Rex Murphy on Govt Policy toward Bombardier and Jet Fuel

[Rockie]

The Heritage fund is sitting at or around $14,000,000,000 right now. If that's broke, I would love to be that broke.

Alberta created the Heritage fund in 1976 with a $1.5 Billion investment, peaked out in the mid 80's at around $24 Billion and then tanked afterwards due to non-investment and using the proceeds to fund programs instead of growing the fund. It sits now at around $18 Billion.

Norway started their fund in 1990 and today sits at around $1 TRILLION.

Imagine what that kind of money could do to ease the current pain while waiting for the price of oil to rise again...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alb ... e24191018/

I want you to back up that claim that there is no environmental clean-up in Alberta. I know you can't because it's not true and the fact you said that shows how little you know about the environmental laws of the federal and provincial governments.

You're right. StatCan says the oil and gas industry in Alberta spent $5 Billion on environmental protection in 2012.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidie ... 9d-eng.htm

[fish4life]

Norway also doesn't have to pay transfer payments to Quebec

[Kitzbuhel]

Norway also doesn't have to pay transfer payments to Quebec

No but it does share the wealth throughout it's entire country just like we do with transfer payments. If you have nothing to bring to the conversation but excuses and resentment - stay home.

[CID]

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/oils ... r-general/

That's one media report regarding the lack of clean-up funds. There are several more if you google it. The fact of the matter is that if the oil companies fail suddenly, the province of Alberta will be on the hook for billions of dollars of clean-up.

With respect to the Heritage Fund, I was unclear. The fund itself is not "broke". It's simply it's ability to fund anything in Alberta is "broke". The convoluted rules associated with the fund allow it to only release revenue from the fund for spending. This year that doesn't amount to much at all. As far as the billions that make up the fair market value of the fund, none of it can be used to stimulate the Alberta economy or "give back" to Albertans in any substantial way.

If Alberta followed the Norwegian model, the heritage fund would be worth 120 billion today and the monies would be available for economic development and diversity. Effectively, the Heritage Fund is "broke".

Norway also doesn't have to pay transfer payments to Quebec

What a dumb thing to say.

[yarg]

This report breaks it down by country and product. In 2013 the report estimates Canada provided the following direct and indirect post tax subsidies to Canadian products:

Petroleum products: $30.3 Billion USD
Coal: $4.92 Billion USD
Natural Gas: $10.82 Billion USD
Total: $46.04 Billion USD

The real problem when it comes to discussions like this is some people, like the one above, have for some reason massively confused their beliefs for facts, and their intellect for intelligence. You are completely self assured in your own ignorance, now some people have tried to educate you, but as is almost always the case you didn't gain this learned ignorance by being open to education, so i will not try to repeat their efforts, but the above did catch my eye because i am previously familiar with it. The most important part of that study, is the one that makes it the most irrelevant, it's this quote, "The upward revision is partly due to factoring in new World Health Organization estimates on harm to health from pollution exposure" in other words, it's not about actual real dollars that is being given to a particular industry. It is a completely made up number, based upon almost nothing real that attempts to calculate the total cost of using fossil fuels to society while not considering the enormous benefits, nor comparing it to all of the other things we do that also have benefits and costs. In other words it's complete and utter bs targeted at a very specific audience of ignorant people who are always willing to have opinions without facts, thus making your general point of view on anything, and this goes for the sycophants of your opinions here and elsewhere, completely without merit.

Fyi, the actual subsidies the Canadian oil industry receives is closer to 70 million a year, but that was only calculated by people looking at actual, non imagined numbers, so your ilk will not believe it. They still shouldn't be getting the 70 million imo, but that's another argument for realists and that won't include you.

[CID]

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/technology/ ... -1.3526558

[Gannet167]

Norway also doesn't have to pay transfer payments to Quebec

[cgzro]

46 billion

Exaggeration hurts (or kills) an argument and this is a perfect example.

That figure include traffic accident costs, lost effeciency due to traffic jams and of course all the down stream ill effects of the burning of the fuel (but none of the benefits). This means that other industries which also have the same issues like electric vehicles magically dont have these problems factored in and industries which use the product somehow are not 'subsadized' because the costs are all assigned to the source. For example how about the massive increase in life expectancy we get from fosil fuels?

If people want to play this game they had better do it for both sides of the equation otherwise its pure politics and not science.

[Rockie]

46 billion

Exaggeration hurts (or kills) an argument and this is a perfect example.

That figure include traffic accident costs, lost effeciency due to traffic jams and of course all the down stream ill effects of the burning of the fuel (but none of the benefits). This means that other industries which also have the same issues like electric vehicles magically dont have these problems factored in and industries which use the product somehow are not 'subsadized' because the costs are all assigned to the source. For example how about the massive increase in life expectancy we get from fosil fuels?

If people want to play this game they had better do it for both sides of the equation otherwise its pure politics and not science.

It's an IMF report and they are completely up front about what goes into their numbers. You can disagree if you like of course but it should be based on something other than your uninformed opinion. In the context of this thread the IMF report puts the boots to Rex (oil shill) Murphy's whining about Bombardier receiving the benefit of tax payer money as if the fossil fuel industry doesn't.

Fyi, the actual subsidies the Canadian oil industry receives is closer to 70 million a year, but that was only calculated by people looking at actual, non imagined numbers, so your ilk will not believe it.

Two things with this, my ilk will believe it if you can provide a credible source for that number, and secondly tax money not collected from an industry is the same as tax money handed out to them. The public takes the hit either way.

[cgzro]

It's an IMF report and they are completely up front about what goes into their numbers. You can disagree if you like of course but it should be based on something other than your uninformed opinion

No opinion required .. just basic math:

If one side of an equation is to include lives lost due to fossil fuels then the other side of that equation had better also include lives lost due to not having fossil fuels.

