Alberta MLAs and the carbon tax double standard

No surprize there.

For once, I actually agree with the CTF - the NDP is being totally hypocritical on this.

Red herring.

Just like everyone else in Alberta, Alberta government employees will pay the carbon tax when they drive around their PERSONAL vehicles.

And just like everyone else in Alberta, their employers will pay the tax when they drive around their WORK vehicle.

And those employers are the tax payers of Alberta.

Yeah that's how government works usually. And?

Actually, it's not a red herring.

When confronted earlier this year about how Albertans should cope with the oncoming carbon tax during the economic crisis here, Notley casually said, 'They should buy a smaller, more fuel efficient car so they pay less.'

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/04/15/no ... e-your-car

Let's leave aside the asinine idea that someone who has been laid off or is working less hours can afford to take on another bill payment at this time.

As the original article notes, the reason many people in Alberta buy a pick-up or SUV is to deal with winters.

So for her to say, Albertans should change to a smaller, more fuel efficient car and then turn around and get SUVs/pick-ups for government employees - and not the rank and file employees, but political appointees in six-figure salary positions - is most certainly hypocritical.

The problem is not that taxpayers will pay tax on government vehicles, that's going to happen irregardless, as they already pay GST, gas tax and others most people probably aren't aware of.

No, the problem is the NDP with their actions are in effect saying, "Do as I say, not as I do."

Well, I'm not their spokesperson, but I think anyone who interprets their comments reasonably (and you can exclude the Sun from that group) would agree that they're not commanding every single Albertan to change cars regardless of their individual needs, but simply encouraging Albertans to keep and open mind and consider more fuel efficient cars that may meet their needs. Is that such a horrible thing? No. You can consider it and then decide no if you like. Whats the big deal?

You may have missed it from the Sun article but the Province already has a report commissioned to make recommendations on the vehicle fleet's size, emissions, and use.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... -1.3782885

I don't see anywhere where Notley said the provincial government will only use fuel efficient vehicles regardless of whether those vehilces meet their needs.

So I took Beave's advice and read the state-run media's article.

Basically government officials like cabinet member, deputy ministers and independent officers of the legislative assembly will be getting luxury, high powered gas-guzzlers to do something (we're not sure what), but no worries...somewhere down the road there's a "report" coming.

Beave's not going to like this though - I also dared to read another one from the other cursed media source he spits at. It says.



http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/04/15/no ... e-your-car

And people can take whatever they want from both of those.

To travel to their constituency offices, now that the provincial aircraft fleet was sold off. MLAs were running up too much of a bill chartering aircraft, so a study was done that showed paying for vehicles rather than reimbursing mileage was cheaper than chartering small planes. Thanks Redford!

Ministers and DMs get SUVs because their RCMP escorts request that. MLAs get econoboxes, if they need to travel to their home offices during sessions. Otherwise they ride the bus like everyone else.

So if you simply STFU and pay. You're the problem.

You know, this argument could make sense if the Carbon tax was only applied on fuel in urban areas. That would be encouraging those who are most likely to find smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles useful to go out and buy them. But it doesn't, it applies to everyone, even farmers. The fact that it hits everyone means that the message to switch to a more fuel efficient vehicle hits everyone.

Compound this with the fact that both federal and provincial government are determined to move critical government services out of rural areas and into urban centres. Given demographic changes, this makes sense. But, those who are rural still need to access these services, which means driving anywhere from 50km to 500km to get to them. This by itself is fine; but, It can be downright deadly to do in a Ford Fiesta if whatever appointment you are trying to meet is a must-attend and there is a blizzard outside. Further, pickups and SUVs don't mean accidents will be avoided completely, but you are far more likely to survive a crash in one that you would be in a car... Especially if the crash involves wildlife or commercial vehicles.

That said, I don't personally mind dolling out an extra $10 at the pump every time I fuel up. I think taxing carbon is a great idea, provided it is offset by other tax reductions. It isn't, which is why I am against it in it's current form.

Well when slavery was abolished the price of cotton went up to reflect the true cost of the product, not the artificially low cost of slave labour. And the price went up for everyone, not just people who had easy access to cheap alternatives. And yet the slavery prices never came back. People adjuted to the new price, either by paying more or using less, or most often some combination of the above. And the change also spurred people to develop cheap alternatives that were missing in the beginning

Similarly,a carbon tax is meant to reflect the true cost of carbon emissions

Yeah, but, but, the govmint is takin mah money:

And that's fine. However, it should at least be acknowledged that some people have to pay that price as an inescapable fact of life. As I keep saying, I am fine with this. But offset it with tax cuts elsewhere so that the people who do have to emit carbon in their daily lives don't go broke putting food onto your tables.