Parkland blog

Welcome the Parkland Institute's blog. Here, we feature writers and researchers associated with the Parkland Institute writing about topics of interest to Albertans.

January 29, 2015

A modest proposal: Alberta needs income and corporate tax reform

posted by Barret Weber

It has now been a couple of weeks since Alberta Premier Jim Prentice floated the idea of a provincial sales tax in a speech to the Edmonton Economic Development Corporation (EEDC) luncheon (a trial balloon which Albertans soon overwhelmingly deflated, according to a somewhat-questionable poll on the issue).

However, there are clearly better options than another regressive tax for the premier to consider in the effort to bring in much-needed "new management" and more steady and predictable government revenues, which Alberta needs in order to provide stable funding for education, health care, infrastructure, roads, and social services of all sorts – essential public goods that we fund collectively. 

read more »

Tagged with: corporations, flat tax, taxes
October 15, 2012

Canada should follow Lesotho‚Äôs good example

posted by Shannon Stunden Bower

The right to an abortion? This should not be an issue at all. But recently, some members of Canada’s Conservative government, with the support of like-minded Liberals, sought to pry open a debate that most Canadians are only too glad to have closed.

read more »

Tagged with: equality, gender gap, Motion 312, women
October 15, 2012

Columnist wants to have his cake and eat it too

posted by David Campanella

In his recent column in the Calgary Herald, “Don’t grumble about lower corporate tax rates,” Rob Breakenridge would like to have his cake and eat it too – corporate tax cuts and higher revenues. Conservatives love promoting corporate tax cuts because it enriches their corporate friends and ultimately means less money to support a generous welfare state.

read more »

Tagged with: corporations, flat tax, taxes
July 17, 2012

Is liquor store privatization worth toasting?

posted by David Campanella

This letter to the editor was submitted to the Calgary Herald on July 17, 2012.


One wonders if Mark Milke was still suffering the after-effects of a Stampede-filled weekend when he wrote his terribly one-sided review of Premier Klein's ad-hoc and short-sighted decision to sell-off Alberta's liquor stores, a decision which continues to be a major headache for Albertans.


Incredibly, Milke denies privatization has meant lost revenue. This assertion ignores the fact that today Alberta earns nearly 25% less revenue per litre of alcohol sold than prior to privatization. In fact, Albertans would have enjoyed the benefit of an extra $1.3 billion if government revenue from liquor sales had continued to be generated at pre-privatization levels.

This revenue loss is largely due to the gradual erosion of  Alberta's real, inflation-adjusted liquor tax rate. So lower taxes means cheaper booze, right? Wrong. Despite Milke's claim to the contrary, recent research indicates that Albertans pay among the highest liquor prices in the West – prices higher than those on offer in the publicly-owned stores of BC and Saskatchewan.

Alcohol consumption is inextricably linked to health and crime-related problems, primarily involving the occasional heavy-drinker. As a result, rational liquor policy promotes limits on consumption and  generates sufficient revenue to address alcohol's consequences. Privatization has meant the opposite in Alberta: higher consumption and diminished public revenue. Is this really worth toasting?

In reality, the real kudos belong to Saskatchewan, where the (primarily) public liquor stores earned the province an extra $9.4 million last year despite selling 135,000 less litres of pure alcohol. More revenue from less consumption? That's a feat worth celebrating.

David Campanella,
Public Policy Research Manager at the Parkland Institute

read more »

Tagged with: liquor stores, privatization
July 13, 2012

What price do Norwegians pay?

posted by David Campanella

On Tuesday, July 10th, the Calgary Herald published a column by Matthew Fisher entitled “Norwegians pay a price for saving oil revenues,” found here. Below is my response.

I believe Herald readers can be forgiven if they were confused after reading Matthew Fisher's Tuesday column, for the title promised one thing and the column delivered something quite different.

The headline reads that Norway's determination to sock away vast sums of its oil wealth is less than ideal -- that such a policy comes with a “price.” 

The column, however, is largely a description of how the country boasts both a $600 billion savings account and the world's highest living standards. 

It would appear that, in Fisher’s view, the hitch with such a remarkable achievement is that Norwegians choose to collectively fund it through taxes. But it's hard to see such a decision as anything other than wise financial planning, since in addition to preventing their economy from overheating and protecting themselves from “dutch disease,” Norwegians have established an inheritance capable of ensuring that the benefits of their finite, fossil-fuelled fortune continues for generations to come. Robust savings, high living standards, and an assured future? Surely this is a “price” most Albertans would be happy to “pay.”

Perhaps Fisher should have mentioned that Norway has a state-owned oil company that returns all oil profits to its citizens, whereas the royalties for Alberta's privately-developed oil, gas, and bitumen resources last year delivered only 9% of the revenue back to Albertans. As this province rapidly burns through its natural wealth, Albertans can only look on with envy as Norwegians enjoy the benefits of wise financial planning.

read more »

Tagged with: economics, energy policy, Norway, oil royalties, royalties, taxes

Page 1 of 6 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

Social media
Site search

Be emailed when there's new Parkland research and events.

All RSS feeds

Advanced Search »