If one side of an equation is to include money given to help low income people pay for heating the other side had better include lives lost due to not having that heating.

If one side of an equation is to include money given to farmers to buy fuel then the other side had better include lives lost due to not having enough food.

etc. etc.

Its dishonest and definitely non scientific to compute the different sides of that equation with different inputs.

In my uninformed opinion.

[B208]

It's an IMF report and they are completely up front about what goes into their numbers. You can disagree if you like of course but it should be based on something other than your uninformed opinion

No opinion required .. just basic math:

If one side of an equation is to include lives lost due to fossil fuels then the other side of that equation had better also include lives lost due to not having fossil fuels.

If one side of an equation is to include money given to help low income people pay for heating the other side had better include lives lost due to not having that heating.

If one side of an equation is to include money given to farmers to buy fuel then the other side had better include lives lost due to not having enough food.

etc. etc.

Its dishonest and definitely non scientific to compute the different sides of that equation with different inputs.

In my uninformed opinion.

Well put.

[B208]

Two things with this, my ilk will believe it if you can provide a credible source for that number, and secondly tax money not collected from an industry is the same as tax money handed out to them. The public takes the hit either way.

Wow, just wow. So, by this logic me not mugging you is the same as me giving you money. Your ilk are socialists and are likely to bring about the collapse of this nation if left unsupervised.

[Rockie]

You ever notice only right wingers use the term "ilk"? It's like your favourite insult and you're all reading from the same sheet.

Anyway B208, try and follow this logic - a company pays $20 million in tax and gets $20 million back in subsidies. Alternatively they get nothing in subsidies but don't have to pay the $20 million in tax. Which option is better for them cash wise?

Think hard.

[B208]

Anyway B208, try and follow this logic - a company pays $20 million in tax and gets $20 million back in subsidies. Alternatively they get nothing in subsidies but don't have to pay the $20 million in tax. Which option is better for them cash wise?

Think hard.

Dude, what you are saying above is not what you said before:

tax money not collected from an industry is the same as tax money handed out to them

Your two statements do not reconcile with each other. The first quote amounts to a zero sum for the company.

The second quote indicates that you think all wealth should be held collectively; in other words; those who choose to produce wealth should be slaves to those who don't.

The second quote above is perfectly indicative of the socialist mentality; A tremendous sense of entitlement to the fruits of other peoples' labour. It indicates a mind so broken that it may be beyond salvaging.

[Rockie]

Seriously B208, you could see an evil socialist bogeyman on a blank sheet of white paper. Worry about your own state of mind before commenting on others.

[B208]

Seriously B208, you could see an evil socialist bogeyman on a blank sheet of white paper. Worry about your own state of mind before commenting on others.

Perhaps so; But that has no bearing on the fact that your statements, (which I quoted in previous posts), do not reconcile with each other. Nor does it have any bearing on the fact that one of your statements clearly shows that you have an almost communist view of personal property.

[Mach1]

Just so I understand, you would be ok with Bombardier getting 2 Billion in the form of tax subsidies.
So, you don't see how, if 30 billion doesn't make it into the coffers, it's still coming out of the tax payers pocket. If the oil subsidies didn't exist, my tax burden would be lower, it's just that simple!

So, you are saying that Bombardier has not in the past nor does it currently receive any tax credits/deductions/subsides? None? Really? We all know that is not true. Your argument is invalid because all business receive tax breaks, not all businesses get a cheque courtesy of the tax payer. If you want to eliminate all tax credits equally to all companies and industries, I'm all for that.

[Mach1]

With respect to the Heritage Fund, I was unclear. The fund itself is not "broke". It's simply it's ability to fund anything in Alberta is "broke". The convoluted rules associated with the fund allow it to only release revenue from the fund for spending. This year that doesn't amount to much at all. As far as the billions that make up the fair market value of the fund, none of it can be used to stimulate the Alberta economy or "give back" to Albertans in any substantial way.

That's fair. I think I said this already but if I did not, I was happy with the government when they raised the royalties but unhappy with the government when they decided to cave under intense lobbying to lower those royalties again. However, name me one other province that has a similar fund in place for their residents. I don't see BC with a fund to deal with all the trees they cut down or the coal they mine. I don't see SK with one for their oil. Nothing in MB. Nothing in ON for all the cars or whatever else they make. Nothing in QB for the maple syrup. Nothing in NS, NB, NF nor PEI for the fish or the oil there. So, to be critical of something not working when no one else has anything at all is like throwing stones from your glass house.

What I see here is those lobbying for the government to write a cheque to Bombardier are inconsistent and hypocritical. They are all for money being spent on their chosen pet projects while punishing and downright attempting to kill the industries they dislike. My position is consistent and uniform. An even playing field for all companies and industries. You can talk tax credits vs writing a cheque all day long and my answer is the same every time... as long as you do the same for EVERYONE, then it's fair and I'll support it. But, single out one pet project or philosophy and I will no longer support it. A very basic summation of Rex Murphy's point... no more favouritism. Not for me, not for you. If you can't or won't support that point of view, then there is not point in the discussion.

By the way, once an even playing field is established, some will thrive and others will fail based on their merits and abilities... so keeping weak and dying companies alive (zombie companies) is not part of the even playing field. Being upset the guy down the street makes more than you is not an even playing field. Both of you having the same opportunities and rules is an even playing field. What you do with it after that is on your own shoulders.

I swear some of you go out in the yard to argue with rocks about why they are not green... in other words, just for the point of arguing. You are incapable of admitting someone else might have a valid point unless they think exactly the same way you do.