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: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
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...


Live closer to work, I like that one. Raise you hand if you have $800,000 to spend on a downtown Vancouver condo?

Walk run or ride you bike, an excellent suggestion, and entirely practical for all those people who live 3 hours out and don't have $800,000.

These ideas are so well thought out, i don't think you need me to cheer lead for you.
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 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Live closer to work, I like that one. Raise you hand if you have $800,000 to spend on a downtown Vancouver condo?

Walk run or ride you bike, an excellent suggestion, and entirely practical for all those people who live 3 hours out and don't have $800,000.

Wow, did I say EVERYONE should live close to work? Nope, that was just one suggestion. How about carpooling, or taking public transit?
But there are some people who could live closer to work. I know people who live in Vancouver but work in the suburbs. Figure that one out...
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:58 pm    Post subject: All taxes are not created equal. Reply with quote

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.


I don't think a tax is a tax. I would prefer people be taxed for poluting rather than working. Just like I would prefer a tax on cigarettes rather than vitamin pills.
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:01 pm    Post subject: Balls analogy Reply with quote

Quote:

gc wrote:

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....



Gee, you put that much better than I just did.
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 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Quote:

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...


Live closer to work, I like that one. Raise you hand if you have $800,000 to spend on a downtown Vancouver condo?

Walk run or ride you bike, an excellent suggestion, and entirely practical for all those people who live 3 hours out and don't have $800,000.

These ideas are so well thought out, i don't think you need me to cheer lead for you.


Is there any particular reason you were only critical of a couple of his suggestions and failed to address the other ones...

Car pool --> you don't have to be rich for that one
Buy a more fuel efficient car --> makes economic sense in the long haul
Insulate your home --> I did that one
Keep your home at a cooler temperature in the winter --> A very WELL THOUGHT OUT idea

He presented seven ideas and you mock him because TWO of them aren't practical for you???
Mac





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

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
I five percent drop in income taxes.

Except that won't happen... I would be delighted if it did. 5% would score me a bit more than $400.

kwlafayette wrote:
These ideas are so well thought out, i don't think you need me to cheer lead for you.

I don't mind them making suggestions but the fact remains this tax will raise the cost of living even further. The price of regular gas tonight is $1.195 per liter and the "carbon tax" hasn't even arrive yet.

gc wrote:
Wow, did I say EVERYONE should live close to work? Nope, that was just one suggestion. How about carpooling, or taking public transit?

How are those ideas supposed to help the truckers, the taxi drivers, those who operate mobile businesses, etc.?

peter_puck wrote:
I don't think a tax is a tax. I would prefer people be taxed for poluting rather than working. Just like I would prefer a tax on cigarettes rather than vitamin pills.

How exactly are truckers etc. not being taxed for working? And everyone who buys a product which is trucked or who hires a taxi or who hires a tradesman get to pay. Wonderful solution, this carbon tax... NOT.

Craig wrote:
Is there any particular reason you were only critical of a couple of his suggestions and failed to address the other ones...

Live closer to work- great if you can afford it but doesn't address those of us work from our vehicles.

Walk, run, or ride you bike to work- again, not practical for many of us.

Take the bus to work- even if I wasn't in a job which required a vehicle, there is no bus service within 5 km of my home so I would have to walk/run/ride bike or commute to a "park & ride" to try to catch buses which don't service the hours which I need since they're geared to the 9-to-5 crowd.

Carpool- that's great if you can count on a fixed shift and never work overtime or need to run errands or whatever other kinks life throws at you. I don't have that luxury plus I work from my vehicle often as not.

Buy a more fuel efficient car- expensive solution which many can't afford and there aren't many cars more efficient than our Volks TDI.

Insulate your home- another expensive solution. I've already done so and replaced all my windows with double glazed ones and I have a "super-high efficiency furnace" and all that gack.

Keep your home at a cooler temperature in the winter- finally a practical suggestion which I can't find a problem with... as long as you're healthy...

-Mac
palomino_pony





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

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
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....


I don't think you get it. Not only will I as a BC citizen get kicked, but I will be covering every businesses' kicks as well. Any thing that moves in BC, be it by water, rail, road, or air will cost more. Do you honestly think that BC ferries will not raise their fares to cover the extra $3.3 million they now have to shell out? They have no choice but to raise their fares, just like trucking, rail, and shipping industries will have no choice but to charge more in order to cover the increased transportation costs.

