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 3 of 6
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
palomino_pony





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

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I did some quick math, and at my current fuel consumption (gasoline and natural gas for heating and cooking), I will be paying $400 a year extra by 2012. This is only the direct cost of the carbon tax that I know of at this point and I have no idea how to calculate the passed down costs of higher shipping costs, etc. Can any of the people who are in favour of this tax tell me how I get this $400 back?

BTW, the FP reports:
Quote:
Emissions from landfills and agriculture -- as well as from makers of oil, gas, aluminum and cement -- will not be taxed. Together, those emissions make up 30% of the province's carbon footprint -- although some may be covered in a cap-and-trade system expected to be unveiled late this summer.
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Probably, by gassing up in the US, as a lot of BC residents already do, if you live close enough to the border.
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: Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Actually, that's what you're trying to make it into a debate about and I'm saying (again) that I'm not playing along. I know it's a pet peeve but I don't like repeating myself over and over. If you have a valid point of comparison between a provincial consumption tax on fuels and a federal income tax, bring it forward. Otherwise, desist this ridiculous "either/or" question. Both options suck and it won't be revenue neutral.

Mac,
I'd like to ask you a hypothetical question (I know how much you hate answering my questions, but I can assure you this is a very valid question):

Let's pretend that the B.C. government did not increase spending by one cent, and let's say that they reduced income taxes (or other taxes) by EXACTLY the same amount that will be raised through the carbon tax...would you then be in favour of the carbon tax, or opposed to it?

Quote:
This has NOTHING to do with pollution. They're using enviro-activism as an excuse for a tax grab; nothing else. The fact that pollution might be reduced (if and only if some people stop driving) is immaterial to the government. None of their propaganda even mentioned pollution.

I never said pollution would be reduced (though I agree with Craig's point that it will, even if only by a small amount), I said they are taxing pollution. That much is a fact. When the government taxes income, their goal is not to try to discourage people from making money.
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: Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

palomino_pony wrote:
I did some quick math, and at my current fuel consumption (gasoline and natural gas for heating and cooking), I will be paying $400 a year extra by 2012. This is only the direct cost of the carbon tax that I know of at this point and I have no idea how to calculate the passed down costs of higher shipping costs, etc. Can any of the people who are in favour of this tax tell me how I get this $400 back?

If everyone in the province is paying $400, that's a lot of revenue for the government. Assuming they don't increase spending, what else can they do with that money besides give it back to you in the form of other tax cuts? So, if everyone is paying $400 a year, you can expect to pay $400 less in income (or other) taxes.

Also, if anyone is serious about trying to reduce how much carbon tax you pay, you could:

Live closer to work
Walk, run, or ride you bike to work
Take the bus to work
Carpool
Buy a more fuel efficient car
Insulate your home
Keep your home at a cooler temperature in the winter

I'm sure there are a million more ways, but there's a few examples...
Mac





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

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Mac,
I'd like to ask you a hypothetical question (I know how much you hate answering my questions, but I can assure you this is a very valid question):

I don't hate answering questions. In fact, I would say I'm one of the few regulars who will answer direct questions... and, unlike most, I acknowledge when someone answers my questions, especially if it proves me wrong. I won't answer loaded questions since it serves no purpose. I asked politely for you to either bring forward a valid point or desist. My patience with your "debate" has about run it's course. One of my pet peeves is going over the same ground repeatedly without change or any apparent purpose. You're doing exactly that. Get on with it.

gc wrote:
Let's pretend that the B.C. government did not increase spending by one cent, and let's say that they reduced income taxes (or other taxes) by EXACTLY the same amount that will be raised through the carbon tax...would you then be in favour of the carbon tax, or opposed to it?

What part of "BOTH OPTIONS SUCK" didn't you understand? I am opposed to the carbon tax and I firmly believe it will damage the economy of BC.

Tell you what... why not pretend I answered whatever way you'd like and then, perhaps, you can finally make your point?

gc wrote:
I never said pollution would be reduced (though I agree with Craig's point that it will, even if only by a small amount), I said they are taxing pollution. That much is a fact. When the government taxes income, their goal is not to try to discourage people from making money.

I love it when people make up "facts" to prove a point.

We're talking about a consumption tax. Consumption taxes are, by their nature, regressive. Pollution is one possible result of using the commodity but the tax is on the purchase, not the end result.

If the tax was directly on the end result (pollution), it might be a different matter but I would still object since it would take a tremendous bureaucracy to administer such a tax and the "gain" would be dubious at best.

Income taxes might not be intended to discourage people from making money but the practical result is to punish those who are industrious and use the ill-gotten gains to reward those who aren't industrious.

