News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 5.7K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.4K     0 

Alberta Provincial Politics

If an election was held today, who would you vote for?

  • UCP

    Votes: 8 13.3%

  • NDP

    Votes: 44 73.3%

  • Liberal

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Alberta Party

    Votes: 4 6.7%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 4 6.7%
  • Total voters
    60
Gotta say, the Smith government is turning out to be just as extreme as everyone warned (but which Smith was able to disguise during the election campaign). Going after trans kids, essentially banning renewable energy, taxing EVs, cutting funding to health care and education, transferring funds from public schools to private schools, etc. The last election has taught them that all they need to do is appeal to rednecks, and scrape enough squishy "socially liberal/fiscally conservative" suburban votes from Calgary, and they'll be in power perpetually. I hope it's not true. I hope all the recent growth in this province will turn the tide, but we'll have to see.
 
The budget forecasts real GDP growth at 2.9%, which is less than population growth so of course spending cannot keep up. Canada has had flat to declining GDP per capita since 2015 which means as the country becomes poorer so does funding for social services. This is compounded by debt rolling over at higher rates, devoting more tax revenue to debt servicing. Neither of these occurences are surprising given that govenrments made concious choices to de-emphasive economic growth and to rob from the future through borrowing. The electorate chose a less prosperous future.

The zoning changes on renewables are disapporinting. A 5km buffer would have been much more reasonable than 35km. Very few wind and solar projects were being sited on prime agricultural land regardless of legistlation as the best wind and solar sites tend to be on dry and exposed parcels. With already approved projects, AB was likely approaching the limits of intermittment power, but that would be for the market to decide.

Trans and EVs are luxury issues that don't practically impact many people, so........yawn.
 
DougB said:
The budget forecasts real GDP growth at 2.9%, which is less than population growth so of course spending cannot keep up. Canada has had flat to declining GDP per capita since 2015 which means as the country becomes poorer so does funding for social services. This is compounded by debt rolling over at higher rates, devoting more tax revenue to debt servicing. Neither of these occurences are surprising given that govenrments made concious choices to de-emphasive economic growth and to rob from the future through borrowing. The electorate chose a less prosperous future.

The zoning changes on renewables are disapporinting. A 5km buffer would have been much more reasonable than 35km. Very few wind and solar projects were being sited on prime agricultural land regardless of legistlation as the best wind and solar sites tend to be on dry and exposed parcels. With already approved projects, AB was likely approaching the limits of intermittment power, but that would be for the market to decide.

Trans and EVs are luxury issues that don't practically impact many people, so........yawn.
Click to expand...
Seeing as transgenders are people, it does impact people.
I agree about the EVs. All other cars pay tax towards maintenance of the roads (which I’m totally in support of) and in my mind, EVs are no different. They still use road infrastructures like anyone else.
 
Cowtown said:
I agree about the EVs. All other cars pay tax towards maintenance of the roads (which I’m totally in support of) and in my mind, EVs are no different. They still use road infrastructures like anyone else.
Click to expand...
The flat EV tax is lazily thought out and communicated to obscure how road maintenance is funded today. This was entirely political virtue signalling. If the goal is really about road maintenance EVs should be taxed, but so should everything else.

Road maintenance is most closely linked to the weight of a vehicle and the amount of driving it does. This is not related to type of engine EV or combustion - some ICE trucks are heavier than the lightest EVs and do more damage to roads, some inefficient and older cars burn more fuel (pay more tax) but also do less damage to the roadway than heavier, more efficient vehicles.

It's an easy funding problem if there's interest in solving it. You need to address both the weight and usage components that trigger road maintenance:
  1. To address weight - Add a tax to all vehicles by curb weight. The curb weight of a vehicle is readily available and can be applied on a sliding scale - heavier vehicles pay more.
  2. To address amount of driving - add a gas tax + EV tax. Link EV tax to electrical usage, or if that's too difficult, just adjust the weight tax up on EVs to approximate general usage trends. The goal here is is lighter cars and those that drive should pay less for road maintenance.
  3. Critically - dedicate any fees collected through weight tax and driving tax to only road maintenance. Make this public and part of regular budget reporting.
  4. Adjust all weight and driving taxes annually to ensure amount budgeted to spend on roads = the amount collected.
The government did exactly 1 of these 4 steps. The half-step they decided to do is an insignificant untraceable tax increase into general revenues. It's the kind of thing you'd do if you are a government thinks of EV and road maintenance as a purely political issue, not a legitimate cost or maintenance issue.
 
