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
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 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

palomino_pony wrote:
How can balance a consumption tax with an income tax?


Easy. The government receives X amount of dollars from income taxes and X amount of dollars from consumption taxes. If consumption tax revenue goes up by X amount of dollars then you reduce income taxes by an equivalent amount here.

I thought that out in a matter of 20 seconds. Am I missing something here? This is basic accounting.
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 1:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


I don't think he was suggesting that every solution he proposed would work for everyone.

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


Doesn't work for me but it does work for my wife.

Quote:
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.


Everyone has to buy a car eventually. It sounds like you already have a TDI therefore you agree with his proposal.

Quote:
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.


Not really expensive. Caulk the windows. Put in storm windows. $300 in extra insulation will pay for itself in two years in many situations.

Quote:
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...


Heck - there are lots of people who don't have programmable thermostats. I can't believe that. They cost $40. They will pay for themselves in one winter month.
palomino_pony





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

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
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.


Except some people burn carbon in order to be productive and to generate incomes for their families.

How does this tax discriminate between those that fill up their Hummer for drives up to Whister vs those who drive a taxi for a living? Oh ya, we the government's "word" that the taxi driver's business tax goes down. Perhaps this will fine for now, but heaven forbid should the free enterprise hating NDP come into power.
Mac





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

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Please support that position. Nothing I've seen of this "carbon tax" leads me to believe the Liberals intend this to be anything other than a "green-washed" tax grab with a nod & smile promise to make it all "revenue neutral" without any meaningful definition of what "revenue neutral" means. After all, liberal "tax-and-spend" governance is revenue neutral as long as no deficit spending occurs.

The fact a group of conservatives are arguing for yet another tax doesn't fill my heart with delight. I think I understand why kwlafayette is staying out of this one...

-Mac
Mac





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

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
I don't think he was suggesting that every solution he proposed would work for everyone.

Did I say anything to this effect?

Craig wrote:
Doesn't work for me but it does work for my wife.

Good for you. I live in the most expensive real estate market in Canada. Our cost of living, aside from real estate, is also the highest in Canada since businesses here have to either pay premium rates for commercial real estate or go hours out of town and pay higher transportation costs. This carbon tax means those costs just jumped.

Craig wrote:
Everyone has to buy a car eventually. It sounds like you already have a TDI therefore you agree with his proposal.

Don't jump to conclusions... I also have a Hummer and I don't agreed with his proposal.

I bought the TDI because I appreciate efficiency as being it's own reward. It was more costly than a similarly equipped gasoline powered model but, over the lifetime of the vehicle, it paid off the difference in price. Not everyone has the option to buy a more expensive model otherwise we would all be driving new high efficiency models. So this carbon tax unfairly targets those working poor who cannot afford newer cars.

Craig wrote:
Not really expensive. Caulk the windows. Put in storm windows. $300 in extra insulation will pay for itself in two years in many situations.

My furnace cost more than $300. My window replacement cost more than $300. My insulated doors cost more than $300.

Knowing the prices of insulation, $300 might insulate an attic if you did the work yourself but nothing more. If the attic is already insulated, throwing more on top would be a waste of $300.

Are you going to argue that, because I've done all of these things well in advance of a carbon tax, I therefore support the suggestion? Don't bother. Efficiency for it's own sake... plus it improves the resale value of the house.

Craig wrote:
Heck - there are lots of people who don't have programmable thermostats. I can't believe that. They cost $40. They will pay for themselves in one winter month.

True but most people believe they lack the skills to install a programmable thermostat. I know it's pretty basic but I know guys who will call an electrician to replace a light switch.

-Mac
GMcRae





Joined: 26 Feb 2008
Posts: 11


PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
palomino_pony wrote:
How can balance a consumption tax with an income tax?


Easy. The government receives X amount of dollars from income taxes and X amount of dollars from consumption taxes. If consumption tax revenue goes up by X amount of dollars then you reduce income taxes by an equivalent amount here.

I thought that out in a matter of 20 seconds. Am I missing something here? This is basic accounting.


palomino_pony here.... I have not been able to log onto my account for the past 2 days.

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. If a tax cut of say 2% equals $500, how is revenue neutral for taxpayer B?
Mac





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

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GMcRae wrote:
palomino_pony here.... I have not been able to log onto my account for the past 2 days.

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. If a tax cut of say 2% equals $500, how is revenue neutral for taxpayer B?

Not sure what's up with your account. Everything is working as far as I can tell... although I understand the MSN network (including Hotmail) was down for a while.

Evidently "revenue neutral" won't be individual, only overall and, as I said earlier, as long as the Liberals "tax-and-spend" then they will remain revenue neutral. In other words, it's a green-washed tax grab.