The prices of consumer goods go up, and guess what, the net dollars collected on PST will increase as well, essentially a tax on tax. No wonder the government loves this plan. Perhaps the PST should be eleminated as part of this revenue neutral plan.
Craig
Site Admin




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

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

palomino_pony wrote:
I don't think you get it. Not only will I as a BC citizen get kicked, but I will be covering every businesses' kicks as well. Any thing that moves in BC, be it by water, rail, road, or air will cost more. Do you honestly think that BC ferries will not raise their fares to cover the extra $3.3 million they now have to shell out? They have no choice but to raise their fares, just like trucking, rail, and shipping industries will have no choice but to charge more in order to cover the increased transportation costs.


The government said that the proposal will be revenue neutral though. It won't be hard to keep an eye on that to ensure it is the case. Yes, you will be paying more for the increased business costs BUT business taxes will be decreased which means you will pay less. The end result should be neutrality - whether they hold to their word or not has yet to be seen.
Mac





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

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
The government said that the proposal will be revenue neutral though. It won't be hard to keep an eye on that to ensure it is the case. Yes, you will be paying more for the increased business costs BUT business taxes will be decreased which means you will pay less. The end result should be neutrality - whether they hold to their word or not has yet to be seen.

I find your faith in the honesty and integrity of government touching. Perhaps I'm too cynical but I cannot conceive of this as anything other than a "green-washed" tax grab.

-Mac
Bleatmop





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

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Craig wrote:
The government said that the proposal will be revenue neutral though. It won't be hard to keep an eye on that to ensure it is the case. Yes, you will be paying more for the increased business costs BUT business taxes will be decreased which means you will pay less. The end result should be neutrality - whether they hold to their word or not has yet to be seen.

I find your faith in the honesty and integrity of government touching. Perhaps I'm too cynical but I cannot conceive of this as anything other than a "green-washed" tax grab.

-Mac


I'd agree with Mac here. Also, even if they do make it revenue neutral with this government, there is nothing saying the next government, or even the next budget will continue to do so. I have a healthy mistrust of government promises, especially when they say a new tax won't cost me anything more. Even though I have no vested interest in BC's tax policies (living in Alberta), I still am cynical as to how they are selling this as being revenue neutral.
casper35





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 99
Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BC is simply conditioning its taxpayers to accept carbon taxes.They'll start off with this small amount. Once the taxpayer is sufficiently softened up then they'll raise the amount year after year. Meanwhile they'll find all kinds of projects, studies, programs etc to redirect this green tax revenue towards. Anyone who thinks that the money will be revenue neutral has not studied the history of government and taxation. Basically its take $3.... spend $2...give back $1 then raise a new tax by $.50 the following year. Create new "crisis" and repeat.
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 Feb 24, 2008 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

palomino_pony wrote:
I don't think you get it. Not only will I as a BC citizen get kicked, but I will be covering every businesses' kicks as well. Any thing that moves in BC, be it by water, rail, road, or air will cost more. Do you honestly think that BC ferries will not raise their fares to cover the extra $3.3 million they now have to shell out? They have no choice but to raise their fares, just like trucking, rail, and shipping industries will have no choice but to charge more in order to cover the increased transportation costs.

No, I don't think you get it. Every cent that the government collects from you, and every cent that it collects from businesses, every cent extra you pay at BC ferries...is just one more cent that they don't have to collect from you in other ways, such as income tax.
Quote:
Perhaps the PST should be eleminated as part of this revenue neutral plan.

Sure, that's one idea. Personally, I'd rather see income tax cut instead...
palomino_pony





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

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
No, I don't think you get it. Every cent that the government collects from you, and every cent that it collects from businesses, every cent extra you pay at BC ferries...is just one more cent that they don't have to collect from you in other ways, such as income tax.


If taxpayer A earns $80k a year and gets dinged $500 a year in carbon tax (walks to work and has electric heat) and taxpayer B earns $80k a year and gets dinged $800 a year in carbon tax (has a job the involves transporting tools from job site to job site and uses natural gas to heat his house), what is the formula do you use to reduce their income taxes ensure that things are "neutral"? How can balance a consumption tax with an income tax?

This is not a well thought out idea.
Mac





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

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

palomino_pony wrote:
This is not a well thought out idea.

That doesn't seem to matter to some people.

-Mac
Craig
Site Admin




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

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
palomino_pony wrote:
This is not a well thought out idea.

That doesn't seem to matter to some people.

-Mac


Consumption taxes are far better than taxes on productivity. It is well thought out.
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


BC introduces carbon tax

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB