Alberta, Taxes, and Socialism

[kelownabomberfan]

My old man went from Pinawa to Kamloops and now Nanaimo. He'll be 60 this summer and says it's the best move he ever made in his life. I called him a ***** and can't believe he'd ever think about being that far away from the family and everything, but hey, whatever cranks your tractor, I guess.

Pinawa? Has he stopped glowing yet?

[kelownabomberfan]

and yes, even the taxes are fine.

Speak for yourself! Our carbon tax is the dumbest tax I've ever seen - just soooo stupid.

[rebusrankin]

Too many years for me before I can retire. Guess it'll depend on that state of Manitoba versus BC, Alberta etc then.

[Mr Dee]

 

and yes, even the taxes are fine.

Speak for yourself! Our carbon tax is the dumbest tax I've ever seen - just soooo stupid.

 

 

[iso_55]

 

 

and yes, even the taxes are fine.

Speak for yourself! Our carbon tax is the dumbest tax I've ever seen - just soooo stupid.

 

 

 

A Gordon Campbell Special. Don't see Christie Clark getting rid of it. The sky high gasoline taxes on the Lower Mainland is pretty stupid. Why do voters allow the politicians to rape them everytime they fill up their vehicles???

[Mr Dee]

 

 

 

and yes, even the taxes are fine.

Speak for yourself! Our carbon tax is the dumbest tax I've ever seen - just soooo stupid.

 

 

 

A Gordon Campbell Special. Don't see Christie Clark getting rid of it. The sky high gasoline taxes on the Lower Mainland is pretty stupid. Why do voters allow the politicians to rape them everytime they fill up their vehicles???

 

 

It's a trade-off. 

 

"As for the economy, B.C.’s GDP has slightly outperformed the rest of Canada’s since the carbon tax began. BC simply raised taxes on pollution and lowered them on income. Since 2008, the province has cut income taxes by almost $1 billion more than it has taken in carbon revenues –so taxpayers are ahead overall. B.C.’s personal and corporate income tax rates are now among the lowest in Canada, making it an attractive place to do business." - The Financial Post Jan 2015

 

"The result is that taxpayers are coming out ahead. B.C. now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada (with additional cuts benefiting low-income and rural residents) and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America. You shouldn’t need an economist and a mining entrepreneur to tell you that’s good for business and jobs." - The Globe and Mail July 2014

 

Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too. The Economist July 2014

 

[Mark H.]

 

 

 

 

and yes, even the taxes are fine.

Speak for yourself! Our carbon tax is the dumbest tax I've ever seen - just soooo stupid.

 

 

 

A Gordon Campbell Special. Don't see Christie Clark getting rid of it. The sky high gasoline taxes on the Lower Mainland is pretty stupid. Why do voters allow the politicians to rape them everytime they fill up their vehicles???

 

 

It's a trade-off. 

 

"As for the economy, B.C.’s GDP has slightly outperformed the rest of Canada’s since the carbon tax began. BC simply raised taxes on pollution and lowered them on income. Since 2008, the province has cut income taxes by almost $1 billion more than it has taken in carbon revenues –so taxpayers are ahead overall. B.C.’s personal and corporate income tax rates are now among the lowest in Canada, making it an attractive place to do business." - The Financial Post Jan 2015

 

"The result is that taxpayers are coming out ahead. B.C. now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada (with additional cuts benefiting low-income and rural residents) and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America. You shouldn’t need an economist and a mining entrepreneur to tell you that’s good for business and jobs." - The Globe and Mail July 2014

 

Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too. The Economist July 2014

 

 

How dare you bring facts to a whine and cheese party?  

[kelownabomberfan]

How dare you bring facts to a whine and cheese party?

1. Mark - if you are calling Iso and I whiners just because we are questioning the validity and intelligence of various methods of taxation enacted by our elected officials, without even waiting for us to explain our reasoning, then I invite you cordially to kiss my large hairy behind.

But you wouldn't do that, now would you?? Naw...

2. Someone at the Globe and Mail should actually do some fact-checking, as Alberta has a lower overall personal tax rate (flat) and Ontario's personal rate is actually lower than BC for income below $41K. BC also just raised their corporate tax rate and we are now higher than Alberta for corporations as well. And then of course there is that 7% PST we have that Alberta doesn't, that should have just been a 12% flow-through HST, but well...that's another story.