-Mac
GMcRae





Joined: 26 Feb 2008
Posts: 11


PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Evidently "revenue neutral" won't be individual, only overall


That is the point I was waiting for one of the pro-taxers to back their way into. This tax will be more revenue neutral for some than it is for others. I guess that is the goal of this social experiment, force societial change with regressive tax policies.

I am glad I bike/take transit to work and don't have a job that has me driving to diifferent construction sites with tools.
palomino_pony





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

PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2008 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Revenue neutral? Yeah right....

http://communities.canada.com/.....rophe.aspx
Quote:
It appears that taxpayers will contribute $3.8 billion more to government coffers by 2012 than they would have in the absence of the carbon tax and, because it is the most regressive form of taxation, the lowest-income households will bear a disproportionate share of the tax burden.
...
In short, the government is betting that the carbon tax will not only do nothing to depress demand but that we'll consume more greenhouse-gas rich fuels than historical trends have shown.


Good explanation on how cities will be screwed by the carbon tax. Basically they pass the costs onto the citizens.
Quote:
Port Coquitlam, for example, estimates that the carbon tax will add $821,000 to the cost side of the ledger over the city's five-year economic plan. It intends to pass on that cost to residents through a phased-in 1.75-per-cent property tax increase. Municipalities need to heat buildings and operate fleets of cars and trucks, incurring carbon costs that must be recouped through higher taxes or municipal service fees. This kind of tax increase doesn't appear to be included in the province's
estimates.


What about business? More doom and gloom thanks to the carbon tax.
Quote:
...In Norway, for example, per capita consumption since 1990 has grown at the double the Canadian rate. The only reason Norway's greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced in the past few years is that taxes have shut down much of the forest industry and forced closure of a magnesium production facility. Government spending now represents 51 per cent of Norway's economy, 43 per cent of France's, 40 per cent of Sweden's, and 37 per cent of Denmark's, Donnelly wrote in a recent e-mail dispatch. "Last year Germany's Department of Trade and Industry officially reported that every new job that was added to the German economy between 1995 and 2005 is 'economically insignificant' -- European lingo for a job that will disappear if government cuts back employer subsidies," she said. Is this the future carbon tax proponents want
for Canada?
Here's something else to consider. Natural gas is priced at the wholesale level before tax, so B.C. natural gas is the same price for a sawmill in Washington state as it is for a B.C. producer. Under the carbon tax regime, the B.C. producer will pay 50 cents a gigajoule more for B.C. gas on July 1, $1 more on July 1 next year and $1.50 more the year after that. The Washington state producer pays no tax. Is it any wonder B.C. forest industry executives are talking about permanent closures? As presently designed, B.C.'s carbon tax will further impoverish the poor, destroy productive industries, imperil public finances, erode the province's competitive position and ignite inflation -- and it won't make an iota of difference to greenhouse gas emissions.


Indeed...
Quote:
Doesn't anyone have the common sense to pull the plug on this catastrophe in the making before it's too late?
Mac





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

PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2008 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Price of regular gas is $1.319 now. Imagine how it'll be in July when they start gouging the carbon tax on top of all that...

-Mac
crazymamma





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

PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2008 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Price of regular gas is $1.319 now. Imagine how it'll be in July when they start gouging the carbon tax on top of all that...

-Mac


1.319? I was just about to have a fit when it hit 1.229 it has settled at 1.169 today and I was shaking my head. It just sucks for a big family like mine. Not like I have the option to drive anything smallish at all. Yeah I know I wanted all those sweet souls and now I gotta pay thru the nose to drive them around. I always just thought I would be paying thru the nose to properly educate them.
Mac





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

PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2008 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Filling my Hummer isn't much fun but I knew that when I bought it...

-Mac
palomino_pony





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

PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2008 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Price of regular gas is $1.319 now. Imagine how it'll be in July when they start gouging the carbon tax on top of all that...

Just this week people were lined up around the block when gas was $1.24. I was one of them. I am glad I don't have to fill it up that often. I try to commute by bike/SkyTrain/walk when ever possible.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2008 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My primary vehicle is usually a pickup, but a couple years ago I bought a car instead because I got a smokin' deal on a lease-back. I had a little bit of regret, which has recently been replaced by regret that I bought a V6 instead of a V4... I was one of those paying 1.249 the other day.
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2008 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

People are so irrational about the price of gas. What does it cost you, 3% of your salary? Less? Bottled water, Coka Cola, both are more expensive. The only difference is that the price of bottled water is not posted up in billboards all around town.
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


BC introduces carbon tax

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB