the damage of the Kenny Boogyman.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by dustyanddaflames

-snip-

We live in one of the greatest (yet smallest communities) in all of Alberta - where a neighbour is diagnosed with cancer in the middle of harvest, and 30 combines are at his door the next day to help them finish. Our little local grocery store has 30-40 volunteers come in and do inventory on their own time from 7 pm to 2 am, or every Thursday at lunch drop in to help unload produce. Neighbours drive by and see your cow out, and put it in for you without thinking twice.

Find me, and others, a party that represents those values - and I think you'd have a lot of people interested in hearing what they have to say. I really don't think we have that option at this moment, so the majority just do what they've always done.
-snip-

This sounds a lot like communism.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

for the longest time I had thought that this was how the ideal Canadian government would work. as time goes on I've come to believe that these two things are oil and water and can't realistically exist together on a single platform.

socially progressive means taking care of people where needed, which means money must be spent. it's the type of funding that fiscal conservatives tend to fundamentally disagree with.

If we redefine fiscal conservatives as having appropriate taxation in place to fund required expenditures and follow evidence based practices for setting tax rates and structures then the person could exist. An anti waste, pro competition to drive down cost type. Nenshi comes to mind as the most recent version of such fiscal views.

I think the issue is that fiscal conservative currently means cut taxes and privatize with no care for the balance sheet except to use as a bully pulpit.

[kermitology]

Yeah, fiscal conservative policy these days is simple limited to reducing revenue and reducing expenditures, but that's only looking at it from the government balance sheet. Overall, you saw big jumps in taxpayer costs as the distributed cost through taxation became direct user fees and big jumps to utility bills, and registration, combined with the loss of services.

True fiscal conservative policy would tax appropriately (especially business taxes which were already low enough and didn't need to be lower) and invest in infrastructure that delivers the best return for society. Be very wary of anyone who suggests that you run government like a business. It's not a business, it should never be thought of like that. Pretty much everywhere you see government run like a business it results in profiteering of the higher-ups within the ruling party.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://tntteam.ca/calgary-inner-city-real-estate/


This is a typical "inner city" map, I don't consider anything here a suburb. Even further north, is Thorncliff a suburb? I don't really think so. It's a tough distinction to make in Calgary.

1. Inner-Urban = Downtown+Beltline

2. Mid-Urban = Crowchild to 16 Ave to Deerfoot to ~38 Ave (the south border is kinda arbitrary and harder to define, but all of the borders are just rough transition zones anyways). Works out to ~6km x 6km square centered @ Calgary Tower (ie. 3km radius, but for a square)

3. Outer-Urban - Sarcee to Heritage (or maybe Southland?) to McKnight/Laurie + Bowness/Montgomery/Varsity to ~52 St E. Roughly a ~7km 'radius'.

Then you could breakdown inner/outer burbs. I think it would be fair to call Thorncliffe or Acadia or Dalhousie an 'Inner-Suburb'.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by GGG

Fair, there was never a threat of another ice age though.

Absolutely, and having most of our temperature measurement occurring where people live has caused all sorts of discrepancies and issues with global temperature modelling.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The beer comment is a bit dumb. Despite eventually being rejected, Notley’s policies made it highly advantageous to be an Alberta-based brewer, which led to a huge increase in those businesses, many of which made it through that first, toughest part of starting a business thanks to the Alberta advantage.

And whether you believe increasing or decreasing taxes is a good thing is fairly subjective, so that’s not really a criticism that is going to land with anyone that doesn’t already agree with you, especially when you’re a rich person who constantly whines about paying taxes. It sort of makes you out of touch with regular people.

Are you denying that higher taxes impede economic growth?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

1. Inner-Urban = Downtown+Beltline

2. Mid-Urban = Crowchild to 16 Ave to Deerfoot to ~38 Ave (the south border is kinda arbitrary and harder to define, but all of the borders are just rough transition zones anyways). Works out to ~6km x 6km square centered @ Calgary Tower (ie. 3km radius, but for a square)

3. Outer-Urban - Sarcee to Heritage (or maybe Southland?) to McKnight/Laurie + Bowness/Montgomery/Varsity to ~52 St E. Roughly a ~7km 'radius'.

Then you could breakdown inner/outer burbs. I think it would be fair to call Thorncliffe or Acadia or Dalhousie an 'Inner-Suburb'.

South border for mid-urban would definitely be Glenmore Trail. You get a bit more on the south than on the north but it’s a better demarcation point, at least in the SW.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Are you denying that higher taxes impede economic growth?

I’m not denying that they can, but if you’re asking if I’m denying that they exclusively do, then of course I am. Anyone outside of those who lick the boots of right wing free market policy advocacy centres would deny that.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Are you denying that higher taxes impede economic growth?

Focusing on one side of a government (taxes) in a vacuum in itself is wrong. Some government activities impede economic growth, when spent on stupid stuff like the war room. (Or investing in a dead pipeline)

However, if you are investing in social programs, R&D, business grants or health care as a few examples you end up with economic growth.

You can also have net neutral tax programs that are meant to steer economic growth away from undesirable industries and towards desirable ones (for example carbon taxes).

You also have taxes that are meant to make sure economic growth continues within a region, like resource royalties, so that companies don't come in mine all the resources then take the profits to another jurisdiction or worse use financing tricks so the region sees not benefits.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Are you denying that higher taxes impede economic growth?

I am not worried about how much the provincial government taxes, so much as what they want to spend those tax dollars on.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Are you denying that higher taxes impede economic growth?

We fall into a range to taxation as a percentage of gdp that is in line with the rest of countries we like to be compared to.

But let’s also consider how taxation impedes growth.

If the government borrows to provide a service then increasing taxation to pay for that borrowing will reduce growth however if the government cuts said service to reduce the deficit then that also reduces growth.

Now for taxation to be a negative in means that what the government spends the money on generates less economic activity then what a private individual spends money on.

So if you lower corporate taxes and it results in a dividend to stock holders but the capital budget of the company remains the same and many of those owners are non-Albertan you are sending money out of the exonomy.

If you cut by taxes I’m saving it a broad based index fund so that’s shipping the money out of province or I’m spending it on out of province vacation. Now if you cut the lowest bracket of taxes exclusively for lower income that would likely drive consumption of necessities and be spend locally but given the consumption of goods and their place of origin you are still leaking dollars

If the government spends the money on a teachers Salary that money does work doing a service in the economy and only costs the amount of services that person uses. In that case the only waste is if the private sector could do that job more efficiently.

So the shot answer is in the context of our current tax rates non-deficit spending whether through cuts or increased taxation will reduce economic growth but revenue neutral redistribution of spending likely has limited affects.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I am not worried about how much the provincial government taxes, so much as what they want to spend those tax dollars on.

Here’s what they’re spending on now. What budget items would you like to see increased or decreased?

https://twitter.com/trevortombe/stat...93202013745153

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Are you denying that higher taxes impede economic growth?

https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-...upply-side-tax

When Sam Brownback came in in Kansas and made massive tax cuts it almost single-handedly killed their economy. Their private sector job growth for the 5 years the tax cuts were in place was lower than all the neighbouring states save one and was less than half that of the US average (high tax states really pulled up that average). Their economic growth was the lowest of the 5 neighbouring states and was again less than half the US rate of economic growth. Their labour participation rate dropped after the tax cuts. So it does appear that massive tax cuts have a negative impact on overall economic growth and on job creation.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-...upply-side-tax

When Sam Brownback came in in Kansas and made massive tax cuts it almost single-handedly killed their economy. Their private sector job growth for the 5 years the tax cuts were in place was lower than all the neighbouring states save one and was less than half that of the US average (high tax states really pulled up that average). Their economic growth was the lowest of the 5 neighbouring states and was again less than half the US rate of economic growth. Their labour participation rate dropped after the tax cuts. So it does appear that massive tax cuts have a negative impact on overall economic growth and on job creation.

