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 5 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: Mon May 12, 2008 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:
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?

I have said many times (not necessarily on this forum, but certainly on others) that increasing the GST rebate (rather than cutting the GST) for the poor is a much better way to put money into the pockets of the poor.
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 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:
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.

Great, that also means you are using less energy per person, and therefore you will receive more money. If that's the case, you should be happy :lol:
crazymamma





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

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2008 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
crazymamma wrote:
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.

Great, that also means you are using less energy per person, and therefore you will receive more money. If that's the case, you should be happy :lol:


How do you figure that?

To my knowledge there is no such mechanism in place, Will we all be getting a carbon credit card? Are they going to be issuing rationing stamps as they did during the war? Will you only pay X cents per liter for the first so many liters/person and after that it goes up expediently?

I don't know how you get that my family will get lots back, so explain it to a simple country girl will ya?
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 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:
How do you figure that?

If they are dependents, then the extra revenue could be used to give you a bigger tax break.
If they are not dependents, then they will receive their own tax break from the extra revenue.
crazymamma





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

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2008 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
crazymamma wrote:
How do you figure that?

If they are dependents, then the extra revenue could be used to give you a bigger tax break.
If they are not dependents, then they will receive their own tax break from the extra revenue.


You are very naive indeed if you think a simple straight deduction on my taxes will compensate me for the possible ricocheting effect this carbon tax will have thru the economy.
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 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:
You are very naive indeed if you think a simple straight deduction on my taxes will compensate me for the possible ricocheting effect this carbon tax will have thru the economy.

As I've said many times before, each cent that the government collects through this tax is one less cent that they have to collect through other taxes. It's a zero sum game.
crazymamma





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

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2008 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
crazymamma wrote:
You are very naive indeed if you think a simple straight deduction on my taxes will compensate me for the possible ricocheting effect this carbon tax will have thru the economy.

As I've said many times before, each cent that the government collects through this tax is one less cent that they have to collect through other taxes. It's a zero sum game.




Right GC except my nine folks usage is going to ease the tax burden of my selfish wasteful turd of a neighbor, it will in no way lower my taxes to the limits that I my family has contributed all the while using less per person the SWT neighbor.

Just how will they compensate me for the increases in every product that I buy that has been affected by this tax? Hmmmmm?

I seem to remember being strung the line, that when they brought in the GST, that the manufacturers would decrease their prices by some 5 to 10%. Did you see that happen? I know I was a bit young, but I don't remember a decrease in prices do you?

It didn't happen, it won't happen. Your dreaming.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2008 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
I have said many times (not necessarily on this forum, but certainly on others) that increasing the GST rebate (rather than cutting the GST) for the poor is a much better way to put money into the pockets of the poor.


The best way to get more money into the pockets of the poor is for them to get off their lazy ass and start working for a living.

Seriously, they already pay 1/10 the taxes of someone making $60,000. At what point does someone like you even say enough is enough?!?
Mac





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

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2008 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
It's a zero sum game.

As Penn & Teller would say.... "That's bullshit!"

-Mac
Bleatmop





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

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2008 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
gc wrote:
It's a zero sum game.

As Penn & Teller would say.... "That's bullshit!"

-Mac


Quite possibly my favorite show of all time. I've been looking for the DVD's for what seems like forever now.
palomino_pony





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 539
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Lower Mainland, BC

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2008 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="gc"]
crazymamma wrote:
As I've said many times before, each cent that the government collects through this tax is one less cent that they have to collect through other taxes. It's a zero sum game.

Have you seen details of the plan?

This will only work if everybody in each of the tax brackets pays the same amount in carbon tax. Because there are different consumptions levels between wage earners in the same tax bracket, a cut in income tax won't make it revenue neutral for all.

If taxpayer A and taxpayer B both earn $70k/year. Taxpayer A pays $500/year in carbon tax while taxpayer B pays $700/year in carbon tax because they live in Northern BC and have longer distances to drive and have to more to heat their home. If a tax cut of say 2% equals $500, how is this revenue neutral for taxpayer B?

How does one determine revenue neutrality on spin-off price increases? It will cost more to produce food and get that food to market. In fact everything will cost more as everything we buy is brought to market somehow by carbon consuming transportation. This will hurt small families and people on fixed incomes.
crazymamma





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

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2008 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bleatmop wrote:
Mac wrote:
gc wrote:
It's a zero sum game.

As Penn & Teller would say.... "That's bullshit!"

-Mac


Quite possibly my favorite show of all time. I've been looking for the DVD's for what seems like forever now.


Have you tried E-Bay?


I found some for the whole five seasons but the price could be a bit much.

http://cgi.ebay.ca/PENN-AND-TE.....dZViewItem
crazymamma





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

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2008 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="palomino_pony"]
gc wrote:
crazymamma wrote:
As I've said many times before, each cent that the government collects through this tax is one less cent that they have to collect through other taxes. It's a zero sum game.

Have you seen details of the plan?

This will only work if everybody in each of the tax brackets pays the same amount in carbon tax. Because there are different consumptions levels between wage earners in the same tax bracket, a cut in income tax won't make it revenue neutral for all.

If taxpayer A and taxpayer B both earn $70k/year. Taxpayer A pays $500/year in carbon tax while taxpayer B pays $700/year in carbon tax because they live in Northern BC and have longer distances to drive and have to more to heat their home. If a tax cut of say 2% equals $500, how is this revenue neutral for taxpayer B?

How does one determine revenue neutrality on spin-off price increases? It will cost more to produce food and get that food to market. In fact everything will cost more as everything we buy is brought to market somehow by carbon consuming transportation. This will hurt small families and people on fixed incomes.


Gc is not going to get our point here, because he thinks is a very good idea on the surface and I guess maybe because it's a liberal idea. He will never acknowledge that it discriminates against large families or that it will not be revenue neutral.

I guess he also doesn't see how this could spur inflation and all those nasty side effects of?
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: Tue May 13, 2008 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

palomino_pony wrote:
Have you seen details of the plan?

Nope, and to be honest I don't really care. I am here to argue why I personally believe in a carbon tax. I am not here to defend Gordon Campbell or Stephane Dion's plans.
Quote:
This will only work if everybody in each of the tax brackets pays the same amount in carbon tax. Because there are different consumptions levels between wage earners in the same tax bracket, a cut in income tax won't make it revenue neutral for all.

I am not trying to claim that it will be revenue neutral for all, I am saying that it will be revenue neutral on average. Some will be worse off, but some will be better off. But I believe that people should pay for what they use (at least, if they can afford it), so it makes sense that if you use more of something that you should pay more. Right now, people are using the environment for free. It does not cost anything to pollute the environment with your car. Now we could quibble about the "cost" of the environment, but I hope we can both agree that the cost is not zero. But that's how it works now, people can "use" the environment as much as they want without paying a cent. Some people on this board might even call that socialism.
Quote:
How does one determine revenue neutrality on spin-off price increases? It will cost more to produce food and get that food to market. In fact everything will cost more as everything we buy is brought to market somehow by carbon consuming transportation.

But again, the extra prices in that food is extra revenue for the government, and that means the government needs less revenue from other sources. I've said it before, and I'll say it again every cent that the government collects from carbon taxes is one less cent that they have to collect from other (e.g. income) taxes
Mac





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

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2008 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again every cent that the government collects from carbon taxes is one less cent that they have to collect from other (e.g. income) taxes

Saying it's so doesn't make it so. Every cent collected from carbon taxes is another cent for the government to spend. It will never be a zero sum game.

-Mac
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 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