Premier Notley's Second Year

[KC]

Time for an update.

Starting this year two thread more than mid way through the 'election year to beat the media to it.



I hate to agree with moahunter's simple views on what drives business, but... Note that the small business sector got corporate tax breaks from the NDP.

bolding is mine

Economy turning around, expert says after smaller Alberta businesses expect to increase spending
GORDON KENT, EDMONTON JOURNAL 01.16.2017

Small and medium-sized businesses in Alberta expect to boost 2017 spending at a faster rate than anywhere else in Canada, a new survey shows.

Firms in the province with fewer than 500 employees say they’ll raise investment by 17.1 per cent this year, compared to the 1.6 per cent national average increase, according to a report released Monday by the Business Development Bank of Canada.

That’s a huge change from 2016, when Alberta companies were the most pessimistic in Canada and planned to slash spending by 27 per cent.

“Fifty per cent of them believe their revenue is going to increase this year, compared to 33 per cent last year. I think it’s a sign they see the economy is about to turn around,” said the bank’s chief economist, Pierre Cleroux.

“I think the investment intentions are increasing just because ..."

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...103/story.html

Alberta budget 2016: Government to cut small business tax from 3 to 2 per cent

AMANDA STEPHENSON, CALGARY HERALD
More from Amanda Stephenson, Calgary Herald
Published on: April 14, 2016 | Last Updated: April 15, 2016

Alberta business groups say the NDP government’s decision to cut taxes for small-business owners and introduce tax credits for capital investment will stimulate the private sector and help create jobs.

http://calgaryherald.com/business/lo...ax-from-3-to-2

Here's a link to the first thread and the article that started it:
Premier Notley's First Year
http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/showt...y-s-First-Year
Notley’s first year: Calm in crisis, strong in delivery
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...ticle29904241/

[Gemini]

I kinda like reading moa's views on the economy, he has put forth some mighty good counter points. I like Notley but not keen on some of her policies. I hated Redford so anything she did got trashed because of my dislike for her. If she did do any good it was someone else's idea. Notley, I take a wait and see approach. Wait and see how we stand after her first term. I still think the P C's need to be in the wilderness for another election cycle at least.

[Marcel Petrin]

I'm not a fan of some of the more ideologically motivated decisions the Notley government has made (keeping AHS laundry services in house even though it will require a massive capital investment to replace old equipment when there are numerous private companies that could do the same work likely for a far better price is a perfect example). I'm not opposed to a carbon tax, but I think they made Alberta's too complicated and not revenue neutral enough. It should have been modeled more closely on BC's. Personally I've seen my personal tax rate go up by 10% between the provincial and federal changes, so I'm not thrilled about that, but on the other hand I'm not sure that would even make my top 5 issues. As far as their management of the economy and budget goes, I don't have any big complaints.

Mostly I just think that Alberta's government was about 20 years too stale, and it's been good to get new blood in there. So long as they didn't make any colossal screw ups, and to this point I don't think they have, the change of government was going to be good for Alberta and it's politics. Now if the Liberals could just go away or merge with the "P" part of the PC's while the C's run off to the Wildrose, that would be great. One centrist party (PC's), one left and one right.

[moahunter]

So when is Notley going to care enough about the debt she is running up by increasing operational spending since taking office, to do this?

The government made it official Friday — at least, to those who control public sector salaries. Saskatchewan is freezing the wages of all civil servants.

“Saskatchewan is experiencing a very challenging fiscal situation, one which requires all of us to share in the effort required to reduce expenses and increase revenues,” deputy premier and education minister Don Morgan said in the letter that went out Friday the 13th to all school division chairs.

“All public sector employers are expected to ensure that there are no increases to the total cost of employee compensation as a result of any ongoing negotiations for contracts yet to expire. There shall also be no increase in total costs resulting from any adjustment to out-of-scope compensation.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...-war-on-unions

That's what a responsible leader does. If Notley wants to borrow to invest in infrastructure, I can understand that, but her ramp up of the civil service in a time we can't afford it, and will probably never be able to afford it at this size (even with $100 oil one day), is totally irresponsible.

[Ustauk]

^
Say hello to last year, Moahunter Admittedly, they couldn't freeze union wages, but that has much to do with agreements negotiated by the previous Conservative government.

[moahunter]

^they won't freeze union wages, because they "respect the collective bargaining process" (i.e. union members are worth more than regular civil servants). Oh well...

[etownff]

Best news about this being her second year is that it means after this year we only have 2 left

[KC]

So when is Notley going to care enough about the debt she is running up by increasing operational spending since taking office, to do this?

The government made it official Friday — at least, to those who control public sector salaries. Saskatchewan is freezing the wages of all civil servants.

“Saskatchewan is experiencing a very challenging fiscal situation, one which requires all of us to share in the effort required to reduce expenses and increase revenues,” deputy premier and education minister Don Morgan said in the letter that went out Friday the 13th to all school division chairs.

“All public sector employers are expected to ensure that there are no increases to the total cost of employee compensation as a result of any ongoing negotiations for contracts yet to expire. There shall also be no increase in total costs resulting from any adjustment to out-of-scope compensation.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...-war-on-unions

That's what a responsible leader does. If Notley wants to borrow to invest in infrastructure, I can understand that, but her ramp up of the civil service in a time we can't afford it, and will probably never be able to afford it at this size (even with $100 oil one day), is totally irresponsible.

Higher taxes are a wage cut and they generally hit the public sector harder than the private sector. (sole proprietorships etc have more latitude...)

Asking people to take a wage cut or wage freeze when their jobs have nothing to do with another sector's problems is somewhat anti-free market but that's what a tax increase does too. Hit everyone to bail out someone else. The NDP didn't have much choice there.

In the case of a oil dependent government I'm quite fine with government employees being forced to take a wage freeze or a wage cut to assist job losses in the private sector. Use the savings to hire more people, cut taxes, spend more or do something to soften the blow of a sudden reversal of fortune. This is where the NDP is making a huge mistake. People want to see government employees suffer.

That said, why should we feel sorry for our oil companies and service companies? Even if those losing their jobs made incredible sums of money for years and this downturn was highly predictable. Energy corporations were highly mismanaged and there's no way they should have been unprepared for a price drop, and those losing jobs while having no savings and losing houses should have known better. Where's the self reliance and accountability for one's own actions? ...but I admit, those attitudes of mine just aren't reflective of everyone's own reality.

So here we come, downsizing is a near inevitability for government and the private sector. The NDP should be talking about that and how they will do everything in their power to bring back boom time growth. (Which is unlikely but politicians deal in hope.)

The borrowing is very unlikely to create lasting economic gains. (Tell me what return we get on infrastructure? It's very fuzzy math. If it's future cost savings that's great but in a race to the bottom cash in hand is critical.) however, we can defer the inevitable and hope for a recovery. Kick the can down the road and hope and pray, it's our traditional way.

We're using our high credit rating to soften the blow. I'd have preferred savings for a rainy day to be getting drawn down but to have created those savings, many highly unpopular steps would have had to have been done. There was an opportunity cost to saving during a boom. Using the credit capacity is somewhat six of one, half dozen of the other but we hand off control and then pay interest to foreign parties in doing leverage. That's never good, but what do you do? Without it we'd drive the economy into a depression, and then collapse even more enterprises such as real estate.

Unfortunate as it is, high government spending "drives out fear" when the private sector collapses - in fear.

[KC]

Alberta economy on road to recovery, conference board says
Gordon Kent, February 23, 2017

Excerpt:
Alberta should post Canada’s fastest economic growth this year as the energy industry improves and consumer spending picks up, a Conference Board of Canada report says.

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...nce-board-says

[Top_Dawg]

Yeah.

However - and this is what Top_Dawg is seeing on the ground - the jobs are not returning.

http://business.financialpost.com/ne...spite-us50-oil

In fact, the big boyz may not be done cutting yet.

[MrOilers]

Now we have NDP trying to make it a human rights issue for pointing out that someone is overweight:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...-act-1.3995848

[noodle]

Petitioning the government doesn't make you part of the party that's currently in control of the government. She's a MacEwan student, not a caucus member. There's zero commentary from the actual NDP/Alberta Government in that article.

[Highlander II]

^^No, read your own source.
We have a private individual who started a petition.

NDP is not involved.


Edit: scooped, Noodle wins.

[Marcel Petrin]

Guys, it's clearly a conspiracy between the NDP and the Leftist Media to disguise that petition as being grassroots and having nothing to do with the government.

[moahunter]

Yeah.

However - and this is what Top_Dawg is seeing on the ground - the jobs are not returning.

http://business.financialpost.com/ne...spite-us50-oil

In fact, the big boyz may not be done cutting yet.

I agree, Exxon just took the dramatic (for them) step of writing down their entire Kearl oil sands reserves to 0 (3.5 billion barrels of bitumen). This means, even at 50 dollars per barrel, they are losing money on the project / it will never recover its cost. Good luck finding investors to pump 10s of billion more into such projects, when they can make far less capital intensive plays in US shale.

https://www.ft.com/content/0145de6a-...6-2d969e0d3b65

[Dave]

Yeah.

However - and this is what Top_Dawg is seeing on the ground - the jobs are not returning.

http://business.financialpost.com/ne...spite-us50-oil

In fact, the big boyz may not be done cutting yet.

I agree, Exxon just took the dramatic (for them) step of writing down their entire Kearl oil sands reserves to 0 (3.5 billion barrels of bitumen). This means, even at 50 dollars per barrel, they are losing money on the project / it will never recover its cost. Good luck finding investors to pump 10s of billion more into such projects, when they can make far less capital intensive plays in US shale.

https://www.ft.com/content/0145de6a-...6-2d969e0d3b65

Math is simple, but brutal - $50/ barrel just does not justify huge investments in expansion right now. However, it is much better than $30 so it helps improve cash flow and allows more companies to make money from ongoing operations. As long a companies can do that, I doubt there will be a lot more lay offs.

If the price actually continues to go up, the level of activity will increase more and that will lead to more jobs.

[Chmilz]

Happy with Notley's second year. Can't say the same for Trudeau. She's killing it, his downward spiral into a dud is in full force.

[H.L.]

I'll be so glad to see her gone, they have no idea how to payback what they are borrowing.

[Hilman]

Happy with Notley's second year. Can't say the same for Trudeau. She's killing it, his downward spiral into a dud is in full force.

I am curious what she is killing besides job growth and my disposable income?

[Top_Dawg]

Good one Hilman.

[H.L.]

Wtg Hillman

[Chmilz]

Happy with Notley's second year. Can't say the same for Trudeau. She's killing it, his downward spiral into a dud is in full force.

I am curious what she is killing besides job growth and my disposable income?

Well, she's doing a great job positioning Alberta for future prosperity via diversification, especially in cleantech. Her policies haven't had any impact on jobs or your income. You can blame OPEC for the oil crash and the jobs that went with it. Trump is taking over from where they left off by pillaging the environment to oversupply the market, so we can expect prices to stay low and no hiring to happen.

In year 2, the carbon tax was the top move. Putting a price on pollution has been coming a long time. The phasing in of programs using that money to develop our cleantech industry (aka jobs) and incentives for Albertans to retrofit their homes to be cleaner (watch contractor and installer employment go way up, I have clients advertising and hiring already) round that out nicely.

Beyond that, just regular good governance. No Sky Palaces. No using government aircraft as personal playthings. Solid day to day activity with strong ethics and a desire to work for the people instead of lining their own pockets.

You're free to disagree, and you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm a regular Albertan and I like what's going on.

[Hilman]

"Her policies haven't had any impact on jobs or your income?"

The carbon tax will have a large impact on my disposable income, around $1,200 over the next two years according to this site http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ator-1.3900339

How about the extra $140 a year I will be paying for the portion of educational taxes that were raised on my property taxes? http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...ton-homeowners

These two things alone will add up to around $1,500 over the next two years, did my wage mysteriously go up? Oh wait, it went down as I had to find a new job as our company ceased all operations in December putting 80 people out of work, many of which have not found work.

Funny how two thirds of "regular Albertans" recently said they were not in favor of the carbon tax.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Happy with Notley's second year. Can't say the same for Trudeau. She's killing it, his downward spiral into a dud is in full force.

I am curious what she is killing besides job growth and my disposable income?

Well, she's doing a great job positioning Alberta for future prosperity via diversification, especially in cleantech. Her policies haven't had any impact on jobs or your income. You can blame OPEC for the oil crash and the jobs that went with it. Trump is taking over from where they left off by pillaging the environment to oversupply the market, so we can expect prices to stay low and no hiring to happen.

In year 2, the carbon tax was the top move. Putting a price on pollution has been coming a long time. The phasing in of programs using that money to develop our cleantech industry (aka jobs) and incentives for Albertans to retrofit their homes to be cleaner (watch contractor and installer employment go way up, I have clients advertising and hiring already) round that out nicely.

Beyond that, just regular good governance. No Sky Palaces. No using government aircraft as personal playthings. Solid day to day activity with strong ethics and a desire to work for the people instead of lining their own pockets.

You're free to disagree, and you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm a regular Albertan and I like what's going on.

Well Chmilz I am a regular Albertan and think this government is doing a poor job.

To your points...

Well, she's doing a great job positioning Alberta for future prosperity via diversification, especially in cleantech.

Really, nothing has happened to this point just talk so how can we say the government is doing a good job?

Her policies haven't had any impact on jobs or your income

Really? Through this first 2 years the Gov in power has not done anything functional to make up for job loses ie: Lots of talk about infrastructure jobs while people I know in the construction end are getting laid off, lots of talk about job creation programs but the one attempt by Mr. Ceci was a disaster. Lots of talk about "Green" jobs very few happening so far. This stuff should have been at the front of the agenda not at the back. IMO

In year 2, the carbon tax was the top move.

Yeah, while not particularly accurate and based only on my January bills (all) this is going to cost around 1500 - 2000 per year more than we would have been spending on our minimalist lifestyle, but non negotiable items all seem to be getting hit.

Beyond that, just regular good governance.

Solid day to day activity with strong ethics and a desire to work for the people instead of lining their own pockets.

We see things very differently ... increases in government staff, policy being put in place with no metric to determine success or improvement and many other items give me a very different opinion.

Change the chair/Change your view

IMO

[Chmilz]

I'm sorry that Notley is personally standing next to the magical "Jobs" lever and isn't pulling it. It's almost as if the government only has limited ability to implement policy that can effect private industry, and those things take time. The carbon levy came about 55 days ago. Not a lot happens in the real world in 55 days. It takes time for these things to get moving.

I also forgot the door-to-door scam policy. Another slam dunk that should have been enacted decades ago (like Bill 6), but wasn't, because why bother when you can get reelected without doing anything?

Look, more action to reduce the aforementioned pocket lining, just revealed:

Government cuts CEO pay and bonuses at agencies, boards and commissions

CEOs at Alberta’s agencies, boards and commissions will soon have to start paying for their own golf club memberships.

They're carving up PC cronyism one step at a time.

[Hilman]

^ You haven't responded to how she hasn't effected my income??? Seems her policies have had a negative effect on me and my family, maybe I am not a regular Albertan lol like you

[Thomas Hinderks]

Chmilz

(like Bill 6)

Thanks for bringing that up.

You mean the Bill passed with no regulation in place past the WCB requirement ... rather than having the regulation and structure in place. My biggest problem with Bill 6 was less the Bill than the way it was rammed through using closure, when anytime the past government used it the current government screamed, and the fact their were no regulations in place. (Still are not)

But I've spent a lot of time digging the Alberta.gov website looking for the metric that the success of this Bill is supposed to be based on and guess what I can't find any.

I can't find any research on how many farm workers were covered by private coverage before the Bill, or if they were covered ... what coverage did they have.
Now I am not the best at internet research but I've put a bunch of late night boredom time into searching over the last few months and I can't find any information on what was in place prior.

Yet every farmer/rancher I know had private insurance coverage in place for themselves and their workers, mostly providing better coverage than WCB.

The net result ... no metric for success if you don't know what was already in place. There are other programs with the same problems.

IMO

[Thomas Hinderks]

It's almost as if the government only has limited ability to implement policy that can effect private industry, and those things take time.

Really? If the first part of her tenure had been around the promised infrastructure projects the private companies would have been building for a while now.

I'm sorry that Notley is personally standing next to the magical "Jobs" lever and isn't pulling it.

But at the same time you are saying ... [quote Her policies haven't had any impact on jobs or your income. [/quote]

Yet at the same time media reports (Global/Ched/CFRN all over the last weeks) 100,000 unemployed in the system, another 100,000 unemployed not in the system(out of benefits/contractors/etc) and another 100,000 now under employed. Seems to me that's alot of people that have had their jobs and income impacted.

But hey ... we have dealt with most SJW causes over the last 2 years.

Wonder why people are angry? Check out Maslow's hierarchy of needs...
http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

If you are on the bottom 2 rungs you really have no sympathy for causes.

If the government in power had dealt with employment creation in the first year the SJW issues would have been much easier to deal with. As show by both psychology and history.

IMO and enough for the day I think

[Dave]

^ You haven't responded to how she hasn't effected my income??? Seems her policies have had a negative effect on me and my family, maybe I am not a regular Albertan lol like you

I am not sure if you are a "regular" Albertan or not.

- If you own a business and were paying your employees minimum wage before, yes you have to pay them more now
- If you make over $125,000 year per person you have to pay more provincial income tax than before the NDP
- If you make more than 60% of Albertans you don't get a carbon tax rebate either.

If you work in the energy industry perhaps the 2/3's drop in oil prices is really what has affected your income.

Notley's changes haven't affected the income of "regular" Albertans, but if you are in the top 1% you definitely have to pay more tax now.

[moahunter]

^ You haven't responded to how she hasn't effected my income??? Seems her policies have had a negative effect on me and my family, maybe I am not a regular Albertan lol like you

I am not sure if you are a "regular" Albertan or not.

- If you own a business and were paying your employees minimum wage before, yes you have to pay them more now
- If you make over $125,000 year per person you have to pay more provincial income tax than before the NDP
- If you make more than 60% of Albertans you don't get a carbon tax rebate either.

If you work in the energy industry perhaps the 2/3's drop in oil prices is really what has affected your income.

Notley's changes haven't affected the income of "regular" Albertans, but if you are in the top 1% you definitely have to pay more tax now.

No its not the top 1%, more like top 40%. In Alberta, the upper middle 20% starts at 122k and the top 20% start at 291k.

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/money...-middle-class/

When you hammer those families, when they can't afford to eat out as much, or travel as much, or buy as many toys, then that flows right through the economy right down to the bottom 20%. This government has taken consumption that Albertan's used to do, and given it to civil servants (the bureaucracy and red tape keeps growing), while ramping up the debt at the same time. Brilliant.

[Dave]

^ You haven't responded to how she hasn't effected my income??? Seems her policies have had a negative effect on me and my family, maybe I am not a regular Albertan lol like you

I am not sure if you are a "regular" Albertan or not.

- If you own a business and were paying your employees minimum wage before, yes you have to pay them more now
- If you make over $125,000 year per person you have to pay more provincial income tax than before the NDP
- If you make more than 60% of Albertans you don't get a carbon tax rebate either.

If you work in the energy industry perhaps the 2/3's drop in oil prices is really what has affected your income.

Notley's changes haven't affected the income of "regular" Albertans, but if you are in the top 1% you definitely have to pay more tax now.

No its not the top 1%, more like top 40%. In Alberta, the upper middle 20% starts at 122k and the top 20% start at 291k.

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/money...-middle-class/

When you hammer those families, when they can't afford to eat out as much, or travel as much, or buy as many toys, then that flows right through the economy right down to the bottom 20%. This government has taken consumption that Albertan's used to do, and given it to civil servants (the bureaucracy and red tape keeps growing), while ramping up the debt at the same time. Brilliant.

I suppose if you feel the Alberta 10% personal tax rate on 122,000 is too high you can move to a neighbouring province and pay:

- In Saskatchewan, 13% plus PST or
- In BC 14.7% plus PST

These are the provinces governed by supposedly more conservative taxpayer friendly governments. The myth of high taxes in Alberta compared to other provinces is just that - a total myth.

[metro]

The reason why the NDP chose $125000 as a cut off is because teachers, most nurses and most civil servants will not cross that income threshold.

I saw lower that to $90000 -100000, so that we can all contribute. Then the real complaining would start.

It's easy to be flippant when you are not the one paying. Move to Saskatchewan etc.

$125001 does not make you wealthy in this province.

A two income "government" family benefits significantly from the flat 10%.

[Thomas Hinderks]

I suppose if you feel the Alberta 10% personal tax rate on 122,000 is too high you can move to a neighbouring province and pay:

- In Saskatchewan, 13% plus PST or
- In BC 14.7% plus PST

These are the provinces governed by supposedly more conservative taxpayer friendly governments. The myth of high taxes in Alberta compared to other provinces is just that - a total myth.

I really have to stop getting on C2E after dinner...

I'm afraid I don't think you get it Dave, decrease the available disposable income and you change the (what's left) of the economy and that comes right down to the minimum wage level.

My wife works retail in a National company, little over minimum wage but she enjoys it. This week they laid off 17% of their staff. Why? Their staffing is based on a percentage of gross sales. The rise in the minimum wage and the drop in sales means people lose their jobs.

Direct effect of government policy.

I frequent quite a number of autobody and auto repair businesses, all are laying people off right now. Why? People cannot afford to repair their cars so mechanics lose their jobs.
Even in the autobody sector which should be rock'n in the middle of collision season is laying off at the shops I go into. Why? The crap economy has caused the value of late model vehicles to drop significantly, which means most are being written off so there is no work for the body repair folks. No work, no jobs.

Lower disposable income, no repaints, updates or custom work. No work, no jobs.

