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
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2008 8:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you saying you just want a consumption tax on carbon at a low enough level that it does nor affect consumption? That has been tried, Quebec is doing it and BC will start in July. Many people around here have said consumption taxes are the way 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: Sun May 11, 2008 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Are you saying you just want a consumption tax on carbon at a low enough level that it does nor affect consumption? That has been tried, Quebec is doing it and BC will start in July. Many people around here have said consumption taxes are the way to go.

Who says you need to replace all taxes in order for it to affect consumption? Even a relatively small tax will affect consumption, it just depends on what extent you want to affect consumption.
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2008 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is the rate in Quebec, less than 1 cent per liter, and the government there wanted the oil companies to pay it and not pass the cost on the consumer, so I do not see how that one will affect consumption in any way. In BC it will be 2.7 cents per liter come July first. Again, I do not see that affecting consumption in any way. If you had a 100 liter tank, that is only $2.70 (that is $10 per tonne). The Green party talks $50 to $100 per tonne ( 13.5 to 27 cents per liter). To replace all other taxes, you are looking at over $1600 per tonne.

Considering that people are willing to drive a long ways, and wait in line to save 1/10 of a cent on a fill, I just don't see carbon taxes as what people want long term.

And come July 1 in BC, I think we will all be able to see the snowball effect that a carbon tax inevitably produces. In addition to the 2.7 cents in direct tax, it will cost more to truck the fuel to the stations, more to refine it. It will cost more to start the tractor to plow the field, more to harvest, more to transport. more to refrigerate. Once the inflationary effect sets in, I predict it will become very unpopular.

I wonder how much more BC cherries will cost here in Saskatoon come July 1?
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: Sun May 11, 2008 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
What is the rate in Quebec, less than 1 cent per liter, and the government there wanted the oil companies to pay it and not pass the cost on the consumer, so I do not see how that one will affect consumption in any way. In BC it will be 2.7 cents per liter come July first. Again, I do not see that affecting consumption in any way. If you had a 100 liter tank, that is only $2.70 (that is $10 per tonne). The Green party talks $50 to $100 per tonne ( 13.5 to 27 cents per liter). To replace all other taxes, you are looking at over $1600 per tonne.

How much would you drive if gas was $100 per litre? How much would you drive if gas was free? Now, do you think there's a magic number somwhere in between where people stop driving? Or do you think that people slowly reduce their consumption as the price increases?
Quote:
Considering that people are willing to drive a long ways, and wait in line to save 1/10 of a cent on a fill, I just don't see carbon taxes as what people want long term.

And those people waiting in line will have more money in their pocket from income tax cuts, so I don't see how that changes things.
Quote:
And come July 1 in BC, I think we will all be able to see the snowball effect that a carbon tax inevitably produces. In addition to the 2.7 cents in direct tax, it will cost more to truck the fuel to the stations, more to refine it.

Which means more revenue for the government, which means less revenue that the government needs to collect through income taxes, which means more money in people's pockets to pay for the extra cost.
Quote:
It will cost more to start the tractor to plow the field, more to harvest, more to transport. more to refrigerate. Once the inflationary effect sets in, I predict it will become very unpopular.

Again, more revenue = lower income taxes. It's zero sum.
Quote:
I wonder how much more BC cherries will cost here in Saskatoon come July 1?

They will cost about as much more proportionally as you will save in other taxes.
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2008 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Are you saying you just want a consumption tax on carbon at a low enough level that it does nor affect consumption? That has been tried, Quebec is doing it and BC will start in July. Many people around here have said consumption taxes are the way to go.


The irony is that these government's (Quebec at least) doesn't give a darn about the environment and see carbon taxes as a way to increase taxes and popularity at the same time. If they actually cared about the environment, the tax would be at a high enough level to affect consumption.

I can't recall any other time when a government created a whole new tax and got praise for doing so. Last time I recall this happening, the Liberals used getting rid of the GST as the strategy to get reelected.
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2008 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So the BC government is going to cut my taxes here in Saskatchewan so that the price of cherries and other BC fruit trucked in here stays the same? That will be a nice trick. Maybe all the trucks will be filling up in Alberta?

Your speculation on how it will all be OK is well and good, but the true story will be told once they are a year or so in. You predict revenue neutrality, I predict that the government is making tax grab. You predict consumption will drop, I predict that it will not; people will drive where they want to drive to, just like now.

PS. Please explain how the farmer, in tax bracket A, using 3000 liters of fuel a month, and some other person, also in tax bracket A, using only 100 liters a month, both have income tax cuts that make it revenue neutral? I don't think you grasp what is going to happen here.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2008 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GC writes:

Quote:
Which means more revenue for the government, which means less revenue that the government needs to collect through income taxes, which means more money in people's pockets to pay for the extra cost.


And this all helps those on a fixed income how? If your income is already non-taxable or close to the bottom you are adding a huge financial burden. Heat will be more, transport be it public or their own car will be more, food will cost more, just about every cost will be more! Perhaps we could then just tax others yet some more so we could top up the welfare payments or the pension payments up to a comparable living standard again?
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: Mon May 12, 2008 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
PS. Please explain how the farmer, in tax bracket A, using 3000 liters of fuel a month, and some other person, also in tax bracket A, using only 100 liters a month, both have income tax cuts that make it revenue neutral? I don't think you grasp what is going to happen here.

On average it will be revenue neutral. The person using only 100 litres a month will end up with MORE money. The person using 3000 litres will end up with less money, but you should pay for what you use. If you want to use 3000 litres, fine, but you should at least pay for it.
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: Mon May 12, 2008 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:
And this all helps those on a fixed income how? If your income is already non-taxable or close to the bottom you are adding a huge financial burden. Heat will be more, transport be it public or their own car will be more, food will cost more, just about every cost will be more! Perhaps we could then just tax others yet some more so we could top up the welfare payments or the pension payments up to a comparable living standard again?

Give a rebate to those on a low income.

P.S. I always find it funny when people use the argument "well, what about the poor", but if you ask those same people if we should cut taxes for the poor they say "why should we cut taxes for the poor when they already pay less taxes". Seems some people only use the poor in their arguments when it is convenient of them. I'm not accusing you of this, but it is something I have seen many times before.
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2008 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
kwlafayette wrote:
PS. Please explain how the farmer, in tax bracket A, using 3000 liters of fuel a month, and some other person, also in tax bracket A, using only 100 liters a month, both have income tax cuts that make it revenue neutral? I don't think you grasp what is going to happen here.

On average it will be revenue neutral. The person using only 100 litres a month will end up with MORE money. The person using 3000 litres will end up with less money, but you should pay for what you use. If you want to use 3000 litres, fine, but you should at least pay for it.
So the price of food goes up then, and this is not covered by tax cuts. Why didn't you just say so?

PS. I guess there is another possibility. The farmer may not have the pricing power to raise prices, so bankruptcy for the farmer is another option.


Last edited by kwlafayette on Mon May 12, 2008 10:17 am; edited 1 time in total
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: Mon May 12, 2008 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
So the BC government is going to cut my taxes here in Saskatchewan so that the price of cherries and other BC fruit trucked in here stays the same? That will be a nice trick. Maybe all the trucks will be filling up in Alberta?

No, but the BC government could provide a nice tax cut for the company producing those cherries so that they don't have to raise prices.
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2008 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Modern farming is a very energy intensive proposition. Everything is mechanized. During planting and harvest, my dear old Dad will use thousands of liters of diesel and gasoline. You cannot simply use less fuel, and still farm the same area. So if there is an extra tax cut for farmers, then I do not see how they are prodded into somehow using less. They either have to farm less acres, charge more for what they produce, or switch businesses.

Funny how all the ideas that the "save the earth" crowd comes up with lead to inflated food prices. Organic food, bio-fuel, carbon tax, they all hit you at the dinner table.

http://www.independent.co.uk/e.....18585.html

Less food means less people. Maybe that is the whole point? Not that I am complaining. Farming is, for the first time in my life, an actual career option for a young person in Canada right now. You could farm, and actually make enough to raise a family, this is unprecedented in my lifetime. I know of perhaps 2 farmers under the age of 40 in my Dad's area. My Dad is in his 70's, my uncle Louis is in his 80's and is selling out. Most of my cousins gave up on farming and moved to Edmonton. I gave up on farming myself, so did my brother.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2008 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
crazymamma wrote:
And this all helps those on a fixed income how? If your income is already non-taxable or close to the bottom you are adding a huge financial burden. Heat will be more, transport be it public or their own car will be more, food will cost more, just about every cost will be more! Perhaps we could then just tax others yet some more so we could top up the welfare payments or the pension payments up to a comparable living standard again?

Give a rebate to those on a low income.

P.S. I always find it funny when people use the argument "well, what about the poor", but if you ask those same people if we should cut taxes for the poor they say "why should we cut taxes for the poor when they already pay less taxes". Seems some people only use the poor in their arguments when it is convenient of them. I'm not accusing you of this, but it is something I have seen many times before.


Thus causing more government bureaucracy, sounds very cost efficient don't you think? End result will be costing the Tax payer even more.

Right about the Right using the poor, like the left doesn't/refuses to recognize that the Cuts in GST is actually the only way to put more of the poor's tax money in their own pocket. Maybe because it's the only taxes they get to pay?

Perhaps we need to think of a better system that lets folks keep some of their own cash and less of the I take it and think I give it back to you evenly? Why not just leave it where it is? A novel idea I know.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2008 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
kwlafayette wrote:
PS. Please explain how the farmer, in tax bracket A, using 3000 liters of fuel a month, and some other person, also in tax bracket A, using only 100 liters a month, both have income tax cuts that make it revenue neutral? I don't think you grasp what is going to happen here.

On average it will be revenue neutral. The person using only 100 litres a month will end up with MORE money. The person using 3000 litres will end up with less money, but you should pay for what you use. If you want to use 3000 litres, fine, but you should at least pay for it.


This is a very discriminatory policy. hypothetically My neighbour used 100 liters a month, you see him as good environmentalist, conserver, I used 500 liters a month, I must be very bad girl right?

Reality is my neighbour uses his for himself alone, nasty selfish turd.

I use mine for at least nine people.

He used 100/person where as I use MUUUUUUUCH less per person, almost half his consumption in my house hold. Is it your goal to cost families out of existance?
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2008 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
kwlafayette wrote:
So the BC government is going to cut my taxes here in Saskatchewan so that the price of cherries and other BC fruit trucked in here stays the same? That will be a nice trick. Maybe all the trucks will be filling up in Alberta?

No, but the BC government could provide a nice tax cut for the company producing those cherries so that they don't have to raise prices.


And just whose pocket will this nice tax cut come from? I guess Joe and Jane Taxpayer's pocket......again.
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


Final word on carbon tax.

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB