[EyeBrock]

So is that a yes or no?

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

So is that a yes or no?

I wasn't talking to you, you got in while I was making my reply to the other guy.

We're being ripped off by giving a 2 billion dollar tax subsidy to the oil industry. If the oil ain't worth getting out on it's own we shouldn't subsidize it. The oil industry makes massive profits, and they've got hold of a diminishing commodity with ever increasing demand. We should tax them on those profits.

But to subsidize ourselves to cheap oil so we can act like drunken sailors for another decade maybe is nuts. Adapt to high oil prices, tax it for the actual costs to society.

Is that a yes or a no? If anything, we're ripping ourselves off.

[EyeBrock]

I totally don't agree with subsidising oil companies.

We are paying the same (or more with taxes) than a country that has no oil. How is that ok with you?

[Caelon]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

andyt andyt:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

We sit on the second largest oil deposits in the world but we pay more than the Yanks who are our biggest customers?

We are being ripped off.

Nope, under NAFTA the yanks pay the same for crude as we do. They just choose to tax it less than we do. And that's not working out very well for them - that piper may have to be paid any time now.

So we are not being ripped off then andy?

On a tax out basis quite often the Canadian prices are less than the US prices in neighboring states. Currently in Western Canada there are supply issues on refined product creating a shortage and a price spike.

In the state of Montana they pay 18.4 cents per gallon of federal tax plus 27.75 cents per gallon of state tax. Montana is about average for state taxes, but there are others that are a lot less like Wyoming with 14 cents or Alaska with 8 cents. Using Great Falls the retail price of gas is $3.539 less the $0.4615 of taxes equals $3.0775 or $0.78 per litre in Canadian funds. In Edmonton the retail price is $1.149, which includes GST, FET and provincial fuel tax. Or on a tax out basis it is $0.9043 per liter or 12 cents more than Montana. The difference is in the supply problems.

As I stated there is a supply issue on refined product in Western Canada. There is no relief from imported product as everything goes out and nothing comes in. Ontario as an importer can have western supply, US supply or European supply and tends to be closer to the crude related cost.

[EyeBrock]

Thanks for the info Caelon but my view is we are being well ripped off.

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I totally don't agree with subsidising oil companies.

We are paying the same (or more with taxes) than a country that has no oil. How is that ok with you?

Nowhere have I advocated subsidizing oil companies. You're not getting what I'm saying. It's OK with me to pay taxes on that oil because that oil has various costs to us as a society. The oil should pay it's own way. Lung disease due to pollution - tax oil. All road and transit costs - tax oil. Health costs from accidents, lost wages etc - tax oil. None of those taxes go to the oil companies. We should have a decent corporate tax rate that makes sure some of their prfits flow to us as well.

At one time BCAA estimated that the average driver was being subsidized to the tune of $3000 a year considering what he paid in gas taxes vs what the true costs of his driving were. (Doubt they included all factors, just roads etc). Gas taxes have gone up since then, but so have various costs that driving produces, so I doubt if the relative amount is any less now. That's something I like to throw at some caridiot who claims I shouldn't ride my bike on the road because I dont' pay gas taxes. Road contstruction and all extraneous costs of vehicle use come out of general revenue. I pay into that as much as the caridiot does, but don't get that subsidy when I'm using my bike.

[peck420]

andyt andyt:

We'd better have a good revenue stream to the govt to pay for healthcare, education and pensions. If you want to re-arrange the tax scheme to take in the same or more, fine, but to cut taxes would be stupid.

If you want to create a steady and reliable government revenue base, you need money to exchange hands. The more the money moves, the more the government gets, especially from things like GST/PST/HST. If money is not moving inside Canada it doesn't count. How much more money would move if it was primarily in the hands of consumers?