Direct effect of government policy.

That is just what I am seeing first hand and let me tell you it hurts to see guys I've know for years getting laid off.

Decrease the disposable income it changes the dynamic and trickles all the way down.
Now combine that with the increases the cost of doing business (minimum wage increase, carbon tax and others noted like the education property tax increase) and businesses that have struggled not to lay off experienced long term staff now have no choice in order to try and hang on.

Moa is also right that it extends into many other industries right down to coffee shops.

Cut off the head (those that had significant disposable income) and kill the Golden Goose.

IMO

[Dave]

The reason why the NDP chose $125000 as a cut off is because teachers, most nurses and most civil servants will not cross that income threshold.

I saw lower that to $90000 -100000, so that we can all contribute. Then the real complaining would start.

It's easy to be flippant when you are not the one paying. Move to Saskatchewan etc.

$125001 does not make you wealthy in this province.

A two income "government" family benefits significantly from the flat 10%.

Those of us that get by on much less than $125,000 find all the whining about this a bit pathetic. It is not flippant to point out the tax rate in Alberta is lower than Saskatchewan or BC. It is a fact that generally seems to be ignored or flippantly dismissed by those doing the whining. I suppose you can complain if you want, but if the tax rate is still lower here than anywhere else what have you really got to complain about?

[metro]

What is pathetic is that you think that because you make less than the threshold you are entitled to dismiss the concerns of those being more heavily taxed. Nobody likes to pay more taxes. Everyone works hard for their money regardless of income level. There seems to be an attitude emerging that "the rich" somehow don't deserve their money and they should gratefully pay up because it is "just a bit more". When the same segment of the population is constantly being asked to "pay just a bit more" by all levels of government, that segment will eventually be taxed out of its misery. The ill effects will be felt throughout the economy.

[Dave]

What is pathetic is that you think that because you make less than the threshold you are entitled to dismiss the concerns of those being more heavily taxed. Nobody likes to pay more taxes. Everyone works hard for their money regardless of income level. There seems to be an attitude emerging that "the rich" somehow don't deserve their money and they should gratefully pay up because it is "just a bit more". When the same segment of the population is constantly being asked to "pay just a bit more" by all levels of government, that segment will eventually be taxed out of its misery. The ill effects will be felt throughout the economy.

Maybe it is some of the better off people these days who feel they are "entitled" to reap more and more of the benefits of society and forego the costs. If taxes are so high in Alberta then move to the Provinces where they are lower - oh that's right there are none! I don't hear the whining about high taxes from BC or Saskatchewan those people are not entitled. They realize governments actually have to pay for the services they provide and not rely on oil royalties to subsidize unsustainable rates of low taxes for the wealthy.

Yes, Alberta was sort of a tax haven for the wealthy in Canada for years, but sorry the party is over now. Even if the government wanted to go back to that now, it couldn't do it now because of the collapse in oil prices.

[H.L.]

I just don't like RN. I think she's a two faced lefty. I want the right back in charge, its that easy for me.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Maybe it is some of the better off people these days who feel they are "entitled" to reap more and more of the benefits of society and forego the costs. If taxes are so high in Alberta then move to the Provinces where they are lower - oh that's right there are none! I don't hear the whining about high taxes from BC or Saskatchewan those people are not entitled. They realize governments actually have to pay for the services they provide and not rely on oil royalties to subsidize unsustainable rates of low taxes for the wealthy.

If you choose to look at the tax rate in isolation you might have a point, problem is things don't work that way.

We have lower taxes which meant high earners had more to spend (as I noted above) which they spent creating jobs in every sector.

So now we raise taxes, decrease disposable income and think this is going to create employment? Really?

Alberta has and has had one of the highest cost of living in the country for a very long time (https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-l...country/canada) and got away with it due in part to low tax rates and high levels of disposable income.

I am a long way from 125k a year and between tax changes, increases in levies and user fees my family is feeling it hard.

When you look at the bigger picture the high cost of living, rising tax rates combined with the levies and user fees have made a number of Provinces look very attractive, very attractive.

Matter of fact there are only 2 factors that keep us here...
1) I have lived in Alberta for just barely shy of 40 years, raised my family here and would prefer to stay an Albertan.
2) The cost of a inter Province move is not cheap.

As it is we will be moving out of Edmonton this year, but it won't take much more to push my family and I to another Province at this point. In the process of getting ready to move rural we have talked with a surprising number of people that are now considering full on moves to other Provinces due to net effect of what is happening here and yes these are long time Albertans not in O&G.

Things keep going the way they are much longer and things will magnify IMO.

[DanC]

^I'm curious which changes are impacting you?

Most everything I've seen are the changes have been geared (supposedly) at shifting the proportional burden up the income ladder, they are certainly marketed that way by the Government.
For my own education, I'd to hear in detail which are impacting all income levels negatively.
Thank you.

[AAAAE]

Maybe it is some of the better off people these days who feel they are "entitled" to reap more and more of the benefits of society and forego the costs. If taxes are so high in Alberta then move to the Provinces where they are lower - oh that's right there are none! I don't hear the whining about high taxes from BC or Saskatchewan those people are not entitled. They realize governments actually have to pay for the services they provide and not rely on oil royalties to subsidize unsustainable rates of low taxes for the wealthy.

If you choose to look at the tax rate in isolation you might have a point, problem is things don't work that way.

We have lower taxes which meant high earners had more to spend (as I noted above) which they spent creating jobs in every sector.

So now we raise taxes, decrease disposable income and think this is going to create employment? Really?

Alberta has and has had one of the highest cost of living in the country for a very long time (https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-l...country/canada) and got away with it due in part to low tax rates and high levels of disposable income.

I am a long way from 125k a year and between tax changes, increases in levies and user fees my family is feeling it hard.

When you look at the bigger picture the high cost of living, rising tax rates combined with the levies and user fees have made a number of Provinces look very attractive, very attractive.

Matter of fact there are only 2 factors that keep us here...
1) I have lived in Alberta for just barely shy of 40 years, raised my family here and would prefer to stay an Albertan.
2) The cost of a inter Province move is not cheap.

As it is we will be moving out of Edmonton this year, but it won't take much more to push my family and I to another Province at this point. In the process of getting ready to move rural we have talked with a surprising number of people that are now considering full on moves to other Provinces due to net effect of what is happening here and yes these are long time Albertans not in O&G.

Things keep going the way they are much longer and things will magnify IMO.

I sympathize with your difficulties, however, the statistics tell a much different story: the Alberta population is still booming. There actually haven't been many tax changes. I wouldn't be surprised if the left is upset because Notley did not really change much.

[AAAAE]

I just don't like RN. I think she's a two faced lefty. I want the right back in charge, its that easy for me.

It is sad that those on the right cannot give credit where credit is due. Notley has probably been the best Alberta Premier to date. I am continually impressed with her ability to advocate for Alberta, give really powerful speeches, and stand by her ideas. Certainly on par with Lougheed if not better.

[AAAAE]

What is pathetic is that you think that because you make less than the threshold you are entitled to dismiss the concerns of those being more heavily taxed. Nobody likes to pay more taxes. Everyone works hard for their money regardless of income level. There seems to be an attitude emerging that "the rich" somehow don't deserve their money and they should gratefully pay up because it is "just a bit more". When the same segment of the population is constantly being asked to "pay just a bit more" by all levels of government, that segment will eventually be taxed out of its misery. The ill effects will be felt throughout the economy.

No need to call anyone pathetic.

If the rich keep getting richer, society will eventually destabilize.

[H.L.]

Best premier to date ? Omg. Thanks for my morning LOL!
Still laughing..happy Sunday

[AAAAE]

I suppose if you feel the Alberta 10% personal tax rate on 122,000 is too high you can move to a neighbouring province and pay:

- In Saskatchewan, 13% plus PST or
- In BC 14.7% plus PST

These are the provinces governed by supposedly more conservative taxpayer friendly governments. The myth of high taxes in Alberta compared to other provinces is just that - a total myth.

I really have to stop getting on C2E after dinner...

I'm afraid I don't think you get it Dave, decrease the available disposable income and you change the (what's left) of the economy and that comes right down to the minimum wage level.

My wife works retail in a National company, little over minimum wage but she enjoys it. This week they laid off 17% of their staff. Why? Their staffing is based on a percentage of gross sales. The rise in the minimum wage and the drop in sales means people lose their jobs.

Direct effect of government policy.

I frequent quite a number of autobody and auto repair businesses, all are laying people off right now. Why? People cannot afford to repair their cars so mechanics lose their jobs.
Even in the autobody sector which should be rock'n in the middle of collision season is laying off at the shops I go into. Why? The crap economy has caused the value of late model vehicles to drop significantly, which means most are being written off so there is no work for the body repair folks. No work, no jobs.

Lower disposable income, no repaints, updates or custom work. No work, no jobs.

Direct effect of government policy.

That is just what I am seeing first hand and let me tell you it hurts to see guys I've know for years getting laid off.

Decrease the disposable income it changes the dynamic and trickles all the way down.
Now combine that with the increases the cost of doing business (minimum wage increase, carbon tax and others noted like the education property tax increase) and businesses that have struggled not to lay off experienced long term staff now have no choice in order to try and hang on.

Moa is also right that it extends into many other industries right down to coffee shops.

Cut off the head (those that had significant disposable income) and kill the Golden Goose.

IMO

Back in the day, people would blame businesses for laying people off. Now the businesses simply point to the Government and say it is the Government's fault. And the people believe them. I would not be so sure. Must your spouse's former employer continue to make exactly the same amount of money, come hell or high water? What if they endured a few lean years instead of laying off everyone?

You seem to be letting big business off the hook. The overriding need to make a huge profit, "because that's just the way the economy works". Well - in fact - it doesn't have to work that way. Companies make choices and they should be held responsible for their choices. The Government, as the representation of the public, has a right to regulate the business environment for the betterment of all.

[AAAAE]

Best premier to date ? Omg. Thanks for my morning LOL!
Still laughing..happy Sunday

Yes, I stand by the comment. History will be the judge.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Maybe it is some of the better off people these days who feel they are "entitled" to reap more and more of the benefits of society and forego the costs. If taxes are so high in Alberta then move to the Provinces where they are lower - oh that's right there are none! I don't hear the whining about high taxes from BC or Saskatchewan those people are not entitled. They realize governments actually have to pay for the services they provide and not rely on oil royalties to subsidize unsustainable rates of low taxes for the wealthy.

If you choose to look at the tax rate in isolation you might have a point, problem is things don't work that way.

We have lower taxes which meant high earners had more to spend (as I noted above) which they spent creating jobs in every sector.

So now we raise taxes, decrease disposable income and think this is going to create employment? Really?

Alberta has and has had one of the highest cost of living in the country for a very long time (https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-l...country/canada) and got away with it due in part to low tax rates and high levels of disposable income.

I am a long way from 125k a year and between tax changes, increases in levies and user fees my family is feeling it hard.

