The Manitoba Provincial Politics Discussion

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by dmacc

Personally as a conservative I believe more in incentives and regulation to taxation. Providing tax incentives to people and organizations who lower emissions is how I prefer to see policy enacted.

Things like the cost of transit fare being lopped right off the top of you income, or the value of a electric vehicle being lopped off the top of your income over the coarse a number of years up to a maximum. Power saving measures having similar structures.

Regulation limiting emissions allowed by industry and higher standards on good sold withing the province.

I believe in providing reward for good behavior not punishing people for not doing what you want from them.

How do you enforce regulations and standards if there's not a punishment? There's also a huge cost to monitoring regulations and then enforcing them. If they aren't enforced they are useless and we see this repeated over and over.

The Carbon Tax is actually an idea that was created by conservatives and endorsed by c(C)onservatives in Canada pre-Harper. It provides an incentive to use less carbon emitting fuel and innovate alternatives.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I see where the issue is here. You seem to be an adherent of the religion of "value is produced by labour," which isn't, fortunately, the case in much of the world. Value does not follow the level of effort exerted by a person. Value comes from the demand for a particular product or resource, and its usefulness to any given person. The more people who think your product or service is a good idea or useful, the higher the value. Damn, under your logic, a person who is working really hard to move a pile of earth two feet over creates as much value or more than a brain surgeon saving lives. Give your head a shake man!

The problem here is that Riverman is making his argument based off of Great Man Theory. Put a man on a pedestal, worship him and hope it rains money. Who whould we put on that pedestal? Why of course, the rich man. How did he ever get his wealth? No one knows but he is going to rain so much wealth on all of us!

How about we put no one on the pedestal?

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by EdwardTH

Cool, so middle class folks get a few hundred bucks back on their taxes and they can go buy one of those nice heritage classic jerseys or something. And the poor who actually need help get fucked, crime & addictions continue to soar....
Great plan Brian!

And yet more stupidity from EdwardTH, explain how a cut in the PST doesn’t benefit those at the bottom!?

Unbelievable the leftist mindset in this province!

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

The problem here is that Riverman is making his argument based off of Great Man Theory. Put a man on a pedestal, worship him and hope it rains money. Who whould we put on that pedestal? Why of course, the rich man. How did he ever get his wealth? No one knows but he is going to rain so much wealth on all of us!

How about we put no one on the pedestal?

Way far off dude. Don't need money from anyone, made my own, and retired young. There are people that contribute to society and people that suck off it.

Richardson is the former, leftists are the latter. It's not about a pedastal, it's about respect.

Hating some people for having money? Where does it stop? Does the unsuccessful panhandler hate the successful panhandler?

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Way far off dude. Don't need money from anyone, made my own, and retired young. There are people that contribute to society and people that suck off it.

Richardson is the former, leftists are the latter. It's not about a pedastal, it's about respect.

Hating some people for having money? Where does it stop? Does the unsuccessful panhandler hate the successful panhandler?

It’s really not hard to understand. the people taking the wealth are now the ones controlling how our government works, they are stacking everything against the honest hard working individual. It has nothing to do with wanting shit for free. The reality is the extremely wealthy are hoarding the worlds wealth to themselves and they are taking more every second. Low wages low benefits, but profit margins continue to increase. You think this is acceptable??? They are not returning our money... as it is our money... back into the economy. If people can’t afford to pay for the products the wealthy corporations produce the whole economy collapses. In Winnipeg it’s the police, teachers, nurses and politicians that run the show... our cities finest home builders are building houses in $600,000 to $1000000 range for teachers and cops. Our over taxation is paying for beautiful homes for the wealthy public service sector employees which keeps all the little helper monkey construction companies operating. Police in Winnipeg are having homes built by mafia run companies. while the average Manitoban is struggling to make ends meet. THIS PROVINCE AND CITY ARE CORRUPT AS FUCK.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

And yet more stupidity from EdwardTH, explain how a cut in the PST doesn’t benefit those at the bottom!?

Unbelievable the leftist mindset in this province!

It's not left or right, it's economics.