$1:

Lowering income taxes on min wage earners does very little for them, they already pay little tax, and take way more in govt services than they pay in taxes. Raising their wages will allow them to pay more tax, take less from the govt. Yes prices will go up - they do with your wage increase too. Somehow the anti-minimum wage crowd never seems as dead set against any wage increase they are due. Any wage increase raises prices some. But if you want to make the cost of living cheaper, you should be recommending that we drop wages. It would make sense to me that we start at the top, since that's where the money is. Somehow the Scandinavian/European countries manage to do very well (better than us) with not having working poor and far less wage inequality.

I didn't realize that $44,000 was achievable on minimum wage...($8 x 40hrs/week x 52 weeks = $16,640). I want money put back into the middle class. The owners and workers of the small to medium sizse business'. That is were economic growth and stability will come from. It's not going to come from the large multi-national corporations.

And you are correct that Scandanavian (and some European countries) have found success in your method. However, we should, if possible, improve on their examples rather than just emulate their systems.
If we raise the wages of low and lower middle income Canadians, the more profitable the HST becomes, because they have to spend almost all they make. The more you can reduce income taxes. Start the spiral up, not down.

$1:

We should increase fuel taxes because fuel pollutes. We should be paying all transportation costs from fuel taxes (roads, transit etc), as well as that part of the health care and environmental costs attributable to fuel use. Let the users pay.

Why should the consumer pay even more?

The consumer is already paying the total cost, when the corporation pays peanuts!

The consumer is already paying, on average, $0.319 / litre on top of paying for the actual product.

The corporations is paying next to nothing.

Here is a link to the rough breakdown of revenue via taxtion, note that the consumer is paying the lions share.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

And this is from 2008, so it doesn't include any corporate tax breakds given since. It is time to stop demanding that the 'consumer' pay for everything, because the consumer can't pay when broke.

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Thanks for the info Caelon but my view is we are being well ripped off.

You're just going to keep pissing into the wind on this one, aren't you?

[andyt]

peck420 peck420:

andyt andyt:

We'd better have a good revenue stream to the govt to pay for healthcare, education and pensions. If you want to re-arrange the tax scheme to take in the same or more, fine, but to cut taxes would be stupid.

If you want to create a steady and reliable government revenue base, you need money to exchange hands. The more the money moves, the more the government gets, especially from things like GST/PST/HST. If money is not moving inside Canada it doesn't count. How much more money would move if it was primarily in the hands of consumers?

Exactly, so if you raise minimum wages at least to low income cut off levels, there will be a lot more money moving.

$1:

Lowering income taxes on min wage earners does very little for them, they already pay little tax, and take way more in govt services than they pay in taxes. Raising their wages will allow them to pay more tax, take less from the govt. Yes prices will go up - they do with your wage increase too. Somehow the anti-minimum wage crowd never seems as dead set against any wage increase they are due. Any wage increase raises prices some. But if you want to make the cost of living cheaper, you should be recommending that we drop wages. It would make sense to me that we start at the top, since that's where the money is. Somehow the Scandinavian/European countries manage to do very well (better than us) with not having working poor and far less wage inequality.

I didn't realize that $44,000 was achievable on minimum wage...($8 x 40hrs/week x 52 weeks = $16,640). I want money put back into the middle class. The owners and workers of the small to medium sizse business'. That is were economic growth and stability will come from. It's not going to come from the large multi-national corporations.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Actually big business is an important part of our economy - we couldn't make it on small business alone. I want money back in the middle class to - in the form of decent wages for working people. We can't only have small business owners, we need employees too and they too need to make a decent living.


And you are correct that Scandanavian (and some European countries) have found success in your method. However, we should, if possible, improve on their examples rather than just emulate their systems.

Well before we talk about improving on their examples, couldn't we at least follow their example a bit and make progress that way, then improve. At the moment we seem hell-bent on following the US example instead.

If we raise the wages of low and lower middle income Canadians, the more profitable the HST becomes, because they have to spend almost all they make. The more you can reduce income taxes. Start the spiral up, not down.

I think you cut off part of my quote here, right?

