Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 6
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blue Meanie wrote:
Looking at the recent price increases due to supply/demand, if that hasn't curbed the amount people use "unwisely", how big a tax will you need to get the effect you seek? Wrong! Just another useless tax grab!

It is a basic law of economics that the more something costs, the less people will want to use of it.
As big as the demand is for oil right now, imagine how big the demand would be if it were still only $40 per barrel!
Nor is it just a tax grab. Read my posts in other threads about this. The tax would be revenue neutral, which would mean cutting other taxes such as income taxes. And who doesn't want an income tax cut :D
Alternatively, the money raised could be used to deal with crises associated with global warming. For example, if there is a famine in Africa due to drought, the money could be used to help people there. I don't mind paying a bit more to save lives...especially if there is a good possibility that it is due to my actions that their lives are at risk in the first place.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, demand has continued to increase over the past several years as, like you say, the cost of a barrel of oil has increased from $40 to $100. This should tell you that people simply cannot stop using fossil fuels in the short term, or even change their habits. Even in the medium term, they cannot do much to curb their usage. You still have to drive where you always have driven, you still have the same car, probably for at least the next 5 years. You still have the same furnace, in the same house. You still shower for the same amount of time everyday.

As for the revenue neutral bafflegab, is is the BS of all BS. The government is not going to get rid of the GST, income tax, capital gains tax, or any other tax. As proof of this, I offer the following; how many taxes have been eliminated in Canada in the last 100 years? None, that is how many.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also, there is a basic paradox in what you propose.

You say that supply and demand is a basic law. Fine.
You say that something costs more, people will use less. Good.
You want it all to be revenue neutral. Dandy.
So you implement a carbon tax, and cut income tax. People start using less gas, suddenly, you are collecting less tax than you thought you would. You boost the carbon tax, people use even less. You boost it even further, till on liter of gas costs $576, and two people fill up their tank that year for a total take of maybe $57,600. Explain now how you run Canada on only $57,600.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found an old article from CTV, saying that Canada uses 111,000,000 million liters of gasoline every day in 2004.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Arti.....mp;no_ads=

So, lets start with what level of tax is needed to run Canada. In 2004-05, government spending was $210,480,000,000

http://taxpayer.com/main/content.php?content_id=6

So we have 40,515,000,000 liters of gasoline consumed in 2004. So if we collect $5.20 per liter (total cost would be $6 something per liter), that is all the money we need to run Canada in 2004.

How many people are a breath away from rioting in the street when gas goes up 3 cents on the May long weekend?

PS. I buy about 100 liter per month myself, give or take, so lets say $6.10, for a grand total of $610 per month, of which $520 is tax, for $6240 in tax take. I pay more than twice that in income tax, so I guess someone else will be paying a lot of my share under the new system. My guess is, some commuter in Vancouver or Toronto, buying 500 or 600 liters of fuel every month. Seems like a great strategy to secure those urban voters that so many of you carp endlessly about.


Last edited by kwlafayette on Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
Blue Meanie





Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 329
Reputation: 54.7
votes: 3
Location: B.C.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Blue Meanie wrote:
Looking at the recent price increases due to supply/demand, if that hasn't curbed the amount people use "unwisely", how big a tax will you need to get the effect you seek? Wrong! Just another useless tax grab!

It is a basic law of economics that the more something costs, the less people will want to use of it.
As big as the demand is for oil right now, imagine how big the demand would be if it were still only $40 per barrel!
Nor is it just a tax grab. Read my posts in other threads about this. The tax would be revenue neutral, which would mean cutting other taxes such as income taxes. And who doesn't want an income tax cut :D
Alternatively, the money raised could be used to deal with crises associated with global warming. For example, if there is a famine in Africa due to drought, the money could be used to help people there. I don't mind paying a bit more to save lives...especially if there is a good possibility that it is due to my actions that their lives are at risk in the first place.

Honestly, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I saw this response. Thank you Kwalafayette for doing the "heavy lifting" in response!
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks. I have to wonder, who uses all that fuel? Truckers, farmers, people like that. A farmer just can't absorb the cost, so it will have to tacked onto the price of food. Ditto for the truckers delivering it to the store, and any other good that gets moved by truck. I guess that means $15 for one gala apple from BC, which is to say, no more BC apples.