Silence&Motion said:
I hope all the recent growth in this province will turn the tide, but we'll have to see.
Click to expand...
I do wonder about this... Has Alberta attracted more conservative voters from places like BC and Ontario? Now I'm sure very few people move somewhere because "they vote like me". However because Alberta is seen in BC and Ontario as Conservative has that made those voters more willing or have progressive people started coming to Alberta because they do see the tide starting to change?

This of course doesn't account for international migration but that also means some of those immigrants are not able to vote unless they're Canadian citizens, as far as I recall PRs cannot vote.

CBBarnett said:
You need to address both the weight and usage components that trigger road maintenance
Click to expand...
I can't decide should this calculation include commercial trucks? I say no as it is a bit of a slippery slope as you would just have people registering their vehicle in their company's name. Using your calculation you could also work out a proper carbon tax, where transport of goods and services are exempted. This would be a way to properly apply a carbon tax against larger vehicles that pollute more but don't actually need a larger vehicle to transport anything.

Not to go there... But I'm not pro carbon tax guy, I do think there are better ways (maybe this is one option) to reduce pollution that will actually reduce pollution.
 
CBBarnett said:
The flat EV tax is lazily thought out and communicated to obscure how road maintenance is funded today. This was entirely political virtue signalling. If the goal is really about road maintenance EVs should be taxed, but so should everything else.

Road maintenance is most closely linked to the weight of a vehicle and the amount of driving it does. This is not related to type of engine EV or combustion - some ICE trucks are heavier than the lightest EVs and do more damage to roads, some inefficient and older cars burn more fuel (pay more tax) but also do less damage to the roadway than heavier, more efficient vehicles.

It's an easy funding problem if there's interest in solving it. You need to address both the weight and usage components that trigger road maintenance:
  1. To address weight - Add a tax to all vehicles by curb weight. The curb weight of a vehicle is readily available and can be applied on a sliding scale - heavier vehicles pay more.
  2. To address amount of driving - add a gas tax + EV tax. Link EV tax to electrical usage, or if that's too difficult, just adjust the weight tax up on EVs to approximate general usage trends. The goal here is is lighter cars and those that drive should pay less for road maintenance.
  3. Critically - dedicate any fees collected through weight tax and driving tax to only road maintenance. Make this public and part of regular budget reporting.
  4. Adjust all weight and driving taxes annually to ensure amount budgeted to spend on roads = the amount collected.
The government did exactly 1 of these 4 steps. The half-step they decided to do is an insignificant untraceable tax increase into general revenues. It's the kind of thing you'd do if you are a government thinks of EV and road maintenance as a purely political issue, not a legitimate cost or maintenance issue.
Click to expand...

Longer term, a more sophisticated tax regime might make sense. Right now, AB is approximating the loss from fuel tax and adding it to annual registration. Many US States do the same: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/electric-vehicles-ev-taxes-state/
 
CalgaryTiger said:
I do wonder about this... Has Alberta attracted more conservative voters from places like BC and Ontario? Now I'm sure very few people move somewhere because "they vote like me". However because Alberta is seen in BC and Ontario as Conservative has that made those voters more willing or have progressive people started coming to Alberta because they do see the tide starting to change?

This of course doesn't account for international migration but that also means some of those immigrants are not able to vote unless they're Canadian citizens, as far as I recall PRs cannot vote.


I can't decide should this calculation include commercial trucks? I say no as it is a bit of a slippery slope as you would just have people registering their vehicle in their company's name. Using your calculation you could also work out a proper carbon tax, where transport of goods and services are exempted. This would be a way to properly apply a carbon tax against larger vehicles that pollute more but don't actually need a larger vehicle to transport anything.