When you look at the bigger picture the high cost of living, rising tax rates combined with the levies and user fees have made a number of Provinces look very attractive, very attractive.

Matter of fact there are only 2 factors that keep us here...
1) I have lived in Alberta for just barely shy of 40 years, raised my family here and would prefer to stay an Albertan.
2) The cost of a inter Province move is not cheap.

As it is we will be moving out of Edmonton this year, but it won't take much more to push my family and I to another Province at this point. In the process of getting ready to move rural we have talked with a surprising number of people that are now considering full on moves to other Provinces due to net effect of what is happening here and yes these are long time Albertans not in O&G.

Things keep going the way they are much longer and things will magnify IMO.

I sympathize with your difficulties, however, the statistics tell a much different story: the Alberta population is still booming. There actually haven't been many tax changes. I wouldn't be surprised if the left is upset because Notley did not really change much.

My father, long ago past away, had an expression that fits Alberta's times well.
"There are statistics, then there are statistics and then there are GD lies".
I never fully appreciated till the last 5 years.

If you are not affected I am sure it hasn't changed much, for hundreds of thousands of others it has and as I noted above the Provincial Government in power is seen to be doing nothing to solve the problem.

As too statistics ... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...tion-1.3495731

Combined with the media released data on employment in and out of the EI system and the reporting on underemployed as well as the numerous properties in foreclosure ... paints a much different picture than you profess.

IMO

[AAAAE]

When you hammer those families, when they can't afford to eat out as much, or travel as much, or buy as many toys, then that flows right through the economy right down to the bottom 20%. This government has taken consumption that Albertan's used to do, and given it to civil servants (the bureaucracy and red tape keeps growing), while ramping up the debt at the same time. Brilliant.

In fact, only AHS has really grown in terms of dollars - and the NDP has cut tens of "Vice Presidents" and many others there. The increase in dollars is almost entirely gobbled up by frontline staffing.

[AAAAE]

My father, long ago past away, had an expression that fits Alberta's times well.
"There are statistics, then there are statistics and then there are GD lies".
I never fully appreciated till the last 5 years.

If you are not affected I am sure it hasn't changed much, for hundreds of thousands of others it has and as I noted above the Provincial Government in power is seen to be doing nothing to solve the problem.

As too statistics ... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...tion-1.3495731

Combined with the media released data on employment in and out of the EI system and the reporting on underemployed as well as the numerous properties in foreclosure ... paints a much different picture than you profess.

IMO

Have a look at the Government's youtube channel. They have been making near weekly announcements on jobs initiatives. Most recently various start up incubators. I just don't see how you can say they have been doing nothing.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Back in the day, people would blame businesses for laying people off. Now the businesses simply point to the Government and say it is the Government's fault. And the people believe them. I would not be so sure. Must your spouse's former employer continue to make exactly the same amount of money, come hell or high water? What if they endured a few lean years instead of laying off everyone?

You seem to be letting big business off the hook. The overriding need to make a huge profit, "because that's just the way the economy works". Well - in fact - it doesn't have to work that way. Companies make choices and they should be held responsible for their choices. The Government, as the representation of the public, has a right to regulate the business environment for the betterment of all.

Not sure .... I am.

Back in the day, people would blame businesses for laying people off. Now the businesses simply point to the Government and say it is the Government's fault. And the people believe them.

I believe it because I have seen it. Friends with small to medium size non O&G businesses that have struggled for 2 years NOT to lay staff off but can't take the losses anymore or go out of business.

Must your spouse's former employer continue to make exactly the same amount of money, come hell or high water? What if they endured a few lean years instead of laying off everyone?

Because "retail", particularly her employer, rely on high volume and extremely low profit. Something far too many people do not realize. Add in as a National company shareholders tend to depart when red appears, they may live with break even but depart when the bottom line is red. Which of course leads to devaluation and more losses.

You seem to be letting big business off the hook.

Far from it, but I have listened and watched at what government policy has done to investment, decreasing disposable income and other destabilizing factors and see the problems that have been manufactured since after the O&G collapse.

Sure there are some that have dug there own hole, but when I see businesses (not O&G) that have been around 30+ years that have taken losses to keep staff that has been with them for decades now have to let them go it paints a pretty clear picture of the upchain problems. Companies that survived the NEP collapse with no layoffs as well as the last recession now having to says a lot.

The Government, as the representation of the public

Except they are not, yes they are the current government in power but (according to all recent polls) do not represent the public that elected them.

On almost every poll regardless of topic the government does not have the public's support.

Yet they refuse to listen or acknowledge. I'd do not care if your political position is left or right that is wrong, if we were on the "Trump" thread people would be screaming "dictator". IMO

has a right to regulate the business environment for the betterment of all.

Define "betterment", because most Albertans as noted above don't see any betterment.

IMO

[Thomas Hinderks]

My father, long ago past away, had an expression that fits Alberta's times well.
"There are statistics, then there are statistics and then there are GD lies".
I never fully appreciated till the last 5 years.

If you are not affected I am sure it hasn't changed much, for hundreds of thousands of others it has and as I noted above the Provincial Government in power is seen to be doing nothing to solve the problem.

As too statistics ... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...tion-1.3495731

Combined with the media released data on employment in and out of the EI system and the reporting on underemployed as well as the numerous properties in foreclosure ... paints a much different picture than you profess.

IMO

Have a look at the Government's youtube channel. They have been making near weekly announcements on jobs initiatives. Most recently various start up incubators. I just don't see how you can say they have been doing nothing.

Because I have physically gone in and researched and applied on their availability and requirements. While they make nice PR points they are narrowly focused targeted very small segments with some interesting prerequisites. IMO

[DanC]

The above ignores that almost all investment form the O&G industry has dried up over the last 2 years and focuses on the Government.
While I don't agree with all the government policies outright or how they are presented, the biggest problem is the billions of dollars that aren't being spent by big oil and their internal race to the bottom in adjusting their cost base to maintain margins and cashflow. This impacts and the capex and opex sides and the ripple impacts touch everything in this province.
The government can't fix the price of oil and gas and can't undue the technological leaps in new recovery methods south of the border.
It's a whole different world than two years ago and the breaks got pumped hard and everyone is feeling it but the government changes in taxation, minimum wage, etc. aren't the root cause of the pain. It's just arguable if it was the right time to mess around with things...in theory most were meant to help the bottom of the pyramid.

[MrOilers]

The massive debt that the NDP continues to rack up without any concern whatsoever scares the hell out of me.

We do eventually have to pay back all of this borrowing.

[DanC]

The massive debt that the NDP continues to rack up without any concern whatsoever scares the hell out of me.

We do eventually have to pay back all of this borrowing.

You sure?
I find state held debt to be really interesting. Who's going to call in the loans?

[H.L.]

Well I guess we will see in the next election. The best premier ever, well that should be a cakewalk for her to reign again.

[AAAAE]

I believe it because I have seen it. Friends with small to medium size non O&G businesses that have struggled for 2 years NOT to lay staff off but can't take the losses anymore or go out of business.

Again - no evaluation of their business model? Business owners need to refine their concepts, expand to new markets, change their value proposition to keep up with the economy. They have a social duty to society to do so - to continue to employ people - to continue their business as a going concern. Same old might not cut it. Some business owners may not be capable of making this transition. They have a responsibility to do so, to be better, more creative, etc.

Because "retail", particularly her employer, rely on high volume and extremely low profit. Something far too many people do not realize. Add in as a National company shareholders tend to depart when red appears, they may live with break even but depart when the bottom line is red. Which of course leads to devaluation and more losses.

Retail is often low margin I agree. Here again though you are simply accepting of the dominance of shareholders. Which was my point. That we need to shift the blame onto capital. We let capital off too easily. People are content to blame the public (gov't) for their woes instead of private interests which created the hyper low margin environment in the first place.

Far from it, but I have listened and watched at what government policy has done to investment, decreasing disposable income and other destabilizing factors and see the problems that have been manufactured since after the O&G collapse.

Here also I would turn your proposition on its head. I think without the more activist Gov't following the crash, we would have seen a depression instead of a recession. It was only through increased gov't activity the economy has not cratered (e.g. NW Upgrader, LRT construction, healthcare sector).

Sure there are some that have dug there own hole, but when I see businesses (not O&G) that have been around 30+ years that have taken losses to keep staff that has been with them for decades now have to let them go it paints a pretty clear picture of the upchain problems. Companies that survived the NEP collapse with no layoffs as well as the last recession now having to says a lot.

I give credit to those businesses with a more community minded attitude, such as keeping staff around. This is what is needed. Most of the current difficulty some business are facing is a result of low oil prices, not a 2 dollar change to the minimum wage.

Also, let's consider what has not happened:

- No new comprehensive environmental regulation (such as regulation of toxics)

- No movement to adopt 'living' wage (which is something like $18/hr - gov't will only get to $15 in two years time)

- No introduction of guaranteed income

- No reduction of tuition

- No new hospital construction in our city (yet)

- No building 'hundreds' of schools (Redford style)

- No real expansion of bureaucracy staffing

- No major cultural projects (like Stelmach's Royal Alberta Museum replacement)

- No major government office construction projects (like PC's Federal Building)

- No new 'business deals' (like Stelmach's Upgrader)

- No change to royalties

- Less government travel (can be verified by reading expense disclosure)

- No rent controls

- No creation of new crown corporations

- No building of public housing (to speak of)

- No public daycare program (as they had promised)

- No school lunch program (also a promise not yet delivered)

- No greenbelt on urban growth

- No starting of public sector competition for insurance, telephony like the Sask NDP (SGI and SaskTel)

- No blocking of pipelines

- No opposition to free trade

- No creation of an Alberta public broadcaster

- No real changes or enhancements to safety codes, building rules

- No labour law changes (although apparently some may be reviewed in the future)

- No tax breaks for unions

- No funding of ideological entities with public dollars

- No removal of funding to private religious schools

- No major increases to AISH or other social protections

- No increased support for the arts

- No increase to number of specialized officers (e.g. officers who enforce environmental laws, safety laws)

- No major new university building construction

- No changes to rules for conservation of Crown land

- Land use planning regions remain mostly unimplemented

- No expropriation or nationalization of businesses

- No network of electric vehicle charging (like Quebec)

- No creation of gov't owned inter-city transportation (which is probably needed)

- No provincial sales tax

- No change to costs of licenses

- No move to de-privatize liquor

- and on and on. While you see a few changes (small changes to corporate tax and personal tax rate, modest carbon tax which is fully budgeted to be spent on rebates, public transit, and energy efficiency), I only see all the changes that could have been made, that weren't.

There are also several very conservative moves that Notley has made:

- Low to non existent raises at bargaining table for gov staff

- Ongoing 2 year salary freeze for managers (gov't said would continue potentially to 2019 - this is a big reduction in pay)

- In some cases over 50% reduction of gov't agency CEO pay

- Dissolving 26 Government agencies and boards

I don't understand why the business community is not jumping for joy at the very conservative way Notley has governed so far.