$1:

We should increase fuel taxes because fuel pollutes. We should be paying all transportation costs from fuel taxes (roads, transit etc), as well as that part of the health care and environmental costs attributable to fuel use. Let the users pay.

Why should the consumer pay even more?

The consumer is already paying the total cost, when the corporation pays peanuts!

The consumer is already paying, on average, $0.319 / litre on top of paying for the actual product.

The corporations is paying next to nothing.

The consumer is paying the total cost, but in a hidden way, so he's not aware of the true costs of automobile use. It's hidden in general revenue, instead of being directly paid at the pump, like it should be. And sure, if you want to put in a carbon tax on industry, I'm fine with that. They will only pass it on to the consumer anyway. Ultimately, the way to get back excess profits from corporations is to have higher taxes for high income earners and tax capital gains like income, with fewer tax exemptions.

Here is a link to the rough breakdown of revenue via taxtion, note that the consumer is paying the lions share.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

And this is from 2008, so it doesn't include any corporate tax breakds given since. It is time to stop demanding that the 'consumer' pay for everything, because the consumer can't pay when broke.

[EyeBrock]

andyt andyt:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Thanks for the info Caelon but my view is we are being well ripped off.

You're just going to keep pissing into the wind on this one, aren't you?

Funny!

I don't think I'm alone in Canada in wondering why we pay the same prices as countries with zero oil resources for our gas when we have a huge oil industry. Not only that we are actually subsidising them. It defies logic.

[andyt]

Just as I'm not alone in Canada in thinking our immigration rate is way too high and we're taking in too many people who cost us money. We both have some wind at our backs.

But again, NAFTA says we have to pay the same for oil be produce as what we charge the US. How we then decide to tax that oil vs the US is up to each country. But I've tried to point out the benefits of taxing oil at it's true cost. If that gives the govt a surplus to pay down the debt, that's great. Or if they're able to reduce taxes in other areas that's great too.

As far as the tax subsidy for the tar sands, I'm against that too. But, if there were some Albertans on this forum they would tell you exactly why they think that subsidy is a great idea - it ultimately flows to them in the form of increased economic activity and income to the Alberta govt so they don't have to pay GST. They love it. They're really making the same argument you are - lower oil prices artificially because then we can live it up. But it's a mugs game to do that.

[Caelon]

andyt andyt:

At one time BCAA estimated that the average driver was being subsidized to the tune of $3000 a year considering what he paid in gas taxes vs what the true costs of his driving were. (Doubt they included all factors, just roads etc). Gas taxes have gone up since then, but so have various costs that driving produces, so I doubt if the relative amount is any less now.

I find a little trouble with this statement, but would need to read the study to refute it. The federal government collects over $5 billion a year in fuel taxes, but only returns a tiny portion in infrastructure upgrades. Under the Liberals the annual return for all of Canada was between $100 and $200 million per year or 2 to 4%. The Conservatives have been a little better, but no where near what the revenue is. Most of our roads are paid for from provincial taxes and each province puts the fuel tax into general revenue and then doles out some on infrastructure. Some provinces get close to 100%, but spending less than 40% is not uncommon for a number of provinces.

It is our road system that allows us to have goods in the store, ability to get to health care, work, etc. The better the infrastructure the better the local economy. If it is difficult to get to some place then industry, jobs, etc do not develop. So as a nation we ignore maintaing our transportation infrastructre at our peril.

[peck420]

$1:

Exactly, so if you raise minimum wages at least to low income cut off levels, there will be a lot more money moving.

I can agree to that. I just fear that it will rise too high, and effectively ruin any benefits gained.

$1:

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Actually big business is an important part of our economy - we couldn't make it on small business alone. I want money back in the middle class to - in the form of decent wages for working people. We can't only have small business owners, we need employees too and they too need to make a decent living.

I'm not saying get rid of big business. I'm saying that we can not cater to big business. You are correct that big business is crucial, but it is no more or less crucial than having a good spread of small and medium business' as well. Ideally, I would like to see a nice pyramid pattern from a few large corporations at top spreading to a large array of small business' at the bottom. This would increase competition and stability across all industries. It has been proven multiple times in multiple countries that any industry that get's saturated with only large corporations eventually fails.

