Idiot Kenny wants to sell crown land to be fiscally responsible

[Gestalt]

What a clown show this will be.

[dirtsniffer]

Congratulations on spelling all of those words right!

[ZenOps]

488 kilometers NorthWest of Edmonton, from what I can tell.

Not too many global entities have the ability to create a livable habitat that remote, assuming no road support. Even Branson probably wouldn't have the means to effectively make it profitable in a lifetime.

Technically the USA flag is planted on the moon. You could probably buy plots of land on it from Trump, but don't expect to make any money on it.

[msommers]

Sounds like he's taking a page out of Ralph's playbook.

Ah well, if we end up selling oil at $5/barrel, we'll be fire-saling all our possessions and entire province to the US.

[Xtrema]

Or thinking outside of the box?

Albertans doesn't want to spend any less but doesn't want a sales tax. Time to sell kidney for iPhone.

Was talking to someone about their tough financial situation and how he can't afford a house all the while I was staring at a SRT8, a Ducati, an iPhone X Max out of pocket of Canada Goose.

If that isn't a snapshot of Alberta, I don't know what is.

[Brent.ff]

Or thinking outside of the box?

Albertans doesn't want to spend any less but doesn't want a sales tax. Time to sell kidney for iPhone.

Was talking to someone about their tough financial situation and how he can't afford a house all the while I was staring at a SRT8, a Ducati, an iPhone X Max out of pocket of Canada Goose.

If that isn't a snapshot of Alberta, I don't know what is.

Except you're selling the house to feed the kids if you sell Crown land to pay off debt. Crown-land is for all of Albertan, not for the rich to take over and play no-trespasser. What's the point of being debt-free, if we can't enjoy the land that we all own..

[Xtrema]

Except you're selling the house to feed the kids if you sell Crown land to pay off debt. Crown-land is for all of Albertan, not for the rich to take over and play no-trespasser. What's the point of being debt-free, if we can't enjoy the land that we all own..

I don't disagree with you.

But if anything, the latest 2 episodes of South Park basically explains how general public deal with these issues and selling lands will trump sales tax if it comes to a vote.

[dirtsniffer]

Definitely a Toma made thread subject

[Gestalt]

If its profitable for someone else to own it why can't we. Silly corrupts little man.

[e31]

What's wrong with selling an unused remote section of land for financial gain? Obviously this is in contrast to the popular enjoyable Crown Land in South west Alberta. The NDP have been locking up that to keep anyone from using, arguably the same end result except without the financial benefit.

[kertejud2]

What's wrong with selling an unused remote section of land for financial gain? Obviously this is in contrast to the popular enjoyable Crown Land in South west Alberta. The NDP have been locking up that to keep anyone from using, arguably the same end result except without the financial benefit.

Selling capital assets to make up for operational losses generally isn't the mark of good financial stewardship.

[Brent.ff]

What's wrong with selling an unused remote section of land for financial gain? Obviously this is in contrast to the popular enjoyable Crown Land in South west Alberta, that the NDP have been locking up to keep anyone from using.

Precedent. Start there, move south.. all of a sudden you're pretty well in Idaho and can't even look at a stream or think about hunting without permission from a billionaire land owner.

Curious what you mean by 'keep anyone from using'. It's fully available to anyone in the public to use in a responsible manner, just not going to allow people to beat the hell out of it with OHVs

[HiTempguy1]

Selling capital assets to make up for operational losses generally isn't the mark of good financial stewardship.

Selling essentially WORTHLESS assets for money to a private company that can then generate additional tax revenue for the government is good financial stewardship. Only a liberal who believes in big government would think otherwise.

We also wouldn't need additional taxes if the government would cut spending. A "5% PST" and a 5% cut in government spending is the same thing. I'd rather see them cut 5% over a couple years. Combine that with GDP growth, and you've paved a path to paying down debt and not running deficits.

But the THOUGHT of EVER cutting government funding is anathema to liberals, so much so they can't even believe it is a path forward so they won't even consider it.

[kertejud2]

A "5% PST" and a 5% cut in government spending is the same thing.

Well, no. It isn't.

[Gestalt]

Well, no. It isn't.

hes trying to do comedy? :rofl::rofl:

[HiTempguy1]

Well, no. It isn't.

Well yes, it is. :facepalm:

In regards to the end result, which of course leaves out your "oh, but its more nuanced than that" pitch that j-hop made. One generates 5% more in government revenues (possibly, people will curtail their purchases so it would probably be less, and it would also kill the economy in general, further reducing its actual effectiveness). 5% reduction in spending on governments part, is a 5% reduction period. Either way, the budget is more thoroughly balanced. Those that wish for all the bourgeois to be taxed out the ass don't like the cuts. And the PST is such a "regressive" tax on the poor, they'd just get some form of credit which would crater revenue from it even harder.

So you are right, we really should just cut 5% of the gov budget. Thanks for clarifying that.

[jwslam]

Your math only works if Government Spending = Spending by all Albertans, which it doesn't.

[kertejud2]

Your math only works if Government Spending = Spending by all Albertans, which it doesn't.

For comparison sake, Saskatchewan’s 6% PST generates over 14% of the province’s budget.

[Gestalt]

Your math only works if Government Spending = Spending by all Albertans, which it doesn't.

I have a learning disability and I even see that. ;) :rofl:

[gwill]

What's the outrage over an idea to sell off unused land?? Again its just an idea.

Now if we said the habitat is crucial for wild life then at least theres a valid concern.... I'd bet the section hes considering putting up for sale is littered with oil roads to no where.

Curious to know the specific area for those who use the area for hunting or other recreational activities.

[ExtraSlow]

I'm not crazy about selling land, but of course, details matter.

[gwill]

I'm not crazy about selling land, but of course, details matter.

come on now. Fuck Kenney!! How dare he... lol. /s

[J-hop]

Well yes, it is. :facepalm:

In regards to the end result, which of course leaves out your "oh, but its more nuanced than that" pitch that j-hop made. One generates 5% more in government revenues (possibly, people will curtail their purchases so it would probably be less, and it would also kill the economy in general, further reducing its actual effectiveness). 5% reduction in spending on governments part, is a 5% reduction period. Either way, the budget is more thoroughly balanced. Those that wish for all the bourgeois to be taxed out the ass don't like the cuts. And the PST is such a "regressive" tax on the poor, they'd just get some form of credit which would crater revenue from it even harder.

So you are right, we really should just cut 5% of the gov budget. Thanks for clarifying that.

Haha I do think it’s more nuanced than that. I think your math is wrong, 5% PST doesn’t equal a 5% reduction in spending.

Take for example the budget is net zero at 50billion prior to the sales tax. A decrease of 5% would be 2.5billion. A provincial sales tax to make 2.5billion would assume that albertans spend 50billion/year on taxable items.

Kert is right, a 5% pst is absolutely not equal to a decrease in 5% in government spending. What that 5% is of matters.


My problems with kenney’s Proposals are:
(1) it’s no doubt going to trigger a moronic argument with local aboriginal groups

(2) the absolute last thing we need is more sprawl, if people think this isn’t going to cost more than it will bring in over the long term are out to lunch, the people buying the land aren’t going to be buying stranded land with no access, utilities, or any services. the rest of Alberta will be subsidizing these areas as we already do many others

(3) it is a drop in the bucket. Run the numbers, apparently the average farmland in AB sells for 2500/acre. Now I assume that is farmable land not land that needs to be cleared. But let’s just assume the government can get that in this sale. So what’s going to actually make an impact? Let’s say 5 billion in sales. Ok so quick math means they’d have to sell off a whopping 2 million acres (note that is 20x the example of Stelmach’s land area sales he used). But wait, that’s a one time deal, that works out to pennies over the next decade which is probably the timeline for Alberta to recover (IMO). Remember that assumes top dollar sales too...

It’s a foolish proposal. Not what we should be focusing on. My guess is he has something in mind for that land and is using the poor argument of it helping prop up our province as a cover


Edit: just saw jwslam said exactly that (about your math), I mean bash me all you want but I don’t think you are looking close enough in this case

[mr2mike]

How do you sell something that belongs to First Nations?
Serious question... We'll be apologizing later I suppose.

[A790]

Introducing a PST is a smart idea to get Alberta's finances back on track. Coupled with reduced spending, and it might even help us balance our books and pay our debts.

Selling low-value finite assets is PR and it's hilarious how presumably smart Albertans fall for it.

We aren't oiling our way out of this one. Time for Albertans to look in the mirror and decide what matters.

[Gestalt]

Introducing a PST is a smart idea to get Alberta's finances back on track. Coupled with reduced spending, and it might even help us balance our books and pay our debts.

Selling low-value finite assets is PR and it's hilarious how presumably smart Albertans fall for it.

We aren't oiling our way out of this one. Time for Albertans to look in the mirror and decide what matters.

put royalties at 71%of profits like Norway and let the losers sink or swim.

[A790]

put royalties at 71%of profits like Norway and let the losers sink or swim.

No. Canadians are not quite that socialist, and right now we need to encourage more business investment and diversification... not stifle it.

[ZenOps]

Realistically, 99.9%+ of Albertans would never set foot over that particular stretch of land for any reason whatsoever. Parks are hardly ever used by the majority of the population but 328,198 km2 is reserved land for recreation by "everyone"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Parks_of_Canada

I think the numbers are out for the population that actually used the completely free 2017 parks passes, and it was tiny. The vast majority of land in Canada is doing absolutely nothing for anyone, and its near impossible to convince populations to let governments spend billions of dollars to build a hotel and casino on arctic tundra. Arguably, many people believe that is the role of private enterprise - If the Hotel and casino fails - then Trump in on the hook for $915 million losses and *not* the government. Although it is ironic that Trump is now the government.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/free-national-parks-program-ending-but-kids-still-free-in-2018-1.3701854

I have absolutely no doubt that although many areas of Canada could be made into productive areas, there will be plenty of areas that will still be undeveloped for a couple hundred years (like the park north of Resolute, which sees how many tourists per year?) Some areas, even thousands of years. It mostly comes down to it being *completely unprofitable* for the lifetime of the first settler. Trump built casinos in the desert and perhaps unsurprisingly, lost nearly a Billion dollars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quttinirpaaq_National_Park

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Conger During his 1899 expedition to reach the geographic North Pole, Robert Peary reached Fort Conger, only to have several toes snap off at the first joint because of frostbite.[6] Bedridden for weeks while recuperating, Peary wrote on a wall, Inveniam viam aut faciam ("I shall find a way or make one.")

[Gestalt]

No. Canadians are not quite that socialist, and right now we need to encourage more business investment and diversification... not stifle it.
Yes business investment that costs us money and destroys our environment.

Is rather have Norway's trillions.

[A790]

Is rather have Norway's trillions.
I mean, so would I... but that's not our reality. It's not going to happen. So, we need alternatives that aren't ridiculous. :)

[J-hop]

Norway as I mentioned in another thread is always brought up but people don’t actually do their research. It’s a horrible analogue for what Canada should strive for, it’s not even in the same ballpark


....

Edit: just a quick search (numbers may be off a bit) but ignoring gas last year Canada produced 4.2 million barrels/day, Norway produced 1.5.
Norway is 1/6th Canada population but produces over 1/3rd Canada’s production. Canada has a land mass of ~10 million sq Kms, Norway has a landmass of 0.4million sq Kms. They simply aren’t comparable. Their pockets are bursting at the seams and that’s not even considering their oil trades at roughly a 100% higher value than ours right now, realistically the value of their total product probably sits at 1/2 to 2/3s of canada’s And with 1/6 the population and with only 4% of Canada’s land mass it makes for an absolutely ridiculous comparison

Note: I believe I based those price comparisons on old WCS numbers to boot

[ZenOps]

As soon as you say "West" in Alberta, the chances of the land having an oil deposit greatly decreases. More likely is a copper or molybdenum mine, if you start getting into the foothills. Canada is a big place, and anything the crown sells off usually has A) no minerals to speak of and B) no access to water.

Which generally means: You might want to sell, but there won't be many buyers. The only people to will consider buying are those who can print money (USA, China, etc) Canada cannot print money as a requirement of being in a commonwealth, however Britain can.

[dirtsniffer]

Nvm

[ZenOps]

When Russia sold Alaska to the USA it was widely regarded as a big mistake for Russia.

I'd argue that it was the right thing to do, because the USA at that particular point in time had all the crazy settlers, crazy miners, and motivation to build up Alaska from nothing - to at least a place with a couple roads and got some oil and gold out of it. Russia literally had the Gulag, which was considered the worst form of punishment.

Even with the draw of "riches" not many were making the trek to Alaska from Russia, and if it were not "sold off" it would probably still be a frozen wasteland today.

My argument would go straight to Queen Elizabeth II to divvy some of it up to natural born Canadians before selling it off to the USA or China, or Dubai for that matter. The current incentive for USA is not to buy Canadian land to "settle and build a life", but more to "avoid the USA in case I get taxed to death or it nukes itself, again".

[Misterman]

We aren't oiling our way out of this one. Time for the Alberta government to look in the mirror and decide what matters.


Fixed

[Lex350]

Or thinking outside of the box?

Albertans doesn't want to spend any less but doesn't want a sales tax. Time to sell kidney for iPhone.

Was talking to someone about their tough financial situation and how he can't afford a house all the while I was staring at a SRT8, a Ducati, an iPhone X Max out of pocket of Canada Goose.

If that isn't a snapshot of Alberta, I don't know what is.

Speak for yourself. I'd be happy to spend less. Add one more frickin' tax does't solve the problem of us overspending.

[ExtraSlow]

Canada cannot print money as a requirement of being in a commonwealth, however Britain can. this is factually incorrect.

[M.alex]

Introducing a PST is a smart idea to get Alberta's finances back on track. Coupled with reduced spending, and it might even help us balance our books and pay our debts.


Jeesus christ I hope not. Just wait a few years for the PST to be 30%. Fvck off with your taxes.

[JRSC00LUDE]

They should just sell the rights to the oxygen off the trees up North to offset the federal carbon sham.

[msommers]

The government should start a public corporation bottling mountain air. And also build giant fans to keep the smoke in the US.

[A790]

Jeesus christ I hope not. Just wait a few years for the PST to be 30%. Fvck off with your taxes.
Yes, because introducing a nominal PST - like every other province has - means it's going to be 30% in a few years.

Did you think before your thumbs started flying, or were you just looking for an opportunity vomit whatever nonsense materialized in your brain cage?

Albertans have demonstrated that they do not want to accept a reduction in major services, therefore more revenue must be generated. It is unlikely to come from oil.

So where's it going to come from? More debt?

[Misterman]

Yes, because introducing a nominal PST - like every other province has - means it's going to be 30% in a few years.

Did you think before your thumbs started flying, or were you just looking for an opportunity vomit whatever nonsense materialized in your brain cage?

Albertans have demonstrated that they do not want to accept a reduction in major services, therefore more revenue must be generated. It is unlikely to come from oil.

So where's it going to come from? More debt?

Well based on the history of the world he would actually have more ground to stand on. Taxes have been steadily going up since their introduction. It's an addiction for greedy governments, and it is the equivalent of putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

Realistically, if governments would just be a little more fiscally responsible, and close the loop holes that allow billion dollar business' to pay zero corporate taxes. Debt would be gone in no time. Hell they could even cut personal tax. There is definitely zero need for another tax on the poor like PST/HST/GST.

[A790]

Realistically, if governments would just be a little more fiscally responsible, and close the loop holes that allow billion dollar business' to pay zero corporate taxes. Debt would be gone in no time. Hell they could even cut personal tax. There is definitely zero need for another tax on the poor like PST/HST/GST.

If this were to ever happen I'd agree. However, we seem to be perpetually in favour of lowering business taxes. NDP introduces a small increase to business tax and people here (both on this forum and elsewhere) lost their shit.

Unless we're willing to radically change our taxation structure and remove the influence from lobbyists, I don't see other viable options.

Make no mistake: I'm not a fan of a PST. However, in our current political and economic environment, I don't see a viable way out of it. Your post, while raising a decent point or two, doesn't address that issue.

[msommers]

On the contrary, GST has gone down from 7 to 5 since it was introduced in '91.

[JRSC00LUDE]

On the contrary, GST has gone down from 7 to 5 since it was introduced in '91.

Wasn't it a temporary tax?

[Gestalt]

Wasn't it a temporary tax?

There are no tmeptoary taxes. That's why you have to put a high price on all our exploitable resources.

[max_boost]

Bring in the 5% PST or sell AB to China or USA lol

[Gestalt]

PSt at 5% PST won't put a dent in our problem. Estimates based on gst are about 500 million a year.

Raising royalties to levels equivalent to other nations would bring billions at reduced production levels.

Then a luxury tax of say 20% on has guzzlers or other wasteful things could replace the PST easily.

Wins all around that way for families and health, disease and environmental

[J-hop]

PSt at 5% PST won't put a dent in our problem. Estimates based on gst are about 500 million a year.

Raising royalties to levels equivalent to other nations would bring billions at reduced production levels.

Then a luxury tax of say 20% on has guzzlers or other wasteful things could replace the PST easily.

Wins all around that way for families and health, disease and environmental

It’s not that simple though, not sure if you understand our pricing vs world markets. Royalties in Alberta are a tricky business, it’s already a toxic business environment for oil companies with how little producers get in sales compared to other countries. Cranking up royalties will reduce the pot so you end up with a situation of trying to manage pot size vs your take of the pot.

What you’re saying would make sense if oil prices (in Canada) were high, but they are lagging so far behind the rest of the world.

I can’t tell you the answer but I can tell it isn’t a 1 sentence solution like you think it is

[Gestalt]

all wrong, royalties are on profits, so it's really a no brainer. And they lwoered them repeatedly for 40 years. you like the inddustry are lying. Just do it, and the losers will wash out, making room for winners. subsidizing losers is not a capitalist thing to do.

[J-hop]

all wrong, royalties are on profits, so it's really a no brainer. And they lwoered them repeatedly for 40 years. you like the inddustry are lying. Just do it, and the losers will wash out, making room for winners. subsidizing losers is not a capitalist thing to do.


Yea man you don’t understand at all what you’re talking about.

[Gestalt]

Yea man you don’t understand at all what you’re talking about.

Agreed but seem to be 3* more then you know

[Misterman]

If this were to ever happen I'd agree. However, we seem to be perpetually in favour of lowering business taxes. NDP introduces a small increase to business tax and people here (both on this forum and elsewhere) lost their shit.

Unless we're willing to radically change our taxation structure and remove the influence from lobbyists, I don't see other viable options.

Make no mistake: I'm not a fan of a PST. However, in our current political and economic environment, I don't see a viable way out of it. Your post, while raising a decent point or two, doesn't address that issue.

The viable way out of it is to decrease spending. Period.

I don't like paying more business tax either, so I wasn't happy about it myself. The issue is that small business gets lumped right in with billion dollar corporations, but billion dollar corporations have access to tax strategies that virtually eliminate their taxes. It wouldn't even take a massive tax reform to fix this, just make a separation of say 10 million dollars. If you make less revenue than that you abide by same laws currently in places. Anything over that you pay a flat 15% rate. Now every bank in the country can start paying 600 million dollars a year(their fair share) and off load the tax stress for the middle class individual.

You're right we will never see it, nobody has the balls to do that politically. I could maybe get behind a short term PST if there was VERY strict legislation behind it to guarantee things like it being revoked after 5 years and all unnecessary spending was frozen in the meantime as well.

- - - Updated - - -


On the contrary, GST has gone down from 7 to 5 since it was introduced in '91.

I knew someone would bring up the one time in history it ever happened. lol I didn't think I needed to mention it since the trend is so lop sided on this issue.

[Misterman]

all wrong, royalties are on profits, so it's really a no brainer. And they lwoered them repeatedly for 40 years. you like the inddustry are lying. Just do it, and the losers will wash out, making room for winners. subsidizing losers is not a capitalist thing to do.

You are positive royalties have gone down, yet the algorithm for calculating such things is so fucking convoluted that the accountants for the government didn't even know we were short changing ourselves by millions for years. Why don't they just hire you? You seem to have everything figured out that the some of the countries brightest minds can't even get a handle on. I'll see if I can nominate you for some type of Nobel prize.

[J-hop]

You are positive royalties have gone down, yet the algorithm for calculating such things is so fucking convoluted that the accountants for the government didn't even know we were short changing ourselves by millions for years. Why don't they just hire you? You seem to have everything figured out that the some of the countries brightest minds can't even get a handle on. I'll see if I can nominate you for some type of Nobel prize.

Gestalt knows 3* more about royalties than you do, so best get back in line

[M.alex]

Yes, because introducing a nominal PST - like every other province has - means it's going to be 30% in a few years.

Did you think before your thumbs started flying, or were you just looking for an opportunity vomit whatever nonsense materialized in your brain cage?

Albertans have demonstrated that they do not want to accept a reduction in major services, therefore more revenue must be generated. It is unlikely to come from oil.

So where's it going to come from? More debt?

The right question hasn't been asked. It shouldn't 'do you want to cut services?' It should be 'do you want to cut services or have a 30% PST? Choose one.'

[Gestalt]

The right question hasn't been asked. It shouldn't 'do you want to cut services?' It should be 'do you want to cut services or have a 30% PST? Choose one.'

More accurately do you want to charge what we should be charging for our resources, or continue to give them away at a loss, taxe families more and cut services.

Stealing from the poor to give to the rich never works for long

[CMW403]

Except you're selling the house to feed the kids if you sell Crown land to pay off debt. Crown-land is for all of Albertan, not for the rich to take over and play no-trespasser. What's the point of being debt-free, if we can't enjoy the land that we all own..

Fuckin' tell me the last time you took your family out 500KM NW of Edmonton for a picnic and a dog walk.

Find me TEN people that do ANYTHING but take a piss and smoke a joint on the side of the road in between each shitty little town along HWY 35.

If we can sell some land up there and avoid PST, please lets go ahead and do this.

I'm sure even the people living on the land will gladly take their money for their land and walk as long as that means we avoid PST!

[Gestalt]

Fuckin' tell me the last time you took your family out 500KM NW of Edmonton for a picnic and a dog walk.

Find me TEN people that do ANYTHING but take a piss and smoke a joint on the side of the road in between each shitty little town along HWY 35.

If we can sell some land up there and avoid PST, please lets go ahead and do this.

I'm sure even the people living on the land will gladly take their money for their land and walk as long as that means we avoid PST!

Wtf. Its a limited resource you idiot. They aren't making more Alberta land

[A790]

Fuckin' tell me the last time you took your family out 500KM NW of Edmonton for a picnic and a dog walk.

Find me TEN people that do ANYTHING but take a piss and smoke a joint on the side of the road in between each shitty little town along HWY 35.

If we can sell some land up there and avoid PST, please lets go ahead and do this.

I'm sure even the people living on the land will gladly take their money for their land and walk as long as that means we avoid PST!

This would not generate nearly enough revenue to make an appreciable difference in our finances.

[kertejud2]

The right question hasn't been asked. It shouldn't 'do you want to cut services?' It should be 'do you want to cut services or have a 30% PST? Choose one.'

Cut services by how much?