Except they are not, yes they are the current government in power but (according to all recent polls) do not represent the public that elected them.

On almost every poll regardless of topic the government does not have the public's support.

That is true - but they are lawfully elected.

Yet they refuse to listen or acknowledge. I'd do not care if your political position is left or right that is wrong, if we were on the "Trump" thread people would be screaming "dictator". IMO

Not sure that they refuse to listen or acknowledge. Again, seems to me Notley and crew is acknowledging loud and clear the challenges facing Alberta and have hit the brakes on much of their agenda as a result.

Define "betterment", because most Albertans as noted above don't see any betterment.

One could look to measures of human development such as health, education. These take a few years to reflect updated conditions. Alberta is well recognized as being a livable, healthy province.


In sum, I think that Notley has governed in what can only be described as an extremely balanced way, especially when you look to everything she could have done to create a modern, social state, and has not done.

Business will rebound from this temporary economic slump; but people should look carefully at the force of capital in society and consider the real causes of the economic cycle. In my view, select, extremely modest governmental actions cannot be responsible for these cycles and this is a view I think shared by economists.

[KC]

The massive debt that the NDP continues to rack up without any concern whatsoever scares the hell out of me.

We do eventually have to pay back all of this borrowing.

You sure?
I find state held debt to be really interesting. Who's going to call in the loans?

Yeah, in terms of someone taking advantage of the inevitable oil price drop, those hoping for massive public sector cuts to amplify the fear and panic the private sector suffered from, didn't get that opportunity.

A massive conservative pay as you go, either expanding or cutting based on the income of the day approach to policy would be highly volatile and in a downturn could have collapsed house prices, had a domino effect on job losses and really created fantastic deals for those who'd prepared in advance. Instead the damned socialists bailed out the economy to a great extent, created a soft economic landing and drove out fear while allowing past privatized gains to be retained and socializing the costs (though at inter-generational low interest rates).

What interest rates did the PCs borrow at in the '80s to do exactly what Notley is doing today?

[KC]

The above ignores that almost all investment form the O&G industry has dried up over the last 2 years and focuses on the Government.
While I don't agree with all the government policies outright or how they are presented, the biggest problem is the billions of dollars that aren't being spent by big oil and their internal race to the bottom in adjusting their cost base to maintain margins and cashflow. This impacts and the capex and opex sides and the ripple impacts touch everything in this province.
The government can't fix the price of oil and gas and can't undue the technological leaps in new recovery methods south of the border.
It's a whole different world than two years ago and the breaks got pumped hard and everyone is feeling it but the government changes in taxation, minimum wage, etc. aren't the root cause of the pain. It's just arguable if it was the right time to mess around with things...in theory most were meant to help the bottom of the pyramid.

Thank you for this thoughtful post!

[metro]

The prevailing zeitgeist on this thread is "as long as someone else has to pay, I am ok with it" Times are tough in this province at the moment, no doubt about it. However, taking more and more from the same segment of the population is not going to solve the problem. That segment of the population is simply not large enough. It is going to make the situation worse.

If we are all in this together then there should be some income tax increases for everyone. A provincial sales tax. There should be no carbon tax but since there is, no rebates. Of course this will never happen because it would cost the power base of the NDP money. Better to get the money from "the rich", the people making more than $125000.

This particular government and our federal government are doing a great job at instigating hostility between the income classes. I was at a candidates' forum a few elections back and I believe it was Laurie Hawn who said it best "The NDP will not be happy until we are all equally miserable"

[OJR]

We have lower taxes which meant high earners had more to spend (as I noted above) which they spent creating jobs in every sector.

Trickle-down ecconomics for the win!

Works every time they cut taxes for the wealthy in the U.S. Huuuuuuge job growth every time! Oh wait...

[Chmilz]

A bit late to reply, bit in any case I'm not going to spend time refuting what some of you may be experiencing. I gave my opinion on how I feel the NDP has been governing. If you don't share my belief, so be it. The things that are important to me may not be important to you. I don't worship my paycheck. Having money is important to me, but everything past what I need to survive is placed pretty low on a priority list. I don't really care if I pay a bit more in taxes or a carbon levy, as I care far more strongly about the services and benefits those things are meant to provide than money.

[Thomas Hinderks]

AAAE

I believe it because I have seen it. Friends with small to medium size non O&G businesses that have struggled for 2 years NOT to lay staff off but can't take the losses anymore or go out of business.
Again - no evaluation of their business model? Business owners need to refine their concepts, expand to new markets, change their value proposition to keep up with the economy. They have a social duty to society to do so - to continue to employ people - to continue their business as a going concern. Same old might not cut it. Some business owners may not be capable of making this transition. They have a responsibility to do so, to be better, more creative, etc.

Which I have watched happen for the last 2 years. Something everyone seems to ignore particularly with "local/traditional" business, but if you rely on the Alberta economy (automotive repair as an example) there is only so far you can go till it catches up.

Because "retail", particularly her employer, rely on high volume and extremely low profit. Something far too many people do not realize. Add in as a National company shareholders tend to depart when red appears, they may live with break even but depart when the bottom line is red. Which of course leads to devaluation and more losses.



Retail is often low margin I agree. Here again though you are simply accepting of the dominance of shareholders. Which was my point. That we need to shift the blame onto capital. We let capital off too easily. People are content to blame the public (gov't) for their woes instead of private interests which created the hyper low margin environment in the first place.

Accepting the dominance of the "shareholders" is reality, those that invest the money and take the risk (often pensioners, pension plans, mutual funds and guys only a decade or so from having to retire) expect better than "bank rate" or why are they taking the risk. Last week I had a meeting with the people that handle mine (not a lot but you work with what you have) and one of my questions about where my savings are invested and why was how much is invested in Alberta companies? Answer ... none, too high risk and currently very poor returns. I wasn't happy but it is what it is.

As explained to me by an expert in the field ... "lack of stability and confidence are currently the biggest problems facing Alberta investments" Both, IMO, areas the government in have the ability to influence. That's a bigger problem in the overall picture.

As to the "low margin environment" ... sorry business doesn't create that, consumer value expectation and demand does. We live in a world now that does not understand service and value for $$$.

Far from it, but I have listened and watched at what government policy has done to investment, decreasing disposable income and other destabilizing factors and see the problems that have been manufactured since after the O&G collapse.
Here also I would turn your proposition on its head. I think without the more activist Gov't following the crash, we would have seen a depression instead of a recession. It was only through increased gov't activity the economy has not cratered (e.g. NW Upgrader, LRT construction, healthcare sector).

The activist government ... hmmm really. I could live with the deficits being run and debt and if that was really the case. In the situation Alberta was presented with a focus on needed infrastructure and employment should have been the focus. As commented on many times with regard to the city, it was(and is) the time to build/repair infrastructure when employment is high and prices depressed. Fueling the economy, getting value for the dollar while creating stability. There were hundreds of projects scoped, approved and "shovel ready" at the time the current government in power came to governance.
They could have been re-bid and acted on in a relatively short time frame ... didn't happen while violins were played. Just look at the needed hard core infrastructure projects from your list for more.

We have world class manufacturing capability in Alberta that should have (could still) be assisted in re-marketing to new sectors and in some cases assisted in conversion with no or low interest loans.
Still hasn't been looked at.

[quote]Sure there are some that have dug there own hole, but when I see businesses (not O&G) that have been around 30+ years that have taken losses to keep staff that has been with them for decades now have to let them go it paints a pretty clear picture of the upchain problems. Companies that survived the NEP collapse with no layoffs as well as the last recession now having to says a lot.
I give credit to those businesses with a more community minded attitude, such as keeping staff around. This is what is needed. Most of the current difficulty some business are facing is a result of low oil prices, not a 2 dollar change to the minimum wage.[quote]

I give them a tremendous amount of credit, as the ones I see regularly have done it at a personal cost. But while a year or so ago I would have agreed it was an O&G problem we are long past that point and inaction is now the far larger problem IMO.

BTW ... none of the businesses I am personally acquainted with every had minimum wage jobs so it is certainly not a factor in the majority of cases now.

Now your list is interesting let's look at it a different way ... all the ones that should have been done for a positive effect on the economy at this time.
- No new hospital construction in our city

- No building 'hundreds' of schools

- No new 'business deals'

- No greenbelt on urban growth

- No real changes or enhancements to safety codes, building rules

- No major increases to AISH or other social protections

The rest ... IMO, should never have been there in the first place.

The same changes, your words not mine, are part of the problem.

The rest we are going to agree to disagree on....

Business will rebound from this temporary economic slump

Well that is up for debate as most of those I know that are "experts in the field" seem to think it is no longer temporary, in part (not all) due to the direction of the government in power.

But people should look carefully at the force of capital in society and consider the real causes of the economic cycle. In my view, select, extremely modest governmental actions cannot be responsible for these cycles and this is a view I think shared by economists.

I think those that invest the capital get no credit for the "risk taken" in your comment and if you are not taking the risk why should you get a comment?

Part of the role of government is to mitigate and/or economic changes like we are experiencing. Not exacerbating or ignoring the "core" issues facing their constituents. Something I don't believe is happening.

IMO

[Thomas Hinderks]

We have lower taxes which meant high earners had more to spend (as I noted above) which they spent creating jobs in every sector.

Trickle-down ecconomics for the win!

Works every time they cut taxes for the wealthy in the U.S. Huuuuuuge job growth every time! Oh wait...

There is a difference between cutting taxes for the "wealthy" and increasing taxes on "moderately upper incomes" during a recession and uncertainty. IMO

[noodle]

I don't worship my paycheck. Having money is important to me, but everything past what I need to survive is placed pretty low on a priority list. I don't really care if I pay a bit more in taxes or a carbon levy, as I care far more strongly about the services and benefits those things are meant to provide than money.

Amen.

[OJR]

We have lower taxes which meant high earners had more to spend (as I noted above) which they spent creating jobs in every sector.

Trickle-down ecconomics for the win!

Works every time they cut taxes for the wealthy in the U.S. Huuuuuuge job growth every time! Oh wait...

There is a difference between cutting taxes for the "wealthy" and increasing taxes on "moderately upper incomes" during a recession and uncertainty. IMO

$125,000+ individually? That's a pretty generous definition of moderately upper income. That's 1/8th of a million per year!

[Highlander II]

It's not quite rich, if it's a single income supporting a family, but it's enough that there's no reason to worry about whether those people pay an extra few hundred a year in taxes.

[noodle]

$125K is ~25% over the median household income in Alberta, so even as a "sole provider" they're still doing better than most.

[metro]

$125K is ~25% over the median household income in Alberta, so even as a "sole provider" they're still doing better than most.

Again the tone of the conversation is "Let someone else pay, but not me". A teacher at the top of the salary grid in experience and education make close to or just over $100000. A vice principal over $110000. A top end nurse the same. These are all hard working people who deserve their salary and probably more. According to your argument they are also above the median income. They are doing better than most. They can afford to pay too.