-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: Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
I don't hate answering questions. In fact, I would say I'm one of the few regulars who will answer direct questions... and, unlike most, I acknowledge when someone answers my questions, especially if it proves me wrong. I won't answer loaded questions since it serves no purpose. I asked politely for you to either bring forward a valid point or desist. My patience with your "debate" has about run it's course. One of my pet peeves is going over the same ground repeatedly without change or any apparent purpose. You're doing exactly that. Get on with it.

Wow, I've asked you about 4 or 5 questions, and you still refuse to answer. One of my pet peeves is when people can't answer a very simple question. Maybe I should give up soon...
Quote:
What part of "BOTH OPTIONS SUCK" didn't you understand? I am opposed to the carbon tax and I firmly believe it will damage the economy of BC.

What are you saying, we should have ZERO tax???
Just humour me here, and pretend that you are going to have to pay taxes one way or another, would you rather pay them on income or on pollution (is this the 4th or 5th time I've asked this question?)
Quote:
Tell you what... why not pretend I answered whatever way you'd like and then, perhaps, you can finally make your point?

I'm not trying to make a point, I'm asking you for your OPINION.

Quote:
If the tax was directly on the end result (pollution), it might be a different matter but I would still object since it would take a tremendous bureaucracy to administer such a tax and the "gain" would be dubious at best.

Sure, and if people are buying gasoline and NOT using it then you might have a point...but how many people would do that???
Quote:
Income taxes might not be intended to discourage people from making money but the practical result is to punish those who are industrious and use the ill-gotten gains to reward those who aren't industrious.

Sure, and my question AGAIN is whether you would rather punish someone for making income or punish them for polluting? (again, assuming that the government must collect taxes in some form - I can't think of any government in recent Canadian history that didn't collect taxes...)
Mac





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

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Wow, I've asked you about 4 or 5 questions, and you still refuse to answer. One of my pet peeves is when people can't answer a very simple question. Maybe I should give up soon...

I have answered but you don't like the answer. Your problem, not mine.

gc wrote:
What are you saying, we should have ZERO tax???
Just humour me here, and pretend that you are going to have to pay taxes one way or another, would you rather pay them on income or on pollution (is this the 4th or 5th time I've asked this question?)

I will answer again for the last time: BOTH OPTIONS SUCK. Is that clear enough? I refuse to be a happy tax slave. You should refuse as well.

gc wrote:
I'm not trying to make a point, I'm asking you for your OPINION.

In other words, your question is pointless since I've repeatedly offered my opinion.

gc wrote:
Sure, and if people are buying gasoline and NOT using it then you might have a point...but how many people would do that???

The point is they're not taxing the pollution. They're taxing the consumption. They're using taxation to control the behaviour of citizens. Do you find that a trifle unsettling?

The pollution is irrelevant to the government. This is simply another tax grab; one that will touch every aspect of our economy, raising the cost of living for every citizen for (at best) dubious gains.

gc wrote:
Sure, and my question AGAIN is whether you would rather punish someone for making income or punish them for polluting? (again, assuming that the government must collect taxes in some form - I can't think of any government in recent Canadian history that didn't collect taxes...)

One has nothing to do with the other and I oppose them both.

I don't think governments should punish honest citizens, especially not through unfair taxation. Taxation is a necessary evil since governments need funds to operate. The problem is governments are delving into all aspects of citizens' lives which should be outside of their jurisdiction. I'm sick to death of paying for socialism; of governments strong-arming me and using my money to pay for their pet social engineering projects.

-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: Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
I will answer again for the last time: BOTH OPTIONS SUCK. Is that clear enough? I refuse to be a happy tax slave. You should refuse as well.

Ok, let me try again: Which one sucks MORE?????

Is that clear enough?
Mac





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

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Ok, let me try again: Which one sucks MORE?????

Is that clear enough?

It's always been clear. They suck in different ways because they're completely unrelated so comparing them is a really inane and pointless waste of time.

Tell you what... take two things you dislike intensely... perhaps a newspaper and a novel. Does it make sense to comparing them since they're two completely different things for all they're several things in common? If I asked you which you hated worse, your answer would likely be something like mine... "They both suck."

-Mac
palomino_pony





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

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
If everyone in the province is paying $400, that's a lot of revenue for the government.

Um, it is not supposed to be generate revenue. It is <i>supposed</i> to be "revenue neutral", remember.

gc wrote:
Assuming they don't increase spending, what else can they do with that money besides give it back to you in the form of other tax cuts? So, if everyone is paying $400 a year, you can expect to pay $400 less in income (or other) taxes.

Spending has increased in the last budget. See my last post on this same topic about the billions of dollars on new road spending. There are budget overruns on almost every Olympic facility, especially the convention centre.

gc wrote:

Also, if anyone is serious about trying to reduce how much carbon tax you pay, you

Live closer to work
Walk, run, or ride you bike to work
Wife walks to work.
Take the bus to work
Carpool
Buy a more fuel efficient car
Insulate your home
Keep your home at a cooler temperature in the winter

I'm sure there are a million more ways, but there's a few examples...