Not to go there... But I'm not pro carbon tax guy, I do think there are better ways (maybe this is one option) to reduce pollution that will actually reduce pollution.
Click to expand...
Alberta is attracting people who seek higher disposable incomes, much as it has during previous booms. Demographics aren't changing.
 
DougB said:
Alberta is attracting people who seek higher disposable incomes, much as it has during previous booms. Demographics aren't changing.
Click to expand...
In previous booms wasn't it the job market pulling people here? I actually don't see that this time. They're looking to increase their disposable income by decreasing their expenses.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
In previous booms wasn't it the job market pulling people here? I actually don't see that this time. They're looking to increase their disposable income by decreasing their expenses.
Click to expand...
I think that's broadly correct. Employment growth in the high wage, Alberta-only industries haven't been as high as the level of migration. I'd think a decent amount of people (myself included) moved for the cost of living while keeping a remote job or finding a similar job locally.
CalgaryTiger said:
I do wonder about this... Has Alberta attracted more conservative voters from places like BC and Ontario? Now I'm sure very few people move somewhere because "they vote like me". However because Alberta is seen in BC and Ontario as Conservative has that made those voters more willing or have progressive people started coming to Alberta because they do see the tide starting to change?
Click to expand...
Isn't it the opposite? Historically speaking, these last few years have been the strongest a non-Conservative party has been in Alberta. Definitely not purely from newcomers as the Wildrose and PC consolidated, they also moved rightward of the old PC. The people moving here are probably centre/centre-left, which is broadly the population of Canada. Overtime, that will move Alberta closer to the centre. What Alberta is keeping out is probably the ultra-left people that would never consider living here because of the politics, real or imagined.
 
CBBarnett said:
The flat EV tax is lazily thought out and communicated to obscure how road maintenance is funded today. This was entirely political virtue signalling. If the goal is really about road maintenance EVs should be taxed, but so should everything else.

Road maintenance is most closely linked to the weight of a vehicle and the amount of driving it does. This is not related to type of engine EV or combustion - some ICE trucks are heavier than the lightest EVs and do more damage to roads, some inefficient and older cars burn more fuel (pay more tax) but also do less damage to the roadway than heavier, more efficient vehicles.

It's an easy funding problem if there's interest in solving it. You need to address both the weight and usage components that trigger road maintenance:
  1. To address weight - Add a tax to all vehicles by curb weight. The curb weight of a vehicle is readily available and can be applied on a sliding scale - heavier vehicles pay more.
  2. To address amount of driving - add a gas tax + EV tax. Link EV tax to electrical usage, or if that's too difficult, just adjust the weight tax up on EVs to approximate general usage trends. The goal here is is lighter cars and those that drive should pay less for road maintenance.
  3. Critically - dedicate any fees collected through weight tax and driving tax to only road maintenance. Make this public and part of regular budget reporting.
  4. Adjust all weight and driving taxes annually to ensure amount budgeted to spend on roads = the amount collected.
The government did exactly 1 of these 4 steps. The half-step they decided to do is an insignificant untraceable tax increase into general revenues. It's the kind of thing you'd do if you are a government thinks of EV and road maintenance as a purely political issue, not a legitimate cost or maintenance issue.
Click to expand...
I agree the government is taking advantage and doing some virtue signalling but at the same time, the cars still need to be taxed and the flat rate is the simplest. Trying to tax based on usage might end up creating more bureaucracy and cost than the tax brings in. It’s not perfect, but it’s easiest to do at the moment. Although, yes, I agree it would be better to have tax by weight.
As far as where the tax money goes, does anyone know for sure if it’s going into general coffers? They’ve said it’s supposed to be towards maintenance.
Whatever it ends up being, they'll need to figure out the best way to do this tax as eventually all cars will be electric cars and will be taxed one way or another.
 
Mountain Man said:
Sounds like Nenshi is going to run for the NDP leadership, always wondered how long it would take before he went Provincial.
Click to expand...
Would a "Nenshi Democratic Party" be big enough for his ego? I thought he was waiting for the call to be the new federal Liberal leader.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top