$1:

Well before we talk about improving on their examples, couldn't we at least follow their example a bit and make progress that way, then improve. At the moment we seem hell-bent on following the US example instead.

I concur, but conversation is cheap. And, if we can find superior solutions through it, we should definitely incorporate them into future strategies.

$1:

I think you cut off part of my quote here, right?

Yes I did. I am having problems entering large posts as after a certain point, the window keeps jumping up to the first line, making it very hard to coordinate my post. Sorry.

$1:

The consumer is paying the total cost, but in a hidden way, so he's not aware of the true costs of automobile use. It's hidden in general revenue, instead of being directly paid at the pump, like it should be. And sure, if you want to put in a carbon tax on industry, I'm fine with that. They will only pass it on to the consumer anyway. Ultimately, the way to get back excess profits from corporations is to have higher taxes for high income earners and tax capital gains like income, with fewer tax exemptions.

I agree with you to a certain extent on this, but not entriely.

I work in manufacturing/construction. We have a large amount of 'environmetal taxes' that we have been forced to absorb over the years. We have done so without subsidy and while providing a fair price to our customers. We hav no choice, if we don't they will just buy from China or the US. Yet, we have managed to do it while maintaining acceptable profit levels. If our small company can do it, how come large corporations in a heavily subsidised industry can not? It is a strawman excuse they use to line their pockets with gold, while the middle and poor suffer.

I am not against a stepped tax completely, but I do think we could accomplish both of our goals with flat tax rates.

[peck420]

andyt andyt:

As far as the tax subsidy for the tar sands, I'm against that too. But, if there were some Albertans on this forum they would tell you exactly why they think that subsidy is a great idea - it ultimately flows to them in the form of increased economic activity and income to the Alberta govt so they don't have to pay GST. They love it. They're really making the same argument you are - lower oil prices artificially because then we can live it up. But it's a mugs game to do that.

For the record, I am Albertan (Edmontonian). And, I believe that the natural resources of this country, especially oil, hydro, uranium, potash, etc, belong to all Canadians.

I am Canadian first, Albertan second, Edmontonian after that.

There is absolutely no reason that Alberta's oil wealth shouldn't be put to use improving a multitude of other industries across Canada. We will only ever be as strong as our weakest link, and the oil won't last forever, so we better put the revenue to good use.

[Caelon]

andyt andyt:

Just as I'm not alone in Canada in thinking our immigration rate is way too high and we're taking in too many people who cost us money. We both have some wind at our backs.

But again, NAFTA says we have to pay the same for oil be produce as what we charge the US. How we then decide to tax that oil vs the US is up to each country. But I've tried to point out the benefits of taxing oil at it's true cost. If that gives the govt a surplus to pay down the debt, that's great. Or if they're able to reduce taxes in other areas that's great too.

As far as the tax subsidy for the tar sands, I'm against that too. But, if there were some Albertans on this forum they would tell you exactly why they think that subsidy is a great idea - it ultimately flows to them in the form of increased economic activity and income to the Alberta govt so they don't have to pay GST. They love it. They're really making the same argument you are - lower oil prices artificially because then we can live it up. But it's a mugs game to do that.

You are correct in the NAFTA ruling on oil prices. As for subsidies they are mostly in the form of tax deferment or excellerated write offs for development. On a quick search I was not able to find a balanced report showing the cost of the tax deferment versus the increased revenue from workers, support industries, population growth, tertiary industries , etc. It is not a closed economic system so you cannot look at one number to see the total picture.

I can tell you when the oil prices dropped so did the western economy and when the prices rose the ecocnmic wel being did as well. It is not just jobs in Fort Mac, but jobs in the restaraunt trade in Calgary that jumped too. There is a lot more money cycling through all aspects of the Alberta economy today than was present in 2009