I bike to work and when the weather sucks because of the snow or heavy rain I take SkyTrain, which incendently they increased the fares at the start of the year. How is that for logic. Try and encourage transit ridership, but jack up the fares? Why should I buy a new car? I have mine paid off and I don't need to spend $25K on a hybrid just to save a few dollars.

And BTW, how do any of these tips make it so I get my money back? Other than spending money on a car all of these don't make it revenue neurtral. These are things that might help me reduce what I would pay, they are not things that negate what I pay. I do these already because it is common sense.

All I have right now is the governemnt's word that things will work out in the end. This is same governement that said that there would be no cost overruns for the new convention center, which is as of November 2007 was over budget by $388 MILLION.

A cynic might suggest that this is a tax grab to help pay for the ballooning costs of the 2010 Olympics.

<edit> Billion should have read "million" :oops:. Thanks Mac </edit>


Last edited by palomino_pony on Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:05 am; edited 2 times 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: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

palomino_pony wrote:
Um, it is not supposed to be generate revenue. It is <i>supposed</i> to be "revenue neutral", remember.

Of course the carbon tax will generate revenue. I think the fact that it is "revenue neutral" means that any revenue generated by this tax will be returned to taxpayers in other forms of tax. For example, by reducing income taxes.
Quote:
I bike to work and when the weather sucks because of the snow or heavy rain I take SkyTrain, which incendently they increased the fares at the start of the year. How is that for logic. Try and encourage transit ridership, but jack up the fares?

I couldn't agree with you more. I would love to see public transit lower in cost to encourage people to use it.
Quote:
These are things that might help me reduce what I would pay, they are not things that negate what I pay. I do these already because it is common sense.

The fact that income taxes should, in theory, be reduced as a result will negate what you pay. The fact that you already ride your bike or take public transit (good for you by the way, there are a lot of people who could do these things but don't) means you should be paying less than what other people who drive are paying. So, you should actually end up with more money at the end of the day.
Quote:
A cynic might suggest that this is a tax grab to help pay for the ballooning costs of the 2010 Olympics.

Hey, I'm opposed to spending on the 2010 olympics and other wasteful spending. But the fact is, there are cost overruns and they need to be paid for somehow - as unfortunate as that may be. So assuming that the government is going to raise taxes to pay for the olympics, would you rather the government raise income taxes or would you rather have this carbon tax?
palomino_pony





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

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
would you rather the government raise income taxes or would you rather have this carbon tax?
A tax is a tax. On the scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the worst, both are a 10. You are asking me if I would perfer to be kicked in the left shin or the right shin. I don't want to be kicked.

BTW, I have not seen anything about how my taxes will be reduced. Just a promise at this point, but I know when the price at the pump will start going up. Funny how you get details on when the citizens have to pay but there is not a lot news about how much the taxes are going down (if at all).

And the price increases for other things are already starting - BC Ferries is preparing the public for an increase in fares. At 2.4 cents a liter, BC Ferries expendatures just went up $3.3 million a year thanks to this carbon tax (er carbon cash grab). Everyone in the transportation industry (truck, rail, boat, air) will be paying a higher price for fuel and they will be passing this down to the consumer. Where is the revenue neutrallity in that?
Mac





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

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

palomino_pony wrote:
All I have right now is the governemnt's word that things will work out in the end. This is same governement that said that there would be no cost overruns for the new convention center, which is as of November 2007 was over budget by $388 BILLION.

Not meaning to defend the Campbell government but I believe the cost overruns are around $388 million, bringing the total cost up from the original estimate of just over $500 million (which seemed outrageous at the time) to nearly $1 billion.

Think of that: nearly $1 billion tax-payer dollars for one facility in one city. Anyone still want to argue that Campbell's government rules from the right? I didn't think so...

-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: Sat Feb 23, 2008 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

palomino_pony wrote:
You are asking me if I would perfer to be kicked in the left shin or the right shin. I don't want to be kicked.

Yes, but if the choice is between being kicked in the shins and being kicked in the balls, I'd choose getting kicked in the shins any day....
Craig
Site Admin




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

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

palomino_pony wrote:
I did some quick math, and at my current fuel consumption (gasoline and natural gas for heating and cooking), I will be paying $400 a year extra by 2012. This is only the direct cost of the carbon tax that I know of at this point and I have no idea how to calculate the passed down costs of higher shipping costs, etc. Can any of the people who are in favour of this tax tell me how I get this $400 back?


I five percent drop in income taxes.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 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


BC introduces carbon tax

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB