Welcome!

Welcome to our community forums, full of great people, ideas and excitement. Please register if you would like to take part.

Register

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kinder Morgan Pipeline

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by TryingHardly View Post

    Well, they do exist for associated gas because getting an uplift on your gas price from $0.00 to $2.00 is worth it for them.
    Gas prices are so low they are actually flaring it at times to control prices.

    Add a link

    http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-Ne...ces-Crash.html
    Last edited by DJR; 04-28-2019, 01:56 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by C.M.Burns View Post

      That was a great time (from about 1997 to 2014) but we live in a different era now. The total tax take is creeping back up, and each time it's a small amount justified by the rationale of "it's just a little bit more."

      Two examples: income tax rates have declined slightly, that's awesome, except that the increase in EI premiums more than offset that (and if you look at why Ottawa's revenues are up, increased EI revenue is the #1 reason)

      Second example, the NDP government in Alberta implemented the carbon tax at a lower rate and then increased it over time. Frogs in a boiling pot of water. There will be many more examples over time. If the Liberals are re elected in October, they will certainly increase the carbon tax rate ("just a little bit more") and probably bring in a plastic tax.
      EI premiums actually decreased in 2016, and are still at that lower rate in 2019.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by C.M.Burns View Post

        That was a great time (from about 1997 to 2014) but we live in a different era now. The total tax take is creeping back up, and each time it's a small amount justified by the rationale of "it's just a little bit more."

        Two examples: income tax rates have declined slightly, that's awesome, except that the increase in EI premiums more than offset that (and if you look at why Ottawa's revenues are up, increased EI revenue is the #1 reason)

        Second example, the NDP government in Alberta implemented the carbon tax at a lower rate and then increased it over time. Frogs in a boiling pot of water. There will be many more examples over time. If the Liberals are re elected in October, they will certainly increase the carbon tax rate ("just a little bit more") and probably bring in a plastic tax.
        EI premiums isn't a good example as it's to fund a specific program. Beyond that, EI premiums are obviously going to go up when there are less unemployed people (or overall employment goes up).

        The NDP went full into it saying "here's what's going to happen with the carbon tax". This wasn't some sort of backroom dealing where "Oh, we want it $10 higher now...oh $10 more..." etc.

        You're firmly in conspiracy theory territory at this point.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DJR View Post

          You kidding? When gas got up to $1.40 last time you could by a motorhome for a fraction of it's previous value. Pickups were a tough sell as well. My personal vehicle goes twice as far on a gallon of gas as my first vehicle did, when gas was $.50 a gallon. Car pooling, public transit etc. Many examples but I am guessing this line of reasoning is wasted on you.
          Can you point me to stats on usage levels during these times that show usage decreased? If we are using your simply supply demand model that should have lead to price decreases as demand decreased, I don't recall that happening.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by TryingHardly View Post

            EI premiums isn't a good example as it's to fund a specific program. Beyond that, EI premiums are obviously going to go up when there are less unemployed people (or overall employment goes up).

            The NDP went full into it saying "here's what's going to happen with the carbon tax". This wasn't some sort of backroom dealing where "Oh, we want it $10 higher now...oh $10 more..." etc.

            You're firmly in conspiracy theory territory at this point.
            EI premiums are NOT to "fund a specific program". They go into - and claims are paid out of - general revenue.

            Once upon a time, in the 80s, EI (or UI as it was accurately known then) was a separate fund, like CPP. But it was changed on the recommendation of the Auditor General of the day, one of the few recommendations from that office I wholeheartedly disagree with.

            Conspiracy theory? Hardly. Governments are spending more, and their interest expenses are starting to rise again. That money is going to have to come from the taxpayer, unless you plan on borrowing our way into penury like they did in the 70s.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bates View Post

              Can you point me to stats on usage levels during these times that show usage decreased? If we are using your simply supply demand model that should have lead to price decreases as demand decreased, I don't recall that happening.
              Worldwide demand for oil/gas has increased and is a worldwide commodity so the stats you seek are hard to extrapolate. A simpler solution is to just watch the carlots when gas goes up. It is not rocket science. Also it is not all about choice. I know, as do you, many people who can only afford to spend so much on gas so higher price, lower use.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DJR View Post

                Worldwide demand for oil/gas has increased and is a worldwide commodity so the stats you seek are hard to extrapolate. A simpler solution is to just watch the carlots when gas goes up. It is not rocket science. Also it is not all about choice. I know, as do you, many people who can only afford to spend so much on gas so higher price, lower use.
                So the higher price did or did not lead to a reduction is usage? It's really that simple.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bates View Post

                  Can you point me to stats on usage levels during these times that show usage decreased? If we are using your simply supply demand model that should have lead to price decreases as demand decreased, I don't recall that happening.
                  I think it does to a certain extent. As an example in 2008 or 2009 Sask basically ran out of diesel and the price went through the roof and for the first time I can remember it was more than gas (of course that is the time right after I bought my first diesel truck...) Anyway the province was drilling like crazy which uses a huge amount of fuel and people were definitely curbing their consumption. I remember specifically deciding not to haul my camper to BC because fuel costs were going to be insane to get there and back. Trucking companies were tacking on a fuel surcharge. At the end of the day people only have X dollars a month to spend. If driving an empty V8 truck back and forth to work for example starts to take too much of a chunk out of X dollars, people are going to seek cheaper alternatives. That doesn't necessarily mean an electric car but it might be a small commuter.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by C.M.Burns View Post

                    EI premiums are NOT to "fund a specific program". They go into - and claims are paid out of - general revenue.

                    Once upon a time, in the 80s, EI (or UI as it was accurately known then) was a separate fund, like CPP. But it was changed on the recommendation of the Auditor General of the day, one of the few recommendations from that office I wholeheartedly disagree with.

                    Conspiracy theory? Hardly. Governments are spending more, and their interest expenses are starting to rise again. That money is going to have to come from the taxpayer, unless you plan on borrowing our way into penury like they did in the 70s.
                    Well...you were right...until 2017.

                    https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-...rates2019.html

                    Since April 1, 2016, the Commission has been responsible for setting the annual EI premium rate according to a seven-year break-even mechanism, as forecast by the EI Senior Actuary. This is the premium rate that will result in a balance of $0 in seven years in the EI Operating Account, including the elimination of any cumulative surplus or deficit in the Account. Annual changes to the premium rate are subject to a legislated limit of five cents. The seven-year break-even mechanism ensures stable and predictable premium rates for Canadian workers and employers, and is also intended to ensure that EI contributions are only used for EI purposes.

                    The money comes from the tax payer, but if your tax base grows (and I'm including corporate tax), then you don't have to increase tax rates. Beyond that, interest rates have very much stopped rising for the time being.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sofaking View Post

                      I think it does to a certain extent. As an example in 2008 or 2009 Sask basically ran out of diesel and the price went through the roof and for the first time I can remember it was more than gas (of course that is the time right after I bought my first diesel truck...) Anyway the province was drilling like crazy which uses a huge amount of fuel and people were definitely curbing their consumption. I remember specifically deciding not to haul my camper to BC because fuel costs were going to be insane to get there and back. Trucking companies were tacking on a fuel surcharge. At the end of the day people only have X dollars a month to spend. If driving an empty V8 truck back and forth to work for example starts to take too much of a chunk out of X dollars, people are going to seek cheaper alternatives. That doesn't necessarily mean an electric car but it might be a small commuter.
                      That's one individual case, your individual situation means squat in the assertion that higher prices leads to less usage as was suggested. As was posted gas usage in increasing so the assertion is incorrect.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bates View Post

                        So the higher price did or did not lead to a reduction is usage? It's really that simple.
                        Nope. It's not that simple.

                        Demand curve shifts up from other demand factors. Price moves you down the demand, but your still have a net increase in demand.

                        Comment


                        • So just to clarify, will an increase in price lead to less usage of the product? That is the assertion being discussed

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bates View Post
                            So just to clarify, will an increase in price lead to less usage of the product? That is the assertion being discussed
                            Always yes for normal goods, ceteris paribus.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bates View Post
                              So just to clarify, will an increase in price lead to less usage of the product? That is the assertion being discussed
                              Based on fact the answer is no as proven in BC - 10 years of carbon tax and a minuscule reduction in emissions (1.5%) - believing a carbon tax will get us to any target reductions may help people sleep well but in reality will do nothing - and before anyone uses ‘but the population increased over that time’ excuse the earth doesn’t care about that and the ctax scam is supposed to account for that

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Grebbi View Post

                                Based on fact the answer is no as proven in BC - 10 years of carbon tax and a minuscule reduction in emissions (1.5%) - believing a carbon tax will get us to any target reductions may help people sleep well but in reality will do nothing - and before anyone uses ‘but the population increased over that time’ excuse the earth doesn’t care about that and the ctax scam is supposed to account for that
                                Well... Your "data" proves it does.

                                Although that decrease in emissions is almost certainly due to switching to natural gas as opposed to other higher emission energy sources.

                                If the entire world decreased carbon emissions by 1.5 percent from their emissions 10 years ago we would be in tremendous shape.

                                Comment

                                Announcement

                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.

                                Announcement

                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.
                                Working...
                                X