CSL probably does not buy their fuel in Canada, so goods from China have just one more competitive advantage, because they are not looking at a carbon tax either. So many problems with a carbon tax.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blue Meanie wrote:
Speaking as a recent convert to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the solution to global warming is painfully obvious. Forget about CO2 emmisions, carbon capture and the like. We really need more pirates! :wink:

So you've been touched by his noodly appendages? Did it turn you into a pirate? :lol:

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Actually, demand has continued to increase over the past several years as, like you say, the cost of a barrel of oil has increased from $40 to $100. This should tell you that people simply cannot stop using fossil fuels in the short term, or even change their habits. Even in the medium term, they cannot do much to curb their usage. You still have to drive where you always have driven, you still have the same car, probably for at least the next 5 years. You still have the same furnace, in the same house. You still shower for the same amount of time everyday.

There are plenty of things you could do to reduce energy use. How about taking the bus? How about carpooling? Or biking/walking to work? How about walking to the corner store instead of driving? How about turning off the lights when you're not in the room? And the list goes on...
Quote:
As for the revenue neutral bafflegab, is is the BS of all BS. The government is not going to get rid of the GST, income tax, capital gains tax, or any other tax. As proof of this, I offer the following; how many taxes have been eliminated in Canada in the last 100 years? None, that is how many.

:lol: I never said the government was going to eliminate taxes, I said they could reduce taxes. See my thread entitled "Tax Cuts Mean Nothing" for a more detailed explanation. If spending doesn't increase, where else is that money going to go????
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
So you implement a carbon tax, and cut income tax. People start using less gas, suddenly, you are collecting less tax than you thought you would. You boost the carbon tax, people use even less. You boost it even further, till on liter of gas costs $576, and two people fill up their tank that year for a total take of maybe $57,600. Explain now how you run Canada on only $57,600.

:lol: Where did I say that a carbon tax would be the only source of revenue???
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Thanks. I have to wonder, who uses all that fuel? Truckers, farmers, people like that. A farmer just can't absorb the cost, so it will have to tacked onto the price of food. Ditto for the truckers delivering it to the store, and any other good that gets moved by truck. I guess that means $15 for one gala apple from BC, which is to say, no more BC apples.

:lol: $15 for an apple? At least be reasonable...

Every extra dollar that the government collects means one extra dollar in other tax cuts. So the farmers and the truck drivers are now paying less income tax, which means they can sell their apples for less. The net result is that fruit from far away might cost more, but local fruit would cost less. Not to mention that you have more money in your pocket because you paid less income taxes.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I said, I am paying less than half the tax under a carbon tax system than I did before. Again I ask you, who gets to make up the difference? Someone out there has to pay $6000 more if I am paying $6000 less.

PS. Apples don't grow in Saskatchewan, so we don't really have a choice about bringing in apples.

PS. Unless you are saying that everyone pays less, but the government still has all the money it needs.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also oranges, apricots, plums, cherries, and a lot of other fruit does not grow here. Basically, we would be doing without a lot of foodstuffs we currently have in Saskatchewan. Since BC fruit would not be coming here anymore, I guess those BC farmers make less money too. A lot of the orchards, since they would be supplying local demand only, would simply go out of business.
goward4u





Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 112
Reputation: 28.7Reputation: 28.7Reputation: 28.7

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What we are being asked to do with the introduction carbon taxes is to lower our standard of living (here in North America only) with no proof of any benefit whatever.

I say "No thank you."

Does anyone really think we can stop the climate from changing? The climate changes all the time going from warmer periods to cooler periods.

I think history shows that people are better off and live longer in warmer times anyway.

We need to fight pollution and habitat destruction. There are real problems we have caused but climate change is not one of them.

Climate change is normal as is carbon in the atmosphere. Without it the trees would all die.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

goward4u wrote:
What we are being asked to do with the introduction carbon taxes is to lower our standard of living (here in North America only) with no proof of any benefit whatever.

Who says we would have to lower our standard of living?
goward4u





Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 112
Reputation: 28.7Reputation: 28.7Reputation: 28.7

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bill Clinton for one.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 6

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Just what is the experimental basis of global warming?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB