To watch the conversation go to Youtube
This conversation was recorded at 1 p.m. on Thursday 18 May, before the leaders’ debate with Professor Lindsay Tedds Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Calgary. Her research interests are eclectic and range from tax policy and public policy design and implementation involving a trans-disciplinary approach to harnesses the strengths of economics, law, public administration, and intersectionality.
Our talk ranged widely from income inequality, building an inclusive workplace, the importance of policy stability for investment, societal values, contradictions between the UCP’s socialistic spending promises and its free markets’ position, education policy, municipal property taxes, environmental liabilities, the challenge of funding long-term funding operating expense for new hospitals, etc.., the Calgary arena pledge, and Alberta’s climate of retribution under Jason Kenney.
We began our conversation with Dr. Tedds filling in some biographical details including a stint working for the federal government.
During the course of our conversation we discussed Premier Smith’s decision to create an 8 per cent tax bracket nominally a progressive move away from the flat tax which previous conservative governments pushed. Here the subject of the differential impact of gender came up.
how a tax policy applies to people actually differs according to the factors that affect our distribution of income. The biggest one being gender. So more women because a variety of different factors most of which are the result of, you know, pathologies and power, women’s income distribution is much lower … at the lower ,,,and less at the higher end. And as a result because of the way that we’ve set our income thresholds for income tax,…it means when we cut taxes, they don’t benefit to the same degree that men do because their income is in the higher end and that is where the bulk of the benefits accrue.
In discussing fiscal policy, and given Alberta’s boom and bust economy, Alberta governments fall into the trap that during busts public spending gets cut and in good times spending rises- “violently and freely. We are not Norway.”
“Without resource revenues we can’t get to balance.”
Another important distinction rarely discussed was the difference between operating and capital spending. While building public infrastructure is necessary, it commits governments to decades of operating expenditures which require a stable and growing revenue base to support.
In our discussion about economic diversification, Professor Tedds cautioned that diversification takes generations. The importance of certainty in the investment process was canvassed: in particular this applies to the carbon tax. Economists are practically unanimous in supporting a rising price price on carbon.
So it we it’s not just a matter of, you know, battling it out. It’s about understanding that we need to have a plan that businesses and people can rely on so that they can make the right business decision. So that we can reduce our emissions.
Dr. Tedds does not see technology like carbon capture as a long-term panacea for addressing emissions
Sometimes you have to go with a second or third best policy solution in order to be able to achieve some, some kind of forward progress. And I would put CCUS into that category of it. Absolutely has to move forward because it has to be that intermediary, step that gets us there. And I don’t think people back East understand that well enough.
“Shockingly enough, business wants to be subsidized.”
In respect to reducing emissions
“I have no faith that their (UCP) election platform is what they will proceed on because of if they win, they won’t have that many progressives in their cabinet,…”
Reproduction of any or all of the conversation is prohibited except with written permission of Abpolecon.ca
Series production by Brendan Ruddy- As the Crow Flies.
Related Posts