The people who gain most from reducing consumption taxes are people who consume. In this case those are the people who are able to spend significant cash on goods that are not PST exempt. There's a metric shit ton of data that suggests individuals and families in the median income range spend about 70% of their net income on PST exempt items and services. The actual savings for people/families at median income will be <$100/year.

There's also the issue of what the provincial Carbon Tax is going to look like. Based on what Pallister has said the PST cut will be how it ends up being revenue neutral to the treasury. That doesn't mean it will be neutral for all of us. If most of us at median income are taxed an extra 2-3 cents per litre on gas that's an extra $40 per year at average fuel consumption.

Basically this just political gameplay that will only noticeably benefit people that have significant amounts of disposable income and do nothing for most.

A better way to cut the tax burden equally for everyone (and with more significance to people at median income and below) would be to raise the Basic Personal Amount.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Danny D Oh

It's not left or right, it's economics.

The people who gain most from reducing consumption taxes are people who consume. In this case those are the people who are able to spend significant cash on goods that are not PST exempt. There's a metric shit ton of data that suggests individuals and families in the median income range spend about 70% of their net income on PST exempt items and services. The actual savings for people/families at median income will be <$100/year.

There's also the issue of what the provincial Carbon Tax is going to look like. Based on what Pallister has said the PST cut will be how it ends up being revenue neutral to the treasury. That doesn't mean it will be neutral for all of us. If most of us at median income are taxed an extra 2-3 cents per litre on gas that's an extra $40 per year at average fuel consumption.

Basically this just political gameplay that will only noticeably benefit people that have significant amounts of disposable income and do nothing for most.

A better way to cut the tax burden equally for everyone (and with more significance to people at median income and below) would be to raise the Basic Personal Amount.

And you trust any govt. with funds from a carbon tax? We’ve seen time and time again what happens with any sort of tax govt.s impose and it’s never for its intended purpose!

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by Hecate

In Winnipeg it’s the police, teachers, nurses and politicians that run the show... our cities finest home builders are building houses in $600,000 to $1000000 range for teachers and cops. Our over taxation is paying for beautiful homes for the wealthy public service sector employees which keeps all the little helper monkey construction companies operating.

And who is building these homes? Skilled trades! Excavators, form workers, concrete workers, framers, electricians, plumbers, roofers, drywallers, painters, finish carpenters. All skilled, well paying jobs. Y'know, the type that want to get ahead and not complain about their lot in life.

If you are not making enough money, quitcher bitching and change what you do!

"If you are finding that your life sucks, chances are pretty good it is because you suck!"
- Cheif Clarence Louie

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

And you trust any govt. with funds from a carbon tax? We’ve seen time and time again what happens with any sort of tax govt.s impose and it’s never for its intended purpose!

Thanks for the reply that touches on nothing that my post talked about.

The point of a Carbon Tax is to reduce consumption, not really to raise revenue. Do I think it will be effective? Probably not until it is high enough that it forces people and businesses to change their daily lives and how they move around. The problem is that there literally are no other options for the vast majority of people, urban or rural.

[trueviking]

House sizes have doubled since the 1980’s. Family sizes have dropped by 1/4.
Truck and SUV sales have doubled car sales in the last decade.
Cars per household has continued to grow.
Commuting distances continue to grow.
Transit use has declined in Winnipeg since 1990.
The city has doubled in size while only growing by 1/3 in population.
Cycling participation rates have remained basically flat over the last decade.
We heat our houses with natural gas despite having ample hydro.
I could go on. Everyone has lots of options.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by trueviking

House sizes have doubled since the 1980’s. Family sizes have dropped by 1/4.
Truck and SUV sales have doubled car sales in the last decade.
Cars per household has continued to grow.
Commuting distances continue to grow.
Transit use has declined in Winnipeg since 1990.
The city has doubled in size while only growing by 1/3 in population.
Cycling participation rates have remained basically flat over the last decade.
We heat our houses with natural gas despite having ample hydro.
I could go on. Everyone has lots of options.

Some personal choices, more failures of leadership run amok.

[Riverman]

Right.