Because right now you’re asking ‘Do you want to cut services by an unspecified amount or do you want to increase the provincial budget by roughly 45%? Choose one.’

[kertejud2]

This would not generate nearly enough revenue to make an appreciable difference in our finances.

It’s also a one time relief for an operational problem. So you avoid PST this year, what’s the plan to avoid it next year? And the year after that? What’s their business case for selling off capital assets to cover operational losses? This land isn’t costing them anything significant and any sort of taxes collected off the land are also not significant (since people are so clear to point out it’s practically worthless anyway, apparently).

[dirtsniffer]

Funny NDP supporters are saying it's not fixing the problem of the province not covering operational costs when it's the spendp that created the problem

[kertejud2]

Funny NDP supporters are saying it's not fixing the problem of the province not covering operational costs when it's the spendp that created the problem
Is this what HiTemp said? He's the only NDP voter I know of in the thread.

[J-hop]

Funny NDP supporters are saying it's not fixing the problem of the province not covering operational costs when it's the spendp that created the problem

This:


This would not generate nearly enough revenue to make an appreciable difference in our finances.


dirtsniffer, a couple pages back I posted the average selling price of an acre of farmland, I also mentioned previous land sales by Stelmach for comparison. I showed at a premium they would have to sell massive amounts of land just to make a few billion which wouldn’t even come close to touching the budget long term and hardly even make a dent on a year or two timeline (again, assuming the very unlikely utopian case where they could get a premium for the land and sell massive amounts)

I have a feeling if you run the numbers you’ll come to the same conclusion, thinking these land sales are going to make any significant impact and/or replace a potential PST is foolish, the numbers simply don’t add up. It’s a PR stunt


Edit: and to reach the 5 billion arbitrary number I used would take more millionaires then there are in not only Alberta but the entire country.

[CMW403]

I came into this thread thinking we were blaming Kenny for something important haha...

I am not so impressed now that I realize its politically motivated and we are talking about a different Kenny.

[ZenOps]

As always, things like this only piss off the truly rich and most productive. The average citizen could care less.

If you happen to be the greatest farmer in the world, and you can grow billion dollar crops on the sides of cliffs by simply snapping your fingers - it means nothing. It means nothing because the land cannot be sold or improved. It is Crown land that for the most part must remain dormant for hundreds if not thousands of years while we figure out what to do with it, or whether or not we should give it back to the natives so that they can hunt two deer off it, and sell the meat for fitty bucks at a corner gas station a hundred kilometers away.

I guess it depends on what you want. As far as I can tell, the Queen wants more people selling deer carcasses (and beaver hats) for fitty bucks and not growing weed at $10 per gram, or wheat at $200 per ton. Its almost ridiculous the amount of land that would have to be given away to let a wheat farmer pay himself, a son and daughter minimum wages if they *only* had wheat.

http://www.hbcheritage.ca/things/fashion-pop/beaver-hats

Its important to note that beaver fur was technically the backbone of the Canadian economy for a solid century. Wheat is actually a horrible crop from a cash crop perspective. Its actually considered a loss pretty much everywhere - only useful for politics of keeping bellies full (bread and circuses)

[Misterman]

Stealing from the poor to give to the rich never works for long

Good thing we don't do that. However our system of taxing the rich and giving to the poor is equally as useless and futile.

[ZenOps]

I also think along the lines of: Crown land that is owned by no one is developed by no one. It does not produce food because you can't grown anything on it. It does not house people because you cannot build upon it. Taxes cannot ever be collected on it for obvious reasons that there is no one to tax. It is literally the same as land on the moon.

Personally I think clearing the land and putting down a farm is a bad thing. The world does not need 70,000 more tons of soybeans that might be thrown in the ocean because no one wants to buy it. Especially in a Zone 1 hardiness, which means extremely low profit crops.

The fallacy of "saving" it for future generations is that it is completely unproductive until such time (which can be a couple centuries of unproductiveness), and completely untaxable. Saving land is what national parks are for, and we have plenty of those.