My point is that the government has set the $1250000 bar so that their base in unaffected and can benefit from the flat tax. Any income threshold you choose will negatively affect someone.

Why not just leave the flat tax alone, let everyone benefit? Everyone works hard for their money, even those who make above $125K. The underlying sentiment is that those people somehow don't deserve it. They don't deserve to be constantly squeezed by all levels of government. It is going to hurt the economy.

Most everyone who makes above the threshold is a not a caricature unfeeling, socially irresponsible, industrialist. They are good, honest people who give back with their time, talent and treasure.

[Dave]

Maybe it is some of the better off people these days who feel they are "entitled" to reap more and more of the benefits of society and forego the costs. If taxes are so high in Alberta then move to the Provinces where they are lower - oh that's right there are none! I don't hear the whining about high taxes from BC or Saskatchewan those people are not entitled. They realize governments actually have to pay for the services they provide and not rely on oil royalties to subsidize unsustainable rates of low taxes for the wealthy.

If you choose to look at the tax rate in isolation you might have a point, problem is things don't work that way.

We have lower taxes which meant high earners had more to spend (as I noted above) which they spent creating jobs in every sector.

So now we raise taxes, decrease disposable income and think this is going to create employment? Really?

Alberta has and has had one of the highest cost of living in the country for a very long time (https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-l...country/canada) and got away with it due in part to low tax rates and high levels of disposable income.

I am a long way from 125k a year and between tax changes, increases in levies and user fees my family is feeling it hard.

When you look at the bigger picture the high cost of living, rising tax rates combined with the levies and user fees have made a number of Provinces look very attractive, very attractive.

Matter of fact there are only 2 factors that keep us here...
1) I have lived in Alberta for just barely shy of 40 years, raised my family here and would prefer to stay an Albertan.
2) The cost of a inter Province move is not cheap.

As it is we will be moving out of Edmonton this year, but it won't take much more to push my family and I to another Province at this point. In the process of getting ready to move rural we have talked with a surprising number of people that are now considering full on moves to other Provinces due to net effect of what is happening here and yes these are long time Albertans not in O&G.

Things keep going the way they are much longer and things will magnify IMO.

I know the topic of taxes touches a nerve and makes people very cranky, but I wish people would try and put it in perspective and that perspective is comparing the tax rates in Alberta to that of other provinces. Yes, the cost of living in Alberta is higher for some things especially during the booms. However, things like rents have come down dramatically recently and housing prices are not insane like in parts of Ontario and BC. Other provinces have many huge fees and costs that those of us in Alberta are only vaguely aware of that we actually don't have (land transfer costs, probate fees, BC Medical plan, etc..) and these all add up too. Ontarians, especially rural ones, are currently very unhappy about their electricity rates which are much higher than in Alberta.

Also, I doubt many people move because they are cranky about taxes. A lot of people spend their working years here in Alberta but retire to warmer climates or rural areas - maybe to be closer to relatives, enjoy a quieter life or buy property in a rural area that is bigger or cheaper. Keeping taxes unsustainably low is not going to keep those people there if they are tired of shovelling snow in January or want to golf in February. Many retired Albertans move to BC where taxes higher. I doubt they enjoy paying the PST, but they seem to get used to it.

[DanC]

$125K is ~25% over the median household income in Alberta, so even as a "sole provider" they're still doing better than most.

Again the tone of the conversation is "Let someone else pay, but not me". A teacher at the top of the salary grid in experience and education make close to or just over $100000. A vice principal over $110000. A top end nurse the same. These are all hard working people who deserve their salary and probably more. According to your argument they are also above the median income. They are doing better than most. They can afford to pay too.

My point is that the government has set the $1250000 bar so that their base in unaffected and can benefit from the flat tax. Any income threshold you choose will negatively affect someone.

Why not just leave the flat tax alone, let everyone benefit? Everyone works hard for their money, even those who make above $125K. The underlying sentiment is that those people somehow don't deserve it. They don't deserve to be constantly squeezed by all levels of government. It is going to hurt the economy.

Most everyone who makes above the threshold is a not a caricature unfeeling, socially irresponsible, industrialist. They are good, honest people who give back with their time, talent and treasure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

The idea isn't "let everyone else pay, but not me" it's that those with higher income have more disposable income, therefore a progressive tax impacts them with less "real pain".
You can certainly argue with the cutoff level, but this concept on taxation isn't exactly new.

[Dave]

$125K is ~25% over the median household income in Alberta, so even as a "sole provider" they're still doing better than most.

Again the tone of the conversation is "Let someone else pay, but not me". A teacher at the top of the salary grid in experience and education make close to or just over $100000. A vice principal over $110000. A top end nurse the same. These are all hard working people who deserve their salary and probably more. According to your argument they are also above the median income. They are doing better than most. They can afford to pay too.

My point is that the government has set the $1250000 bar so that their base in unaffected and can benefit from the flat tax. Any income threshold you choose will negatively affect someone.

Why not just leave the flat tax alone, let everyone benefit? Everyone works hard for their money, even those who make above $125K. The underlying sentiment is that those people somehow don't deserve it. They don't deserve to be constantly squeezed by all levels of government. It is going to hurt the economy.

Most everyone who makes above the threshold is a not a caricature unfeeling, socially irresponsible, industrialist. They are good, honest people who give back with their time, talent and treasure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

The idea isn't "let everyone else pay, but not me" it's that those with higher income have more disposable income, therefore a progressive tax impacts them with less "real pain".
You can certainly argue with the cutoff level, but this concept on taxation isn't exactly new.

The flat tax didn't "benefit" people making 50,000 a year. It only benefited people at higher income levels.

[noodle]

$125K is ~25% over the median household income in Alberta, so even as a "sole provider" they're still doing better than most.

Again the tone of the conversation is "Let someone else pay, but not me" ... According to your argument they are also above the median income. They are doing better than most. They can afford to pay too.

Woah, way to read into a single sentence there, ideologue.

I just pointed out some simple statistics, all the rest of your rhetoric is 100% inside your own head.

My household income is dramatically above the median for the province, I'm a staunch NDP supporter & I can manage the extremely minor bump in my taxation with near-zero impact into my daily life. I'll still buy all the stuff I want, go on all the trips I want, have the house I want & so on & so forth. Even at the most hyperbolic of projections I'm looking at a net increase equivalent to less than 2% of my gross wages. If 2% is the difference between make it & break it for people in my income bracket they've got much bigger issues in their lives than the NDP & they need to have a Prentice "look in the mirror" moment, because it's likely their own ignorance or avarice that's put them into dire financial straits, not the NDPs minor tweaks to taxation.

[Chmilz]

^ I got into a good debate with a friend a couple weeks ago. We're talking politics and he tells me that the carbon levy will cost him an extra $350 on his gasoline, assuming that the price fluctuations would occur as normal and now there's an added fee on top. I asked him what his gasoline costs him minus the tax. He says $6500-7000.

I told him he might want to spend a little effort bringing that number down, instead of the tiny carbon levy add-on. He admitted defeat and said yeah, he can't complain when his lifestyle choices have high costs.

[metro]

$125K is ~25% over the median household income in Alberta, so even as a "sole provider" they're still doing better than most.

Again the tone of the conversation is "Let someone else pay, but not me" ... According to your argument they are also above the median income. They are doing better than most. They can afford to pay too.

Woah, way to read into a single sentence there, ideologue.

I just pointed out some simple statistics, all the rest of your rhetoric is 100% inside your own head.

My household income is dramatically above the median for the province, I'm a staunch NDP supporter & I can manage the extremely minor bump in my taxation with near-zero impact into my daily life. I'll still buy all the stuff I want, go on all the trips I want, have the house I want & so on & so forth. Even at the most hyperbolic of projections I'm looking at a net increase equivalent to less than 2% of my gross wages. If 2% is the difference between make it & break it for people in my income bracket they've got much bigger issues in their lives than the NDP & they need to have a Prentice "look in the mirror" moment, because it's likely their own ignorance or avarice that's put them into dire financial straits, not the NDPs minor tweaks to taxation.

Thanks for setting me straight. I always knew my opinions were invalid.

Why are you so angry and in full attack mode? That is a behaving as an ideolouge. According to you have more than enough and are living the dream. Congratulations.

Thank you for joining me in the higher tax brackets. I look forward to saving the provincial with you.

[Gemini]

https://www.google.ca/search?q=jokes...lM8Stq7xXsh3QM:

[KC]

^ I got into a good debate with a friend a couple weeks ago. We're talking politics and he tells me that the carbon levy will cost him an extra $350 on his gasoline, assuming that the price fluctuations would occur as normal and now there's an added fee on top. I asked him what his gasoline costs him minus the tax. He says $6500-7000.

I told him he might want to spend a little effort bringing that number down, instead of the tiny carbon levy add-on. He admitted defeat and said yeah, he can't complain when his lifestyle choices have high costs.

Looks like gas prices have often averaged about 10% higher over about one year periods and have spiked to 20% and even 30% higher (and dropped similarly) so he's likely been quite calm about paying maybe $700 to $1,000 more at times. The problem here is that the tax is permanent.


Chart here:

http://www.edmontongasprices.com/ret...ice_chart.aspx

[noodle]

Haha I'm not angry whatsoever. There's no anger or aggression in anything I've posted here today, just simple statements of facts:

- $125K is doing better than most.
- My household income is substantially over the median of ~$100k.
- I support the NDP.
- The increase due to the carbon tax is negligible to my bottom line, at roughly 2%.
- Thanks to proper budgeting & living within my means, I'll be able to keep on keeping on with my plans/goals/dreams/aspirations.
- If 2% is "make it or break it" for a household, they're living beyond their means & have other issues they should deal with that would be more advantageous to their situation than impotently shaking their fist at the government.


Why do you seem to think facts are so aggressive? If stating simple truths is aggressive to you & your mode of thinking, perhaps you need to look at your own beliefs in an objective manner.

[noodle]

Metro :"You just want rich people to pay!"
Me: "In this context, I am one of the rich people, so I'm actually saying I think I should pay"
Gem: "Braggart!"

Oh Gem, never stop being the least productive, least contributory, least eloquent poster on the forums. It's always such a delight to unhide your posts to find you continuing to lower my expectations of you.

[KC]

Maybe it is some of the better off people these days who feel they are "entitled" to reap more and more of the benefits of society and forego the costs. If taxes are so high in Alberta then move to the Provinces where they are lower - oh that's right there are none! I don't hear the whining about high taxes from BC or Saskatchewan those people are not entitled. They realize governments actually have to pay for the services they provide and not rely on oil royalties to subsidize unsustainable rates of low taxes for the wealthy.

If you choose to look at the tax rate in isolation you might have a point, problem is things don't work that way.

We have lower taxes which meant high earners had more to spend (as I noted above) which they spent creating jobs in every sector.

So now we raise taxes, decrease disposable income and think this is going to create employment? Really?

Alberta has and has had one of the highest cost of living in the country for a very long time (https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-l...country/canada) and got away with it due in part to low tax rates and high levels of disposable income.