Originally Posted by trueviking

House sizes have doubled since the 1980’s. Family sizes have dropped by 1/4.
In every city, everywhere.
Truck and SUV s[/I]ales have doubled car sales in the last decade.
Car companies do know marketing!
Cars per household has continued to grow.
Because...
Commuting distances continue to grow.
Because...
Transit use has declined in Winnipeg since 1990.
...transit is terrible, inconvenient and filthy.
The city has doubled in size while only growing by 1/3 in population.
Winnipeg is still affordable. No need to live in a sardine can!
Cycling participation rates have remained basically flat over the last decade.
Wrong. There are more and better bike shops than ever before. Lots of people are cycling, just not to work. Because that's just silly.
We heat our houses with natural gas despite having ample hydro.
It costs three times as much to heat with hydro and this is well known. Why would anyone want to appear to be an idiot by heating with hydro?


I could go on. Everyone has lots of options.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by trueviking

House sizes have doubled since the 1980’s. Family sizes have dropped by 1/4.
Truck and SUV sales have doubled car sales in the last decade.
Cars per household has continued to grow.
Commuting distances continue to grow.
Transit use has declined in Winnipeg since 1990.
The city has doubled in size while only growing by 1/3 in population.
Cycling participation rates have remained basically flat over the last decade.
We heat our houses with natural gas despite having ample hydro.
I could go on. Everyone has lots of options.

re: House sizes and cars: Will today's McMansions be tomorrow's rooming houses?

As a share of overall vehicle sales trucks and SUVs now substantially outsell cars, but total sales of new vehicles are no higher in absolute terms then they were 35 years ago. It's just a case of consumer preference and gas remains relatively inexpensive. The gasoline price of $0.499/L in the mid 80s is the equivalent to $1.12/L today.

re: Transit use has declined in Winnipeg since 1990.

It's become relatively expensive to use transit and there is a perception amongst many in recent years that it is unsafe. If fares had risen by the rate of inflation since the 1970s, the full adult fare would be $1.25 and the children's/senior's fare would be $0.50.

At the same time, service levels have been much reduced. The same amount of buses are serving much longer routes (and in many cases running empty for large portions of the route). The new strategy is to build RT lines to low density subdivisions in hopes that those residing there will start using transit as opposed to making improvements in denser inner city and older suburban areas where there is already high ridership. That strategy will fail. Service cuts are now being contemplated city wide to ensure that buses will run empty along the SWBRT in order to meet headways that at most times of day will not correspond with demand.

re: The city has doubled in size while only growing by 1/3 in population.

Lots of cheap land here and appalling urban planning. The developers have run the show for decades. Winnipeg has suffered from the doughnut effect more than any other large Canadian city. The central city's population has declined by more than 25% since its peak in 1961 and is only slightly larger now then was a century ago (179,000 in 1921). By comparison, despite being fairly stagnant for decades starting in the 1930s, inner city Toronto now (798,000) has a population more than 50% higher than in 1921 and the City of Vancouver has seen more than a 50% growth in population just since 1981.

re: Cycling participation rates have remained basically flat over the last decade.

Is that true Canada-wide or just in Winnipeg? It's too cold here for 5-6 months of the year to cycle here.

re: We heat our houses with natural gas despite having ample hydro.

Ask anyone who heats with hydro. It's 2 to 3 times the cost.

re: I could go on. Everyone has lots of options.

Our cities have been built to be car-dependent. Think of grocery shopping. If I want to go downtown by bus and get a few bags of groceries at comparable prices to suburban big-box supermarkets, can I? Believe it, I know several people who live downtown and they are just as car dependent as people living in the suburbs. Our housing stock is also quite old and inefficient. Without massive subsidies to working and middle class people to enable upgrades for greater efficiencies in the home and in transport, it's impossible to see how emissions could be substantially reduced over the short term, especially with the current rate of population growth.

To use an idiom, it's like talking out of both sides of your mouth.

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

And yet more stupidity from EdwardTH, explain how a cut in the PST doesn’t benefit those at the bottom!?

Unbelievable the leftist mindset in this province!

It doesn't because the majority of what low income earners spend their money on is exempt from PST (groceries, housing, gas, heating)

The PST cut disproportionately benefits the wealthy.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by StNorberter

It doesn't because the majority of what low income earners spend their money on is exempt from PST (groceries, housing, gas, heating)

The PST cut disproportionately benefits the wealthy.

