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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 6
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:27 pm    Post subject: BC introduces carbon tax Reply with quote

Quote:
B.C. introduces carbon tax
Province is first jurisdiction in North America to have consumer-based carbon tax

By Jonathan Fowlie and Fiona Anderson, Vancouver Sun
Published: Tuesday, February 19, 2008

VICTORIA -- Driving and other fuel-dependent activities are about to get more expensive as British Columbia becomes the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce a consumer-based carbon tax.

However, Finance Minister Carole Taylor vowed Tuesday that all money collected through the new tax will be returned through a package of tax cuts and credits.

"We have to find a way that we can work towards improving our environment, but at the same time do it in a way that keeps our economy strong," said Taylor, as she presented a budget that, aside from the carbon tax, commits $1 billion over four years to fight climate change.

The $37.7 billion provincial budget also promises an additional $2.9 billion over three years for health care spending. That brings the total health budget to $13.8 billion for the coming year.


http://www.canada.com/vancouve.....mp;k=38130
Craig
Site Admin




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

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm a fan of this move. I favor "pay per use" taxes over productivity taxes any day. The fact that it is revenue neutral is great.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm curious to see how this will work. How much will it cost? Which taxes are going to be reduced?

IMO, reducing income tax will not be effective because a carbon tax will disproportionately affect low income earners, who don't pay income tax. Therefore, lowering income taxes to offset the increased costs of a carbon tax will not help the people who are affected the most by this.

As I've argued here before, consumption taxes should be lowered to offset the carbon tax.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hm, according to an article I've read, this will add 2.5 cents to a litre of gasoline. IMO, that won't be enough to actually change consumption patterns.

Heck, gas around here can go up or down 3 cents over the course of one day!

Looks to me like this is pretty much a tax grab, though at least they seem to be reducing income taxes, shifting taxation from production to consumption, which is good.

I wonder if this 2.5 cent increase will apply to ethanol? If not I could see how that might influence consumption patterns.
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.smalldeadanimals.co.....08081.html

Quote:
All those who scream about Hummers and wasteful consumers may be discussing their neighbors, but they aren't discussing the US as a whole. For about 9 years gasoline consumption has been dropping, and in 2007 consumption was the lowest for ten years.


Perhaps they are solving a problem that has already solved itself?
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: Wed Feb 20, 2008 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
I'm a fan of this move. I favor "pay per use" taxes over productivity taxes any day. The fact that it is revenue neutral is great.

I like this idea too (hey, we actually agree on something :lol: )

I think once people see that the economy in B.C. doesn't tank as a result, other provinces will follow suit...
Mac





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

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
I'm a fan of this move. I favor "pay per use" taxes over productivity taxes any day. The fact that it is revenue neutral is great.

I'll believe it's "revenue neutral' when I see it. This is a Liberal government, folks. They'll say whatever it takes to get re-elected and "revenue neutral" is what they're hoping will save their bacon.

I think it's a stupid idea and it'll drive inflation in BC crazy in the short term and it'll damage our economy in the medium term. In the long term? I'm hoping it'll bring about the arrival of a conservative political party to finally throw all these damn socialists out of government in BC.

I've already sent a note to my MLA telling what I thought about it. :mad:

-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: Thu Feb 21, 2008 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
I'm hoping it'll bring about the arrival of a conservative political party to finally throw all these damn socialists out of government in BC.

Wouldn't the "socialists" be in favour of taxing income/businesses/productivity, rather than (as Craig pointed out) a "pay per use" tax?
If anything, I'd say it's the people opposed to this tax who are the "socialists".
Mac





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

PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Wouldn't the "socialists" be in favour of taxing income/businesses/productivity, rather than (as Craig pointed out) a "pay per use" tax?
If anything, I'd say it's the people opposed to this tax who are the "socialists".

The socialists are already taxing income, businesses and productivity. This is just another tax grab and an ill-considered one at that. Their "tax and spend" philosophy and their warped priorities is what defines them as socialists.

I would argue this supposed "carbon tax" is not a "pay per use" tax since the essence of "pay per use" is choice. Those who will end up paying the most on this don't have any choice if they wish to keep their jobs... and since those jobs are essential to the survival of our population, they will end up deferring those costs onto consumers, driving inflation.