I am a long way from 125k a year and between tax changes, increases in levies and user fees my family is feeling it hard.

When you look at the bigger picture the high cost of living, rising tax rates combined with the levies and user fees have made a number of Provinces look very attractive, very attractive.

Matter of fact there are only 2 factors that keep us here...
1) I have lived in Alberta for just barely shy of 40 years, raised my family here and would prefer to stay an Albertan.
2) The cost of a inter Province move is not cheap.

As it is we will be moving out of Edmonton this year, but it won't take much more to push my family and I to another Province at this point. In the process of getting ready to move rural we have talked with a surprising number of people that are now considering full on moves to other Provinces due to net effect of what is happening here and yes these are long time Albertans not in O&G.

Things keep going the way they are much longer and things will magnify IMO.

I know the topic of taxes touches a nerve and makes people very cranky, but I wish people would try and put it in perspective and that perspective is comparing the tax rates in Alberta to that of other provinces. Yes, the cost of living in Alberta is higher for some things especially during the booms. However, things like rents have come down dramatically recently and housing prices are not insane like in parts of Ontario and BC. Other provinces have many huge fees and costs that those of us in Alberta are only vaguely aware of that we actually don't have (land transfer costs, probate fees, BC Medical plan, etc..) and these all add up too. Ontarians, especially rural ones, are currently very unhappy about their electricity rates which are much higher than in Alberta.

Also, I doubt many people move because they are cranky about taxes. A lot of people spend their working years here in Alberta but retire to warmer climates or rural areas - maybe to be closer to relatives, enjoy a quieter life or buy property in a rural area that is bigger or cheaper. Keeping taxes unsustainably low is not going to keep those people there if they are tired of shovelling snow in January or want to golf in February. Many retired Albertans move to BC where taxes higher. I doubt they enjoy paying the PST, but they seem to get used to it.

If taxes are low, and we borrow instead, then someone later has to pay off that debt. If some get a free ride now and then take their savings, and so their spending, somewhere else, then we've gifted them benefits. A lot of our taxation is basically a pooling scheme like insurance. you may, or may not need the services (i.e. to make a claim). Raising children, hospital care for infants, seniors, sick, morbid, accidental injuries, travelling on certain roads, using certain infrastructure - the costs are broadly spread out to minimize the impact on any individual and the benefits are more specific but still generally given to different groupings of users.

For those higher income earners - some see their earning as a purely due to there own initiative and so totally belong to themselves, while others see their earnings as a consequence of systemic conditions that give them an advantage. Time for a Buffett quote I've posed a few times now:

“I don't have a problem with guilt about money. The way I see it is that my money represents an enormous number of claim checks on society. It's like I have these little pieces of paper that I can turn into consumption. If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. And the GDP would go up. But the utility of the product would be zilch, and I would be keeping those 10,000 people from doing AIDS research, or teaching, or nursing. I don't do that though. I don't use very many of those claim checks. There's nothing material I want very much. And I'm going to give virtually all of those claim checks to charity when my wife and I die.” - Warren Buffett

[Gemini]

Metro :"You just want rich people to pay!"
Me: "In this context, I am one of the rich people, so I'm actually saying I think I should pay"
Gem: "Braggart!"

Oh Gem, never stop being the least productive, least contributory, least eloquent poster on the forums. It's always such a delight to unhide your posts to find you continuing to lower my expectations of you.

Wow, I'm not on your 'ignore' list. That feels good, time for a cigarette.

[B.ike]

I don't have loyalties to any particular party - it's rather absurd if you think about it. I vote based on which party has the better platform that reflects the realities of the present and near future when an election rolls around. Here's a semi brag...I've voted for the winning party/person for every municipal, provincial and federal election for the past decade. So with that said, while the NDP has had questionable moments, I still feel they would have my vote if an election is called right now (albeit, my little winning streak will be on the line). The PCs are still in shambles and both right wing parties are attacking everything NDP policy to date - which is fine, hardly any policy is flawless - but they fail to provide a solution or alternative of their own.


Carbon tax is not a matter of if, it's when. It's either we adopt it now or be forced to later. It's simply the way the world is moving, regardless of what Trump does. If China and India are doubling down on their efforts, it's a reality.


Finally, all you downtown boosters complaining about the NDP, if it weren't for the Notley crew, Edmonton Downtown would be early 90s all over again "Klein style". Prentice was heading in that direction, no doubt if an election is called now, WR and PCs will cut into the heart of the public sector. You better hope oil rebounds to levels which enable the oil sands to consider new projects in the near future before the eviction of NDP.

[moahunter]

Carbon tax is not a matter of if, it's when. It's either we adopt it now or be forced to later. It's simply the way the world is moving, regardless of what Trump does.

Source? Only four countries in world have - Ireland, Sweden, Chile, and Finland. Why has France abandoned plans for it and Australia repealed carbon tax then?

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/21/fr...-a-carbon-tax/

Most countries aren't implementing it, they want a manufacturing industry which can compete (which is impossible if your input costs are higher than neighbors because of carbon tax). Only countries run by left wing elites / chardonnay socialists are implementing it, people who never actually got their hands dirty making something. As Brexit and Trump show us, the world is moving away from that. But I guess while we watch manufacturing grow south of the border, it will be great comfort that we are doing supposedly, "the right thing" as per Liberal heroes like Al Gore.

[Gemini]

^Al Gore as a bigger carbon footprint then a herd of one million cows.

[Dave]

Carbon tax is not a matter of if, it's when. It's either we adopt it now or be forced to later. It's simply the way the world is moving, regardless of what Trump does.

Source? Only four countries in world have - Ireland, Sweden, Chile, and Finland. Why has France abandoned plans for it and Australia repealed carbon tax then?

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/21/fr...-a-carbon-tax/

Most countries aren't implementing it, they want a manufacturing industry which can compete (which is impossible if your input costs are higher than neighbors because of carbon tax). Only countries run by left wing elites / chardonnay socialists are implementing it, as Brexit and Trump show us, the world is moving away from that. But I guess while we watch manufacturing grow south of the border, it will be great comfort that we are doing supposedly, "the right thing" as per Liberal heroes like Al Gore.

What is it with the tired stereotypes and name calling of the "right wing elites" and the "scotch and soda capitalists"?

If you really think the future of North America is in heavy industry manufacturing I think you have been missing low wage China, Vietnam, India, etc ... for about the last 30 years.

Brexit will turn out to be a mess for Britain too and in 2 years they will be saying 'why won't anybody trade with us'? If it actually happens, the financiers will leave for Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin. The Scottish will just leave and take the North Sea oil with them. In the meantime, the pound keeps falling, prices keep going up there, but wages are not. There have already been shortages and price spikes for fresh produce this year.

[Gemini]

^If you think the Scot's can just leave then I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. As for Trump and Brexit. Nobody can see into the future. It could be spectacular or go down in flames. Either way life will go on and new governments will be formed that will over turn what the last r soles did.

[Dave]

^If you think the Scot's can just leave then I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. As for Trump and Brexit. Nobody can see into the future. It could be spectacular or go down in flames. Either way life will go on and new governments will be formed that will over turn what the last r soles did.

It's not me just making a prediction about Scotland - it is what the Scottish government has actually already said. If the UK leaves the EU, they will leave the UK.

[metro]

Noodle, I am sincerely happy that you are doing well. I do not begrudge anyone for what they make, I don't think you do either. All work has value, and in my opinion everyone works hard for their money. I wish everyone could reach their maximum income potential.

There is, however, an unhealthy income envy developing and it has the potential to unleash an even more punitive income tax grab on the targeted population. This year it went from 10 to 15%. Next year possibly 17 or 20% When is enough, enough? What is the final number because at some point people will cry uncle and will not be willing to work the extra hours, take investment risks, etc because the extra effort and sacrifice will not produce enough of a gain to be worthwhile.

The threshold income number for higher taxes is debatable but in the end whatever it is, it will negatively affect someone. Also the lack of disposable income being spent will cause broader economic hardship as has been pointed out by other posters.

We need to look at getting more value for our tax dollars. Just giving more to the government will not solve our problem.

[noodle]

Metro :"You just want rich people to pay!"
Me: "In this context, I am one of the rich people, so I'm actually saying I think I should pay"
Gem: "Braggart!"

Oh Gem, never stop being the least productive, least contributory, least eloquent poster on the forums. It's always such a delight to unhide your posts to find you continuing to lower my expectations of you.

Wow, I'm not on your 'ignore' list. That feels good, time for a cigarette.

You're most definitely on my ignore list. One of the longest members of that little club, in fact. I bolded the salient point you seem to have glossed over in your vain attempt to be sassy on the quick.

[noodle]

I'm not ahead of the curve because I work harder. I'm ahead of the curve because I work smarter. If at some point in the future, the government feels that it's time for me to increase my contribution I'll take a look at what they're planning on doing with that increased fraction of my wages & come to a decision about how I feel about that tax increase then. I'm not gonna go all "Chicken Little" & worry about some slippery slope argument. I like living in Canada & even after the hike & carbon tax I'm cognizant that I'm already living in the province with the least burdensome tax regime so I think I've got it pretty good tax-wise, all things considered.

[Medwards]

Thanks Notley for taking my possibility of getting a yearly bonus away after 2019 with my current employer. BOOOO!

[MrOilers]

^If you think the Scot's can just leave then I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. As for Trump and Brexit. Nobody can see into the future. It could be spectacular or go down in flames. Either way life will go on and new governments will be formed that will over turn what the last r soles did.

It's not me just making a prediction about Scotland - it is what the Scottish government has actually already said. If the UK leaves the EU, they will leave the UK.

The Scots said they wanted to leave UK so they could stay in (or return to) the EU. There is zero chance of the EU allowing that, lest regions within other countries (like the Catalan region of Spain, for example) use leaving the EU as as a tool for gaining independence.

[B.ike]

Carbon tax is not a matter of if, it's when. It's either we adopt it now or be forced to later. It's simply the way the world is moving, regardless of what Trump does.

Source? Only four countries in world have - Ireland, Sweden, Chile, and Finland. Why has France abandoned plans for it and Australia repealed carbon tax then?

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/21/fr...-a-carbon-tax/

Most countries aren't implementing it, they want a manufacturing industry which can compete (which is impossible if your input costs are higher than neighbors because of carbon tax). Only countries run by left wing elites / chardonnay socialists are implementing it, people who never actually got their hands dirty making something. As Brexit and Trump show us, the world is moving away from that. But I guess while we watch manufacturing grow south of the border, it will be great comfort that we are doing supposedly, "the right thing" as per Liberal heroes like Al Gore.

My bad, kind of over simplified that sentence. I was trying to convey that climate change efforts are a reality and government all over the world are stepping up with efforts - not necessarily through a carbon tax system. I tried to allude to it by referencing the latest promise by China to reduce coal plants and India's pledge to the Paris agreement. Could be empty words, only time will tell.