Working and middle class people, let's just say most of the fourth quintile by income, the third and second quintiles, and even the lower half of the first one as wel (so right there we've got 60%-65% of the population, many of whom are working hard and struggling), are the majority of households and have to buy shampoo, toilet paper and clothing too and they also pay hydro bills, cable and internet bills and go out for dinner occasionally. A cut in the PST benefits them quite a lot, and they will notice it more. In actual dollars, a PST cut does give more back to wealthier individuals, assuming they actually spend more in Manitoba, but not disproportionately so.

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Working and middle class people, let's just say most of the fourth quintile by income, the third and second quintiles, and even the lower half of the first one as wel (so right there we've got 60%-65% of the population, many of whom are working hard and struggling), are the majority of households and have to buy shampoo, toilet paper and clothing too and they also pay hydro bills, cable and internet bills and go out for dinner occasionally. A cut in the PST benefits them quite a lot, and they will notice it more. In actual dollars, a PST cut does give more back to wealthier individuals, assuming they actually spend more in Manitoba, but not disproportionately so.

Hydro (heating) is subject to reduced rate PST which isn't affected by the rate cut.

Simply put, the $0.50 saved on the $50 purchase made by the lower income family isn't going to be noticed anywhere near as much as the $700 saved on the $70,000 car purchase. It is disproportionately geared to the wealthy as it will save them more and it will impact their spending decisions as they have the ability to purchase more higher dollar items.

The PCs have chopped the PST by 2 % points since taking power. Lower income earners would have been better served having that lost revenue go into social programs or a cut to the lowest tax brackets.

[Authentic_City]

^^But let's not overstate the impact of the cut - I mean the actual quantum of the savings for most people. A one percent reduction in the cost of household basics like toilet paper and shampoo isn't nothing, but it's certainly next to nothing. I will now save 6 cents on a 12 pack of toilet paper and about the same amount on a bottle of shampoo. But if I can afford to buy a new 40,000 SUV, I can save $400.
The government's own numbers suggest the average household will save $359 per year. Those who are at the very bottom of the ladder will save something less than this, and those at the top will save much more.

[StNorberter]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

The government's own numbers suggest the average household will save $359 per year. Those who are at the very bottom of the ladder will save something less than this, and those at the top will save much more.

And even those numbers are inflated. Stats can pegs the average household income at $68-$74k, which makes it mathematically impossible for a $259 savings ( that would require $35,900 in PST eligible purchases). At best, maybe a $200 savings.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

^^But let's not overstate the impact of the cut - I mean the actual quantum of the savings for most people. A one percent reduction in the cost of household basics like toilet paper and shampoo isn't nothing, but it's certainly next to nothing. I will now save 6 cents on a 12 pack of toilet paper and about the same amount on a bottle of shampoo. But if I can afford to buy a new 40,000 SUV, I can save $400.
The government's own numbers suggest the average household will save $359 per year. Those who are at the very bottom of the ladder will save something less than this, and those at the top will save much more.

I agree, $25 a month is nothing huge but it makes a difference. There are many, many middle and working class people who ARE buying items such as $40,000 vehicles, appliances and furnishings, and these people will notice a difference. That's the majority of the population and the people we need to keep here, esp.as Manitoba is once again seeing some pretty negative numbers in terms of interprovincial migration.

By PST on hydro, I meant non-heating hydro, which is charged the full PST.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by StNorberter

Hydro (heating) is subject to reduced rate PST which isn't affected by the rate cut.

Simply put, the $0.50 saved on the $50 purchase made by the lower income family isn't going to be noticed anywhere near as much as the $700 saved on the $70,000 car purchase. It is disproportionately geared to the wealthy as it will save them more and it will impact their spending decisions as they have the ability to purchase more higher dollar items.

The PCs have chopped the PST by 2 % points since taking power. Lower income earners would have been better served having that lost revenue go into social programs or a cut to the lowest tax brackets.

And let's not forget the easiest way to give everyone a tax cut is to raise the Basic Personal Amount. The scale of the cut will be inverted such that those are lower incomes will see greater benefit, but everyone who earns an income will see benefit. If Pallister is all about "kitchen table" money that's the easiest cut to ensure more money on the "kitchen table." I keep my money in a wallet or bank account personally, and have never found any on a kitchen table.