Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jason Kenney and the UCP Performance - first year of power

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • https://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...orate-tax-cuts

    The April 2 finance ministry briefing note, obtained by the Alberta Federation of Labour through a freedom of information request and shared by the NDP, says the effects of corporate tax changes vary in different provinces and that Alberta’s high dependence on oil and gas revenues make it distinct from other jurisdictions. The note says research isn’t clear about whether cutting corporate taxes causes economic growth, or whether economic growth influences tax rates. Trouble getting oil out of Alberta and regulatory challenges are bigger barriers to more oil and gas investment in Alberta than the corporate tax rate, the analysis says.

    *snip*

    Concordia University economics Prof. Moshe Lander, who previously worked as an economist for the Alberta finance department, said cabinet ministers should take his class, where he teaches that trickle-down economics don’t work.

    “Whoever wrote that memo, they took my class,” he said Thursday. “That thing is dead on.”

    Any economic plan that promises specifics, like a number of jobs to be created, leaves him suspicious, he said. Economic factors don’t change in isolation, so it’s hard to attribute any boom or bust to a tax rate alone, he said.

    He questioned whether government will continue to lower the rate, according to plan, should economic data show the tax cut isn’t working.

    Comment


    • "Non-partisan civil servants? Not a real thing. Never met one." Jason Kenney & the Permaconservative Oilbertans.

      Everyone knows being a civil servant means you're a lazy leftist looking for a handout.
      Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by noodle View Post

        What taxation plan isn't?
        Glad you admitted it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post

          Said no economist ever. It's amazing to me that supposedly "conservative" or "small government" people can't accept that a carbon tax is the most efficient, simple, and effective way of reducing emissions with the tax system. Instead they call for a whack of regulation, picking winners for subsidy/incentive, and so on that are way less effective, way more costly, and way more likely to have unintended consequences. You know, the exact opposite of what their ideology is supposedly about.
          Said no logical person ever. Instead, yes, let's create a bunch more administrative costs and positions, and move a lions share of the "tax" to lower income people, and increase costs for the average citizen and business, instead of targeting the worst offenders, and offering tax incentives to groups/businesses with solid plans.

          Comment


          • TIL economists are not logical persons, but Stoneman is, somehow.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/17/this-is-not-controversial-bipartisan-group-economists-calls-carbon-tax/

            Forty-five top economists from across the political spectrum are calling for the United States to put a tax on carbon, saying it is by far the best way for the nation to address climate change.

            “A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary,” the economists wrote in letter published Wednesday evening in the Wall Street Journal. They called climate change a “serious problem” that needs “immediate national action.” Nearly every Republican and Democratic chair of the Council of Economic Advisers since the 1970s signed the letter, including Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and Janet L. Yellen, who are also former chairs of the Federal Reserve. Numerous Nobel laureates in economics also added their names.

            “Among economists, this is not controversial,” said Greg Mankiw, who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under George W. Bush and signed the letter. “The politics is complicated, the international relations is complicated, but the economics is really simple."


            Yellen, Mankiw and former treasury secretaries George P. Shultz, a Republican, and Lawrence H. Summers, a Democrat, led the effort to put together the bipartisan letter. They expect many more economists to sign on in the coming weeks. The letter does not specify what level the carbon tax should be set at, a controversial question, but it does call for a “sufficiently robust and gradually rising” tax.

            “I actually think a carbon tax together with rebates is, in some sense, the most conservative way to deal with climate change,” Mankiw said. “Everything else means more intrusive government.”
            Ye gods, you're making being wrong into an art form.
            Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by noodle View Post
              TIL economists are not logical persons, but Stoneman is, somehow.

              https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/17/this-is-not-controversial-bipartisan-group-economists-calls-carbon-tax/





              Ye gods, you're making being wrong into an art form.
              Again, I don't have a problem government going after the most robust offenders, as they should. But slapping a blanket over the general public and penalizing them? Not sure what the point of that is, other than to move the collected tax money to another segment of the population. Oh wait, that's been done.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stoneman View Post
                Not sure what the point of that is, other than to move the collected tax money to another segment of the population. Oh wait, that's been done.
                Yes. By every tax, since their inception. Are you against all taxes?
                Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by noodle View Post

                  Yes. By every tax, since their inception. Are you against all taxes?
                  Of course not.

                  Carbon pricing on the big emitters.


                  Last edited by Stoneman; 24-01-2020, 02:51 PM.

                  Comment


                  • But that collected tax money would be moved to another segment of the population, which is evidently a disqualification.

                    Or are you saying we should just give the money back to the large emitters after putting it through "a bunch more administrative costs and positions" as you put it?

                    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by noodle View Post
                      But that collected tax money would be moved to another segment of the population, which is evidently a disqualification.

                      Or are you saying we should just give the money back to the large emitters after putting it through "a bunch more administrative costs and positions" as you put it?
                      Give it back to the large emitters? What???

                      It would and should be used properly by going to private technological innovation and investment. All of it.

                      You want to make a meaningful dent in carbon reduction? Go after the big boys.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stoneman View Post
                        It would and should be used properly by going to private technological innovation and investment. All of it.
                        That sounds like a wealth redistribution scheme!
                        Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stoneman View Post

                          Give it back to the large emitters? What???

                          It would and should be used properly by going to private technological innovation and investment. All of it.

                          You want to make a meaningful dent in carbon reduction? Go after the big boys.
                          Nah, Kenney's going to use it to reduce the deficit caused by the first round of his tax cuts and to fund the "war room" that promotes More O&G. Whatever "Innovation & technology" they fund will just be window dressing.

                          How Alberta will keep its $30-per-tonne carbon tax but make it easier for some big emitters to avoid paying

                          ​​​​​​According to the provincial budget released last week, the province expects to take in about $478 million in carbon charges from large emitters in the next fiscal year.

                          Of that, it plans to put $200 million toward "innovation and technology." Another $189 million is earmarked for deficit reduction and to fund the government's energy "war room," a public relations operation that aims to combat what the province describes as misinformation about the oil and gas industry.

                          https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ters-1.5339464

                          Comment


                          • Seems to be about one of these stories per week in the States. I figure we could cut back on any and all sex ed classes in our schools if we hired these now unemployed teachers to give our students some hands on lessons.

                            New Jersey teacher caught on video performing oral sex on student

                            https://edmontonsun.com/news/world/n...8-d10f219cd9bc

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by kkozoriz View Post

                              Nah, Kenney's going to use it to reduce the deficit caused by the first round of his tax cuts and to fund the "war room" that promotes More O&G. Whatever "Innovation & technology" they fund will just be window dressing.
                              Or, they can just continue to give it to low salaried kids and the like so they can afford to buy more gas for their vehicles. Yup, that'll solve the carbon crisis!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by noodle View Post

                                That sounds like a wealth redistribution scheme!
                                Not sure how you get that. It's large penalties against the biggest perpetrators. The collected penalties are then put toward scrutinized businesses that have legitimate ideas toward carbon capture, etc. Serves 2 purposes. Forces the largest emitters to find ways to scale back their emissions and then generate ways to activate clean (er) energy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X