One thing to note here is how far further to the low tax Kansas started from than Alberta. 5% ish rates going in.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GGG

One thing to note here is how far further to the low tax Kansas started from than Alberta. 5% ish rates going in.

One would think they would have already had a red hot economy even before Brownback came in. Yet for some reason, despite the low starting tax rate, they did not.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

One would think they would have already had a red hot economy even before Brownback came in. Yet for some reason, despite the low starting tax rate, they did not.

I agree that lowering taxes beyond competing jurisdictions in a race to the bottom is a net negative for people but your statement above is not logical. Different jurisdictions have different potentials to be successful so you can’t compare Kansas to itself and say it’s not red hot therefore policy is bad. Kansas could just suck.

To be clear I agree with your general point of lowering taxes is net negative right now.

[Bill Bumface]

I think this is best started by everyone agreeing that societies with zero taxation suck and fail, and societies with 100% taxation suck and fail. It shouldn't be a debate of more or less, it should be a debate of where governments have a role to collect and spend money to fill the gaps left by capitalist systems. Then it comes down to how to do so most efficiently.

People perceive the gaps in capitalism a lot differently. It also comes down to personal ideals around how much opportunity should come from being born into wealth vs. how much opportunity should be fostered for all.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I think this is best started by everyone agreeing that societies with zero taxation suck and fail, and societies with 100% taxation suck and fail. It shouldn't be a debate of more or less, it should be a debate of where governments have a role to collect and spend money to fill the gaps left by capitalist systems. Then it comes down to how to do so most efficiently.

People perceive the gaps in capitalism a lot differently. It also comes down to personal ideals around how much opportunity should come from being born into wealth vs. how much opportunity should be fostered for all.

People do differ on what they feel the state should provide. But they also differ on how much they’re personally willing to pay in taxes to provide it.

Swedes don’t just have a more expansive idea than Canadians of what public services the state should provide. They’re also, as a society, willing to pay substantially more in taxes to fund public services.

I’m sure most Albertans would say they support improved access to health care, better provisions for seniors in long-term care, and smaller class sizes in public schools. But I’d also wager that many of those same people would oppose substantial (or any) increases to their own taxes to pay for that stuff.

[Jason14h]

Actually I think most Albertans would happily pay if they trusted any government to use those funds and actually solve the problems .

In reality class sizes would stay the same , senior care would stay the same , and health care wait time would increase . But we would see more overtime abuse , administration hirings , and raises for managers

And this is always the issue - Public service employees also want more $$/higher salaries. (And there is nothing wrong with that ) so the real question is how much should go to each individual employee va overall funding

We are already the highest if I go by https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-conte...or_Mueller.pdf

Which I assume is relatively unbiased

And this is why in my opinion we have such a political divide even within this province - our public sector employees make the best money in Canada , and even better when you consider Alberta’s cost of living vs the other big 3 provinces

This is due to one factor - energy revenue and the boom cycles that drive up the private sector salaries which pull up public sector salaries / cost of living

It really is a peculiar cycle in my mind. The public sector hates the conservatives (who
Support the energy industry) even though their country wide highest salaries depend / were as a result the industries . Conservatives (at least the politicians) constantly complain about our public servants wages and try to run on a shoe string budget despite being the wealthiest (long term) province and depending on these people for their kids education and medical well beings .

All the while tax rates constantly increase and service levels - in my opinion - get worst - longer waits , larger class sizes , etc

Everyone should reap the rewards when this province is successful and tighten the strings during downturns but neither side ever wants to accept this fact leading to a constant us vs them on both sides

Keep raising taxes isn’t the answer , and neither is keep cutting costs, not wait for another cycle - It lies in the middle and neither side will acknowledge that