But that's not the whole story. In addition to the Stuuuuupid carbon tax the BC government has introduced a ton of user fees, and jacked existing user fees on various government services. For instance, now in BC a family of three has to pay $144 a month in monthly medical premiums (BC I believe now is the only province that has this fee as Alberta phased theirs out a few years ago). There's a break for lower income people, but every year they have jacked this premium. What I don't like about the carbon tax is this:

- the provincial government calls the Carbon tax "revenue neutral" but in reality its just a transfer. They used that revenue to lower personal income taxes. When people complained about the carbon tax Gordon Campbell told people to just take the train or the bus. That's kind of hard to do in Castlegar or Quesnel. The single mom with three kids has to get her kids to school somehow, and she needs gas to do it. So while she might not have been paying much in income taxes, thanks to our progressive tax system, which I agree with, now she's got to fork out extra dough for gas. All to subsidize some hose-head in the lower mainland getting a tax break on his already giant income.

I'm no socialist, not at all, but I hate hate hate it when the government tries to social engineer societal behavior via taxation. Raising taxes on gas doesn't stop people from using gas, it just makes their lives more difficult and expensive, and that's not right.

The government just cut 2% off the taxes of people in BC making over $150,000 a year (while raising MSP rates 4%). Whoopee!! I get it, they promised that they would cut the 2% off the high end last election and they followed through on the promise. I just would much rather have seen that cut in taxes go to cutting the STOOOOPID carbon tax, and seeing that single mom get the benefit, instead of some dude making over $150K a year.

Everytime I see that stupid carbon tax on my natural gas bill, my blood just boils.

Anyway - sorry if I'm "whining" and am so "hard done by" - but if you want to seriously discuss this topic, then Mark and Dee, how about we seriously talk about it. Preferably over wine and cheese.

[Mark H.]

I'm sorry, I was trying to be funny with the wine and cheese joke - I like wine and cheese and sometimes I like whining too. I actually appreciate the way Iso acknowledges that there can be issues with any government, regardless of political stripe.

 

 Seriously: what's the difference between a 'transfer' and 'revenue neutral?'  If people are still paying the same amount of tax overall, then that would seem to be revenue neutral, would it not?

[kelownabomberfan]

I'm sorry, I was trying to be funny with the wine and cheese joke - I like wine and cheese and sometimes I like whining too.

 

 Seriously: what's the difference between a 'transfer' and 'revenue neutral?'

Apology accepted.

Difference is that "revenue neutral" seems to always equate to "poor people get screwed". The end result is the government gets the same amount of money, but more of it comes out of the pockets of people who can't afford it. And as I write this I am amazing myself as believe me, I am not a socialist. In fact, I believe that socialism hurts the poor more than it helps them, in a lot of the policies they enact. The Carbon Tax is one of those policies.

[Mark H.]

 

I'm sorry, I was trying to be funny with the wine and cheese joke - I like wine and cheese and sometimes I like whining too.

 

 Seriously: what's the difference between a 'transfer' and 'revenue neutral?'

Apology accepted.

Difference is that "revenue neutral" seems to always equate to "poor people get screwed". The end result is the government gets the same amount of money, but more of it comes out of the pockets of people who can't afford it. And as I write this I am amazing myself as believe me, I am not a socialist. In fact, I believe that socialism hurts the poor more than it helps them, in a lot of the policies they enact. The Carbon Tax is one of those policies.

 

 

Even though I'm in the teacher's union and happy with what they provide, lately I've been wrestling with the idea of government and unions.  Unions don't really represent the working poor any more.  They mostly represent public employees and middle class trades people.  I find that the idea of socialist governments supporting the working poor has become largely a myth. And it fits right in with the comment you made about Tommy Douglas in the other thread.

[tacklewasher]

Please don't get KBF going on the BCTF. The board would melt down....

 

 

(And BTW, I agree with his opinion on it)

[17to85]

The thing that bothers me about carbon taxes is that they're paraded out as some type of pollution reducing save the planet plan when in reality they're just the government taking in more tax money. Taxing people for carbon doesn't help any of the pollution issues it's just a gimmick for the government to pretend to be doing something without actually addressing the issue. 

[kelownabomberfan]

The thing that bothers me about carbon taxes is that they're paraded out as some type of pollution reducing save the planet plan when in reality they're just the government taking in more tax money. Taxing people for carbon doesn't help any of the pollution issues it's just a gimmick for the government to pretend to be doing something without actually addressing the issue.

What I really don't get is putting a carbon tax on natural gas. It's the most clean-burning fuel you can find. You WANT people burning natural gas to heat their houses. There is literally NO pollution from burning it whatsoever. And yet, thanks to the idiots that still cling to this stupid man-made climate change myth, the government gets away with charging people a tax for using natural gas. Just so ridiculous. If you, the government, want to tax me for burning natural gas because you need the money, then fine, tax it, and just admit it's because you need money, but don't try and sell the BS garbage that you are taxing me because you want me to believe that taxing it is going to reduce man-made global warming - you can go and **** yourself. That's just total and utter crap.

