ONE smart lady with a long resume. to bad she didn’t run for premier

She probably couldn’t run for premier, she knew that she was too close in with Gordo. Besides the BC Liberals, were looking for someone a bit more left.

Taylor will do a good job, if anyone complains. She can always say, what did you expect to get for a buck.

Another thing HG . If called I will not serve . The last thing in the world I want is a job . Been there , ain’t gonna happen again . Beside I don’t have time for a job . Yikes . Just the thought alone is bad enough .

Ladies and Gentlemen, please refrain from getting into personal ‘chats’ with other posters. Keep your comments to the subject at hand and leave the personal barbs to each other out of it. Such comments have been removed from this thread.

Elaine Macdonald-Meisner

Carole Taylor is one bright lady and she has demonstrated her commitment to the wellbeing of this province and to the people of this province on numerous occasions.

She will be an asset, no doubt about it!

I don’t know whether Carole Taylor was in THAT close with Gordo. She was opposed to the HST, as I recall, and figured (correctly, in my opinion), it was a bad deal for BC.

She also thought that the carbon tax was a good idea and signed it into law . It is now touted as the best solution in the world by most .

A dollar a year. I wonder if that is considered as a $225,000 charitable, tax deductible donation.

I did not realize BC was #1 in the nation’s economy. That must be for a fleeting moment of a few years while Alberta’s petro industry is taken a hiatus and Ontario’s manufacturing industry is trying to get back up to speed.

Gopg you missed per-deims and expenses.

If I was working for a buck a year I’d expect my employer to pick up any related expenses too.

I did not realize BC was #1 in the nation’s economy

===================

Nor did I. I guess it comes down to how they choose to measure it.

Based on a report from March of 2015, the RBC had Ontario leading the country in GDP growth, followed by BC in second and Manitoba in 3rd. For 2016, their projections had Manitoba leading, followed by BC and Ontario. That’s just projected growth though.

If you look at GDP by value, it’s not even close. In 2014 Ontario led the pack at roughly 722 billion. Alberta was next at 325 billion. Quebec was third at 370 billion and BC was in fourth at 237 billion, or basically 1/3rd the output of Ontario. Manitoba, comes in at 64 billion in case anyone is interested.

So what’s better, say 3.5% growth from a starting point of 237 billion, or 2% growth from a starting point of 722 billion? Or, perhaps it’s 10% growth from a starting point of 64 billion?

So many numbers, so many possibilities!!!!

I looked at RBC’s projected %GDP numbers for 2015, 2016 and 2017. Those are the numbers below in that order, with the last number being the compounded %GDP increase over the 2-year period. The only way that Clark can say BC is #1 in Canada is the expected economic growth, not the total impact of the economy.

There is no projection by RBC for 2017 for Alberta because it is too dependent on oi prices that year.

BC : 2.9% : 3.1% : 2.9% : 9.2%
On : 2.1% : 2.5% : 2.7% : 7.5%
MB : 1.8% : 2.4% : 2.6% : 7.0%
QC : 1.3% : 1.9% : 1.7% : 5.0%
PEI : 1.7% : 1.6% : 1.3% : 4.7%
NS : 0.9% : 1.8% : 1.3% : 4.1%
NB : 1.0% : 1.3% : 1.5% : 3.8%
SK : -0.6% : 2.5% : 1.8% : 3.7%
AB : -1.3% : 0.9% : : -0.4%
NL : -3.5% : 0.3% : 0.5% : -2.7%

I agree, NMG, that even if Ontario as well as Quebec are not doing well for a half or full decade, they still have the greatest impact on the well-being of Canada due to the size of their population.

The thing one has to wonder is whether Alberta would have been better off in the economic troughs if they had invested more to create a more diverse economy. The signs that Alberta was overspending started to show up some 4 or so years ago if I remember the headlines in Alberta Newspapers of the day correctly.

They banked on what is under their feet without considering what is between their ears …. as someone was heard to say just recently … :-)

Carole Taylor is the hag that was behind the carbon tax scam and implementing it.

I wrote her a letter about how it is punitive to people outside the lower mainland that have to rely on fossil fuels to stay alive in -20 to -30 winters.

She replied to me with “Buy more weather stripping.”

Hateful lower mainland piece of garbage.

Taylor will work for one dollar a year but will take home a one million dollar a year bonus.

I would have replied that it is punitive to live in the lower mainland and have to pay so much for housing and to have such long commutes and pay higher gasoline taxes to pay for the transit system … ;-)

She probably did not have very good assistants to help here write appropriate letters.

Oldman1 wrote: “Taylor will work for one dollar a year but will take home a one million dollar a year bonus.”

Late breaking news; you heard it here first. :-)

While the RBC projections for BC are very good, here are some other stats of what has actually happened over the 9 year period from 2005 to 2014 which is the latest 9 year period available.

Population change from 2005 to 2014
Canada 10.2%
>>Above Canadian % change
Alberta 24.1%
Nunavut 19.0%
Yukon 16.0%
Saskatchewan 13.0%
British Columbia 10.5%
>>Below Canadian % change
Ontario 9.2%
Manitoba 8.6%
Quebec 8.4%
Prince Edward Island 5.9%
Newfoundland and Labrador 2.9%
Northwest Territories 1.4%
New Brunswick 0.9%
Nova Scotia 0.5%

GDP/person in 2014
Canada $55,510
>>Above Canadian average
Northwest Territories $107,523
Alberta $91,183
Saskatchewan $73,759
Yukon $70,351
Nunavut $68,892
Newfoundland and Labrador $63,342
>>Below Canadian Average
Ontario $52,784
British Columbia $51,136
Manitoba $50,052
Quebec $45,048
New Brunswick $42,481
Nova Scotia $41,465
Prince Edward Island $41,060

GDP/person in 2005
Canada $42,610
>>Above Canadian average
Northwest Territories $98,316
Alberta $66,175
Yukon $46,929
Saskatchewan $44,283
>>Below Canadian Average
Ontario $42,895
Newfoundland and Labrador $42,698
British Columbia $40,437
Nunavut $37,477
Quebec $35,885
Manitoba $35,374
Nova Scotia $33,265
New Brunswick $33,041
Prince Edward Island $29,667

Change in GDP/person from 2005 to 2014
Canada 30.3%
>>Above Canadian average
Nunavut 83.8%
Saskatchewan 66.6%
Yukon 49.9%
Newfoundland and Labrador 48.3%
Manitoba 41.5%
Prince Edward Island 38.4%
Alberta 37.8%
>>Below Canadian Average
New Brunswick 28.6%
British Columbia 26.5%
Quebec 25.5%
Nova Scotia 24.7%
Ontario 23.1%
Northwest Territories 9.4%

We shall see whether the predictions for the next two years will change where BC has actually headed in the past 9 years. It would be nice, but generally we have not been pulling our weight, neither have Ontario and Quebec. They have been losing ground as well.

Ataloss:-“She also thought that the carbon tax was a good idea and signed it into law . It is now touted as the best solution in the world by most .”
========================================================================
She was Lieutenant-Governor, too? Well, whatever her role was in enacting the Carbon Tax, it just goes to show you nobody’s ever 100% right. BTW, just WHO is touting it as the “best solution in the world” and for WHAT? Putting us all that much further in debt by driving up the cost of a lot of the energy we now all depend on?

Hold onto your wallets BC taxpayers.

To answer the question of who is in favour of the carbon tax, just google it and you will come up with articles such as this one from the Economist and you will get to see who is in favour of it – ECONOMISTS: economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/09/climate-policy

Sort of like tax on tobacco, alcohol, etc. which are all intended to encourage people to reduce habits which are bad for their health.

Tim for a tax on poor nutrition habits, such as sugar containing foods/drink, etc.

For those who continue to smoke, drink in excess and take in food which causes obesity, diabetes, etc. raising the cost of the habit may reduce the incidence of the habit in the general population.

THAT is the intent of the carbon tax to encourage developing alternate energy sources as well as more efficient processes of carbon fuel conversion to heat, motive power, etc.

socredible wrote: “Putting us all that much further in debt by driving up the cost of a lot of the energy we now all depend on?”

And here I thought that over the hundreds and thousands of years as humans and the social orders that they create have evolved not to provide the cheapest products and services, but to provide the best quality products and services to sustain our collective as well as individual lives … although the latter are still all too often sacrificed for the supposed “greater good”.

The intent of the Carbon Tax is simply to find a way to dupe people into thinking the take is doing something worthwhile to combat the supposedly negative effects of human activities on climate change. Is it? If people are already unable to purchase all the things they now NEED, let alone any additional things they may want, without increasingly going into debt, then how is a tax that INCREASES the costs of all those things going to solve the problem it’s supposed to? Whatever they do that pollutes they are simply going to have to do more of in order to still financially live.

As for ‘economists’, they’re like the weathermen. They make predictions based on the data before them. Sometimes they’re right, and a good many times they’re not. And a lot of economists are hired to drag up some selective data that supports a pre-conceived political point of view. The ones employed by various ‘think tanks’, like the Fraser Institute or the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives largely fall into that category. They don’t bite the hand that feeds them. In the final analysis it isn’t what ‘economists’ predict that determines policy, but rather the figures that ‘accountants’ work with. And unfortunately for all of us the two don’t use those figures in a way they’re properly related.

Socredible wrote: “And a lot of economists are hired to drag up some selective data that supports a pre-conceived political point of view.”

To which I add

And a lot of economists work to derive objective theories and scenarios for anyone, including politicians, investors etc. to be used as those who follow those economists and their theories and predictions decide to do.

Just like a medical doctor, a lawyer, a forester, etc. they are suggestions. People decide to follow them as they wish. Sometimes they are right in their decisions, sometimes they are wrong.

Then there are those who sell such predictions to use fro their conspiracy theories to promote the purchase of gold, purchase of real estate …. whatever commodities it is that they wish to make money from. They are the ones who have no interest in the world other than to line their own pockets, far to often as a scam.

You forgot about them!

Socredible wrote: “If people are already unable to purchase all the things they now NEED”

The operative word is “IF”. How many cannot purchase the things they NEED? Many of those who are in REAL NEED can get financial assistance for housing costs, food costs, local travel costs, etc.

When it comes to WANTS, which is actually the majority of the people and includes the heavy users of energy in that group and especially those on the edge where they can make decisions about alternate lifestyle choices, then that is exactly what user taxes are for.

Strange you do not actually wrote about sales taxes. In my opinion, those are the first taxes I would get rid of from those items most often NEEDED rather than WANTED. Tax things to alter lifestyles, such as unhealthy fast foods to encourage fast food providers to provide healthier food choices.