Problem for Alberta is, as a province, we do not have the necessary tools to make a large impact. Carbon tax is one such method for the government to try and show that it is "green". Is Alberta going to make a change on global warming with this tax? No...but this is a joint effort. The carbon reduction movement is still young, but momentum is slowing building. By adapting early, I hope that, Alberta and Canada as a whole, can have a role in directing the global movement in the future. Idealist? probably.

[AAAAE]

Wow, this thread went from an interesting discussion of the power of capital and the state to ME ME ME ME ME.

I don't want to hear about how much money you make. If only money could buy class.

[H.L.]

Wow, this thread went from an interesting discussion of the power of capital and the state to ME ME ME ME ME.

I don't want to hear about how much money you make. If only money could buy class.

Money can't by class,talking about others can't either.

[noodle]

Wow, this thread went from an interesting discussion of the power of capital and the state to ME ME ME ME ME.

I don't want to hear about how much money you make. If only money could buy class.

Woe is me! People I hold beyond contempt on an insular & insignificant message board think I'm classless for stating I'm one of the "haves" okay with the current tax regime & not someone who's trying to get someone else to pay taxes I'm not willing to myself.

Whatever shall I do?

Oh.


Wait.

Exactly what I always do.

[KC]

Carbon tax is not a matter of if, it's when. It's either we adopt it now or be forced to later. It's simply the way the world is moving, regardless of what Trump does.

Source? Only four countries in world have - Ireland, Sweden, Chile, and Finland. Why has France abandoned plans for it and Australia repealed carbon tax then?

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/21/fr...-a-carbon-tax/

Most countries aren't implementing it, they want a manufacturing industry which can compete (which is impossible if your input costs are higher than neighbors because of carbon tax). Only countries run by left wing elites / chardonnay socialists are implementing it, as Brexit and Trump show us, the world is moving away from that. But I guess while we watch manufacturing grow south of the border, it will be great comfort that we are doing supposedly, "the right thing" as per Liberal heroes like Al Gore.

What is it with the tired stereotypes and name calling of the "right wing elites" and the "scotch and soda capitalists"?

If you really think the future of North America is in heavy industry manufacturing I think you have been missing low wage China, Vietnam, India, etc ... for about the last 30 years.

Brexit will turn out to be a mess for Britain too and in 2 years they will be saying 'why won't anybody trade with us'? If it actually happens, the financiers will leave for Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin. The Scottish will just leave and take the North Sea oil with them. In the meantime, the pound keeps falling, prices keep going up there, but wages are not. There have already been shortages and price spikes for fresh produce this year.

The UK economy was saved by North Sea oil. That oil is now running out. Expect a rerun of the old times but that may not be so bad. When I was younger, the UK used to manufacture a lot of things (like Canada and the US). Maybe a lower currency will enable improved competitiveness, if not internationally, then in the home market - because- just like the trend away from the carbon tax, the trend is also away from free market capitalism towards more nationalist/socialistic protectionism of domestic markets. That may be a far bigger issue than slightly higher input costs of any carbon tax scheme.

Bolding is mine

Britain has squandered the golden opportunity that North Sea oil promised | Business | The Guardian
...
And what has Britain got to show for this bonanza? Not much. Norway has used its North Sea revenues to amass a sovereign wealth fund that will help the country adjust to an ageing population. Britain used its oil and gas receipts to pay for mass unemployment, tax cuts and current government spending.

Boasts that the black gold would retool British industry proved utterly hollow. If anything, oil added to the woes of manufacturing, since sterling's status as a petro-currency drove up the exchange rate and made exports uncompetitive. A fraction of the billions creamed off by the Treasury might have been used as the capital for a national investment bank, but neither Conservative nor Labour governments saw fit to use the receipts for this purpose.


https://www.theguardian.com/business...nue-squandered

[Dave]

Carbon tax is not a matter of if, it's when. It's either we adopt it now or be forced to later. It's simply the way the world is moving, regardless of what Trump does.

Source? Only four countries in world have - Ireland, Sweden, Chile, and Finland. Why has France abandoned plans for it and Australia repealed carbon tax then?

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/21/fr...-a-carbon-tax/

Most countries aren't implementing it, they want a manufacturing industry which can compete (which is impossible if your input costs are higher than neighbors because of carbon tax). Only countries run by left wing elites / chardonnay socialists are implementing it, as Brexit and Trump show us, the world is moving away from that. But I guess while we watch manufacturing grow south of the border, it will be great comfort that we are doing supposedly, "the right thing" as per Liberal heroes like Al Gore.

What is it with the tired stereotypes and name calling of the "right wing elites" and the "scotch and soda capitalists"?

If you really think the future of North America is in heavy industry manufacturing I think you have been missing low wage China, Vietnam, India, etc ... for about the last 30 years.

Brexit will turn out to be a mess for Britain too and in 2 years they will be saying 'why won't anybody trade with us'? If it actually happens, the financiers will leave for Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin. The Scottish will just leave and take the North Sea oil with them. In the meantime, the pound keeps falling, prices keep going up there, but wages are not. There have already been shortages and price spikes for fresh produce this year.

The UK economy was saved by North Sea oil. That oil is now running out. Expect a rerun of the old times but that may not be so bad. When I was younger, the UK used to manufacture a lot of things (like Canada and the US). Maybe a lower currency will enable improved competitiveness, if not internationally, then in the home market - because- just like the trend away from the carbon tax, the trend is also away from free market capitalism towards more nationalist/socialistic protectionism of domestic markets. That may be a far bigger issue than slightly higher input costs of any carbon tax scheme.

Bolding is mine

Britain has squandered the golden opportunity that North Sea oil promised | Business | The Guardian
...
And what has Britain got to show for this bonanza? Not much. Norway has used its North Sea revenues to amass a sovereign wealth fund that will help the country adjust to an ageing population. Britain used its oil and gas receipts to pay for mass unemployment, tax cuts and current government spending.

Boasts that the black gold would retool British industry proved utterly hollow. If anything, oil added to the woes of manufacturing, since sterling's status as a petro-currency drove up the exchange rate and made exports uncompetitive. A fraction of the billions creamed off by the Treasury might have been used as the capital for a national investment bank, but neither Conservative nor Labour governments saw fit to use the receipts for this purpose.


https://www.theguardian.com/business...nue-squandered

The problem is Britain does not have much of a market on its own to sell manufactured goods to anymore - no empire anymore, maybe not even a UK. Northern Ireland may also leave because of the EU debacle - because leaving the EU will cause a lot of border problems between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which will cause a lot of political and economic problems for them. It could just be England and Wales.

Yes, North Sea oil is declining but on a per capita basis would benefit Scotland if it didn't have to share it with England.

[Gemini]

^I get the impression you think Scotland and Northern Ireland just have to ask and they will be severed from the United Kingdom. It is nott that simply. This alliance goes back a very long time and is more or less tied up in so many ways it would take years to undo. Of course Scotland is going to flap it gums because it's got a first minister (Sturgeon) who is chomping at the bit for independence. Unfortunately (for her) when they had a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom the Scot's voted to stay in. Like the Trump win, a win is a win is a win. It similar to the Quebec separatists, they are not in the majority but they sure make a lot of noise. Most Quebecor's know that leaving Canada would be a bad move but the separatists (like Sturgeon) want to leave but keep the good parts of the union. It's the same as the people who holler now and again that Alberta should separate. Empty rhetoric.

[KC]

Wow, this thread went from an interesting discussion of the power of capital and the state to ME ME ME ME ME.

I don't want to hear about how much money you make. If only money could buy class.

Woe is me! People I hold beyond contempt on an insular & insignificant message board think I'm classless for stating I'm one of the "haves" okay with the current tax regime & not someone who's trying to get someone else to pay taxes I'm not willing to myself.

Whatever shall I do?

Oh.


Wait.

Exactly what I always do.

I can't resist commenting. A weakness of mine.

As far as I'm concerned, anything you say might just as well be outright lies and baloney even when I agree with some of your reasoning. You might be some dude living on the street or in their parents' basement (not that there's anything wrong with that) that likes to sprew BS, etc. Even con men need to create reasonable and rational sounding arguments and backgrounds.

As for being one of the "halves", I think you've likely got a ways to go by my definition.

Lastly, regarding the above issue of how much money you make, that's all fine with me. True or not, it's interesting. Not that you would or should, but don't worry about me if you reveal details of your life - you're anonymous to me anyway. You may make 10 times what I make, or even 10 times what I used to make. So what. Why would anyone have a position on it unless it's meant to downgrade or berate others or create some other negative consequence to innocent viewers.


Very curious wording by the way:

"Woe is me! People I hold beyond contempt on an insular & insignificant message board..."

[Gemini]

Metro :"You just want rich people to pay!"
Me: "In this context, I am one of the rich people, so I'm actually saying I think I should pay"
Gem: "Braggart!"

Oh Gem, never stop being the least productive, least contributory, least eloquent poster on the forums. It's always such a delight to unhide your posts to find you continuing to lower my expectations of you.

Wow, I'm not on your 'ignore' list. That feels good, time for a cigarette.

You're most definitely on my ignore list. One of the longest members of that little club, in fact. I bolded the salient point you seem to have glossed over in your vain attempt to be sassy on the quick.

I am glad to say I don't have you on my ignore list. Having to take the bother to 'unhide' you is not worth it. Getting straight to your points maximizes the laugh factor without the step of 'unhiding' you. Anyhoo, for someone like you who has an under developed sense of personality and humour I suppose your ignore list is your blankie to hide under. I suggest you grow up and read all opinions or stay a child and miss out.

[Dave]

^I get the impression you think Scotland and Northern Ireland just have to ask and they will be severed from the United Kingdom. It is nott that simply. This alliance goes back a very long time and is more or less tied up in so many ways it would take years to undo. Of course Scotland is going to flap it gums because it's got a first minister (Sturgeon) who is chomping at the bit for independence. Unfortunately (for her) when they had a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom the Scot's voted to stay in. Like the Trump win, a win is a win is a win. It similar to the Quebec separatists, they are not in the majority but they sure make a lot of noise. Most Quebecor's know that leaving Canada would be a bad move but the separatists (like Sturgeon) want to leave but keep the good parts of the union. It's the same as the people who holler now and again that Alberta should separate. Empty rhetoric.

I don't have the impression that either Scotland or Northern Ireland just have to ask to be severed. Scotland already held a referendum and their currently pro independence or separatist government is chomping at the bit to hold a second one if they can get "winning conditions" and the Brexit is exactly the gift of that to them. Northern Ireland could just follow in Scotland's path. I doubt the English will fight that much to keep either of them. The anti immigrant movement that drove Brexit is mainly an English thing and people in Scotland and Northern Ireland are wondering if they have gone mad, just like many others around the world.

Alberta has never had a referendum or a separatist government. Our differences with other parts of Canada are more economic than cultural or linguistic. Canada made a great effort after the first referendum to accommodate Quebec. With Brexit, so soon after the initial referendum England seems to be going out of its way to encourage Scotland to try again.