[17to85]

Burning natural gas does still put CO2 into the air, just a lot less than oil or coal or other heavier hydrocarbons. I just wish that if people were serious about reducing CO2 emissions they'd stop with the BS "solutions" like carbon taxes and carbon trading scams. Invest in alternate energies, the barrier to them is the cost compared to fossil fuels, bridge that gap and things will swift. Easier to just tax people and parade it as a solution I guess. 

[iso_55]

How dare you bring facts to a whine and cheese party?

1. Mark - if you are calling Iso and I whiners just because we are questioning the validity and intelligence of various methods of taxation enacted by our elected officials, without even waiting for us to explain our reasoning, then I invite you cordially to kiss my large hairy behind.

But you wouldn't do that, now would you?? Naw...

2. Someone at the Globe and Mail should actually do some fact-checking, as Alberta has a lower overall personal tax rate (flat) and Ontario's personal rate is actually lower than BC for income below $41K. BC also just raised their corporate tax rate and we are now higher than Alberta for corporations as well. And then of course there is that 7% PST we have that Alberta doesn't, that should have just been a 12% flow-through HST, but well...that's another story.

But that's not the whole story. In addition to the Stuuuuupid carbon tax the BC government has introduced a ton of user fees, and jacked existing user fees on various government services. For instance, now in BC a family of three has to pay $144 a month in monthly medical premiums (BC I believe now is the only province that has this fee as Alberta phased theirs out a few years ago). There's a break for lower income people, but every year they have jacked this premium. What I don't like about the carbon tax is this:

- the provincial government calls the Carbon tax "revenue neutral" but in reality its just a transfer. They used that revenue to lower personal income taxes. When people complained about the carbon tax Gordon Campbell told people to just take the train or the bus. That's kind of hard to do in Castlegar or Quesnel. The single mom with three kids has to get her kids to school somehow, and she needs gas to do it. So while she might not have been paying much in income taxes, thanks to our progressive tax system, which I agree with, now she's got to fork out extra dough for gas. All to subsidize some hose-head in the lower mainland getting a tax break on his already giant income.

I'm no socialist, not at all, but I hate hate hate it when the government tries to social engineer societal behavior via taxation. Raising taxes on gas doesn't stop people from using gas, it just makes their lives more difficult and expensive, and that's not right.

The government just cut 2% off the taxes of people in BC making over $150,000 a year (while raising MSP rates 4%). Whoopee!! I get it, they promised that they would cut the 2% off the high end last election and they followed through on the promise. I just would much rather have seen that cut in taxes go to cutting the STOOOOPID carbon tax, and seeing that single mom get the benefit, instead of some dude making over $150K a year.

Everytime I see that stupid carbon tax on my natural gas bill, my blood just boils.

Anyway - sorry if I'm "whining" and am so "hard done by" - but if you want to seriously discuss this topic, then Mark and Dee, how about we seriously talk about it. Preferably over wine and cheese.

I couldn't have written that any better KBF. So, I'll just say Hear! Hear! and let it stand on its own merits.

[Fraser]

I generally prefer consumption taxes as a form of taxation. I think income/investment tax stifles the desire to work/save. The only extra tax I could get on board with is a tax on sugar. If people want to give themsleves diabetes they can kick extra money into healthcare the way the smokers do. Obbiously I wouldn't want this as an extra tax but the net revenue from this to be reduced from investment/income tax.

[kelownabomberfan]

Burning natural gas does still put CO2 into the air, just a lot less than oil or coal or other heavier hydrocarbons. I just wish that if people were serious about reducing CO2 emissions they'd stop with the BS "solutions" like carbon taxes and carbon trading scams. Invest in alternate energies, the barrier to them is the cost compared to fossil fuels, bridge that gap and things will swift. Easier to just tax people and parade it as a solution I guess. 

 

Well yes it puts CO2 in the air, but really everyone in Canada burning natural gas to stay warm is still like peeing in the ocean compared to the CO2 generated by China in a single day.  Even if the man-made climate change myth had some validity to it, taxing natural gas just isn't going to do anything to stop it, and is just a revenue grab.  So just say so.

 

Also - in terms of "alternate energies" - I support them, as long as people look at the entire picture.  Some look at a wind turbine and say "see it doesn't generate any CO2".  Well, that's not true.  What about all of the CO2 generated in constructing it in the first place?  And what about the acid boiling that is required for the giant rare earth magnet in each of those turbines?  And what about all the birds that are blended by wind turbines?  I'm not a big supporter of wind or solar.  I do support nuclear though.

[17to85]

 

Burning natural gas does still put CO2 into the air, just a lot less than oil or coal or other heavier hydrocarbons. I just wish that if people were serious about reducing CO2 emissions they'd stop with the BS "solutions" like carbon taxes and carbon trading scams. Invest in alternate energies, the barrier to them is the cost compared to fossil fuels, bridge that gap and things will swift. Easier to just tax people and parade it as a solution I guess. 

 

Well yes it puts CO2 in the air, but really everyone in Canada burning natural gas to stay warm is still like peeing in the ocean compared to the CO2 generated by China in a single day.  Even if the man-made climate change myth had some validity to it, taxing natural gas just isn't going to do anything to stop it, and is just a revenue grab.  So just say so.

 

Also - in terms of "alternate energies" - I support them, as long as people look at the entire picture.  Some look at a wind turbine and say "see it doesn't generate any CO2".  Well, that's not true.  What about all of the CO2 generated in constructing it in the first place?  And what about the acid boiling that is required for the giant rare earth magnet in each of those turbines?  And what about all the birds that are blended by wind turbines?  I'm not a big supporter of wind or solar.  I do support nuclear though.

 

 

This is something that a lot more people need to be aware of. Canada may have a high per capita emissions rate, but we could stop all emissions tomorrow and it wouldn't make one bloody bit of difference. The US, Russia, China, India they all pump out so much that until all of them drastically alter their emissions nothing will change. I don't think you can argue climate change at this point, what you can argue is how serious an issue it is. It's a costly thing to "fix" and I don't know that the economic hardships are worth it. I think a lot of the doom and gloom is overblown. 

 

As for wind and solar, in some areas it can be a viable source of energy. In Canada though I don't think solar is all that realistic for a large amount of power, just too few daylight hours in the winter. The big problem with wind and solar is that it's unreliable and affected by too many outside variables to be the dominant supply, but as a supplement I think they have merits. 

[Mark H.]

Another very viable solution would be to plant more trees.  Young, growing trees actually consume more carbon dioxide than old trees.  Also, some of the wood stoves being manufactured these days are incredibly efficient.  I have seen a wood stove that was heating a several large houses via hot water heating pipes.  It only needed to be filled once every 24 hours and it had a recombustion chamber that was so efficient you couldn't see any smoke unless you looked very closely.

[kelownabomberfan]

Another very viable solution would be to plant more trees.  Young, growing trees actually consume more carbon dioxide than old trees.  Also, some of the wood stoves being manufactured these days are incredibly efficient.  I have seen a wood stove that was heating a several large houses via hot water heating pipes.  It only needed to be filled once every 24 hours and it had a recombustion chamber that was so efficient you couldn't see any smoke unless you looked very closely.

 

Yeah I think planting trees is an excellent idea.

 

As for wood stoves, I've been looking at one for the house as the idiot government and utilities board here have put in a two-tier billing system for electricity, and it's caused huge increases in the cost of electricity.  There's a wood stove manufacturer in Penticton that manufactures some of the highest efficiency wood stoves on the market, and may be the one you saw, as it has a catalytic combustor as you describe.  Not sure if you can buy them in Manitoba - they're called Blaze King.

[Fatty Liver]

Another very viable solution would be to plant more trees.  Young, growing trees actually consume more carbon dioxide than old trees.  Also, some of the wood stoves being manufactured these days are incredibly efficient.  I have seen a wood stove that was heating a several large houses via hot water heating pipes.  It only needed to be filled once every 24 hours and it had a recombustion chamber that was so efficient you couldn't see any smoke unless you looked very closely.

 

Those are actually wood boilers and there are 3 manufacturers of them in Manitoba.  Not usually allowed in cities or towns but great for acreages.

[Jpan85]

Bump. Wow what a upset tonight.

[Goalie]

Lol. NDP majority. Wow. Shocking but considering how lopsided it was maybe it shouldn't have been that surprising

[Jaxon]

Bump. Wow what a upset tonight.

I think that many Albertans will wake up with the same nightmare/hang over that Ontario suffered from after they elected Bob Rae.     I'm small "c" conservative in that I believe in more freedom from government in the form of greater personal responsibility and lower taxes.  That being said, I've seen lots of corruption in all parties across the country.  The PC party had grown stale, arrogant, and corrupt and they needed to be replaced. Politics is a nasty game played by some nasty people, many of whom are the background players not even elected.   I would have preferred a Wild Rose result over the socialists.  I'm afraid that the "Alberta advantage" which was based on business friendly government and lower taxes, will be destroyed as the union controlled NDP take over.    I'm shorting Alberta and going long on Saskatchewan.