Does the trucker have a choice? If he doesn't deliver the groceries, the cities begin to starve very quickly. How about the farmer? If he doesn't use his tractors and other equipment, how will the food get produced?

Perhaps you can explain your second assertion since it makes no sense whatsoever to me. Why would opposing an ill-considered tax make someone a socialist?

-Mac
Kafer





Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 33
Reputation: 17.1Reputation: 17.1

PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The tax will apply to virtually all fossil fuels, including gasoline, diesel, natural gas, coal, propane and home heating fuel. It will increase each year until 2012, reaching a final price of about 7.2 cents per litre at the pumps.

http://www.canada.com/reginale.....0be31f27cc

I just recently acquired an electric hotwater tank and terasen will be here in the next few weeks to remove my natural gas meter. I stopped using the furnace 3 years ago when I bought my house (saved about 500.00/winter reverting back to electric) but unfortunetaly my hot water tank was natural gas too. I was recently informed by terasen that I will still be changed a rental fee on the meter even though I am not using it, therefore I have asked for it to be removed.

Next on my list of improvements is a wood burning stove, just have to get it passed my house insurance provider.
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: Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
The socialists are already taxing income, businesses and productivity. This is just another tax grab and an ill-considered one at that.

Yes, but income and business taxes will go down (see my thread "tax cuts mean nothing" to see why this tax must be revenue neutral - unless spending increases).

What it comes down to is: would you rather tax someone for working hard and earning money, or would you rather tax them for polluting?
Quote:
Their "tax and spend" philosophy and their warped priorities is what defines them as socialists.

You can criticize them for their spending, but not for their taxation (again, see my previous thread). If spending isn't increasing, they are no more socialist then they were before.
Quote:
I would argue this supposed "carbon tax" is not a "pay per use" tax since the essence of "pay per use" is choice. Those who will end up paying the most on this don't have any choice if they wish to keep their jobs... and since those jobs are essential to the survival of our population, they will end up deferring those costs onto consumers, driving inflation.

Well, I don't have a "choice" when it comes to buying food. I have to eat, and therefore I have to pay for food. Maybe the government should give us all free food so that we have the choice not to spend money on food?
You also don't have a choice but to pay income tax, if you wish to keep your job. So where is the choice in that tax? And how is that any better than a carbon tax? I'm sure if we had the "choice", none of us would be paying any tax :lol:
Quote:
Perhaps you can explain your second assertion since it makes no sense whatsoever to me. Why would opposing an ill-considered tax make someone a socialist?

Socialists want the government to pay for everything. Socialists want everything for free (well, at taxpayers expense). People opposed to a carbon tax want to be able to pollute for free without paying for it.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Next on my list of improvements is a wood burning stove, just have to get it passed my house insurance provider.


If they give you a problem you could look into an outdoor wood stove that pumps the heat into your house. A number of people have them in my area.
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So if it is truly revenue neutral, that is no person is spending any more under that carbon tax then before, then how exactly does that discourage anything?

PS. If "revenue neutral" is just another weasel word phrase, say so now.
crazymamma





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

PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool Blue wrote:
Hm, according to an article I've read, this will add 2.5 cents to a litre of gasoline. IMO, that won't be enough to actually change consumption patterns.

Heck, gas around here can go up or down 3 cents over the course of one day!

Looks to me like this is pretty much a tax grab, though at least they seem to be reducing income taxes, shifting taxation from production to consumption, which is good.

I wonder if this 2.5 cent increase will apply to ethanol? If not I could see how that might influence consumption patterns.



Why Bio-fuels? Studies show that the clear cutting of land, fertilizer, shipping and manufacturing of bio-fuels does in effect produce more carbon then ordinary gas.

Not to mention that good land that once produced food for the masses now produces fuel for cars. Not effecting the price of staples like wheat etc,.... that the poor rely on to eat.

Not to mention that there is predicted to soon be a tequila shortage due to crop changes in Mexico for Bio-fuels. :shock:
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yep, hop shortages, barley shortages in Germany as farmers switch to diesel producing canola, $22 per bushel durum (durum is used in pasta), $20 per bushel wheat ($8 if you have to sell to the CWB...). Bio fuels are probably the best farm subsidy I have seen in my lifetime.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 6

Goto page 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