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  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mac





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

PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big Tuna wrote:
As oil prices go up the country gets richer as the people get poorer. There's something wrong with this situation. They need to use the increased revenues from the oil to help people deal with the higher prices. Coldest winter in years and people can't afford to heat their homes anymore.

There is something definitely wrong with this situation... a couple things, actually. Why do you want to take my money and give it to other people? Why do you think that's okay? What proof do you have that "the people get poorer" unless you mean because of the outrageously excessive amount of taxation we pay?

Short of nationalizing oil resources (and you can guess how well another version of the National Energy Program would be received) you're talking about using tax dollars to subsidize energy costs which means I get to pay for someone else's problem again, per usual. Sure as hell if there is a subsidy program, I won't get a dime because I make too much money. Great incentive to work hard... you get to pay more taxes so your take-home pay stays the same!!

-Mac
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is so true. Investors take on risk, exploration companies take on risk, then when it is time to reap the rewards, there is always a socialist (yes I said it, because what you are proposing is socialism) around who says how "everybody must benefit from this windfall". People who did not invest have no right, people who took no risk have no right. It is like saying that I should have a right to your house.

News flash, socialism has not helped anybody ever. The reserve system, a socialist enterprise. Everything owned communally, and most people crushingly poor. Medicine, a rationed resource. Its free, but you just might die before you can get what you need (unless you are a doctor or know someone, then you can get in right away). I cannot think of one socialist program, that benefits people, or one socialist country that I would want to move my family to.

Capitalism on the other hand, has made more people wealthy, fed more people, spread more money around, and raised the standard of living higher than the world has ever seen. All the great places on earth to live? Capitalist economic systems.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

As for the heat, I do just fine. In fact, after the new furnace was installed, and a meter reading taken, there was no gas bill for about 2 months there. It is called looking after your own, instead of sitting on your duff waiting for the government to do it for you.
hamiltonguyo





Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 250
Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5

PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool Blue wrote:
Quote:
I'd rather they take that revenue and give us another GST cut, or rise in the basic personal exemption.


The price increase may be just temporary, the old Harper proposal would have seen the tax removed when prices went over $1.25, but it would be put back on when it dropped again.

So it isn't really meant to provide for a permanent tax cut.

Quote:
A gas tax cut only benefits people who use lots of gas


And anybody who happens to, y'know, "eat" (buy groceries).

Gasoline increases affect everybody because the majority of goods in Canada are delivered by trucks which will cause an inflationary effect.


A 10 cent per litre drop won't make a big difference to buying goods. Besides if you buy local rather than goods shipped across the country or world aren't you saving money on fuel then?

I don't drive more than a few times a year, so I hardly pay the gas tax. So i'm opposed to any cutting of it. All you'll do is raise demand for gas, which will increase pollution and congestion. Meanwhile if you cut GST or Income Tax you'll help everybody and not increase pollution and congestion.
Mac





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

PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
News flash, socialism has not helped anybody ever.

Those who claim socialism "helps" are looking at the short-term benefit... Yes, welfare feeds people (sometimes) but it always comes with a cost and/or a string.

The Russian variety of Communism didn't collapse because it was a system of excellence. The Chinese economy was stagnate and people were starving until free market concepts were introduced. As long as people in Canada keep demanding handouts and our government foolishly responds, our economy will be bridled as well.

-Mac
Blue Meanie





Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 329
Reputation: 54.7
votes: 3
Location: B.C.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hamiltonguyo wrote:
..... Besides if you buy local rather than goods shipped across the country or world aren't you saving money on fuel then?


Yup. Buy local, thats the secret to saving money on fuel and saving the planet. You would save big time because fuel is delivered by truck, so your local gas station wouldn't have any for you to buy anyhow. Not a problem though, you could walk or bike to the local grocery store. Too bad there won't be much to buy there though. But there are a couple of local farmers about 25km. away that had a good crop of potatoes and corn. If you get an early start you could be there by lunch. If they have any left to sell (local demand being what it is.Imagine!), expect to pay through the nose. And people think the gas companies are price gougers! Pineapple, oranges, grapefruit, forget it! Yup, you'll be saving lots of money! :roll:
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am so with Mac and kwlafayette on this one.

Canada is a country with a lot of regional autonomy. Alberta sees the oil as its natural resource not Canada's. Lets face it, the federal government does a piss poor handling of natural resources (cod, forestry etc), which I think spells out against nationalization, which would lose Canada tons of current and future investment both abroad and at home and would clearly show we dont believe in free trade thereby hurting out business friendly image.

and we would have to get the oil ourselves.

At least these are non-renewable. :)
And they do take the taxes they make and spend it on their citizens. :P

Anyways as heating starts to cost more and more the government will inevitably be called on to 'do something' and 'take some action to lower prices' which either us or the libs depending on who is in power will do to appease populist demands and cause other problems which will require MORE government intervention to 'solve'
:shock:
TorontoCon





Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 796
Reputation: 50.5
votes: 5

PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great discussion. I'm learning alot. I have one more question though.

Isn't part of the reason we've seen such major SURPLUSSES lately, due to Alberta oil?

We have the tax back guarantee so that Canadians benefit from those "unexpected" surplusses.

So if i'm right, higher oil prices = more money taken (by taxation of industry sale of oil) by the government = higher surplusses = more money for Canadians by tax back guarantee.

Right or wrong?
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is not just oil, it is a resource boom. Potash, gold, nickel, aluminium, iron, steel, oil, coal, natural gas, propane, uranium, all stuff that Canada and the west in particular has in spades. More jobs, less workers, means you have to pay more to attract new workers and keep the ones you have. It is not just gas tax.
hamiltonguyo





Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 250
Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5

PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you buy local it's still less gas than buying from California, Florida etc.

Besides it would be better to spend the gas tax money on finding ways to get out of oil dependency (which will permanently reduce fuel costs for people) rather than cutting the gas tax which will reduce prices temporarily 10 cents per litre.

Besides I've read that since we're much more efficient today that 1.25 per litre is nothing compared to how bad things have been in the past.
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is why in the 70s, at $100 per barrel, we were brought to our knees, and in the 2000's, $108 per barrel means a booming economy.
Big Tuna





Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 368
Reputation: 15
votes: 6

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
That is so true. Investors take on risk, exploration companies take on risk, then when it is time to reap the rewards, there is always a socialist (yes I said it, because what you are proposing is socialism) around who says how "everybody must benefit from this windfall". People who did not invest have no right, people who took no risk have no right. It is like saying that I should have a right to your house.

News flash, socialism has not helped anybody ever. The reserve system, a socialist enterprise. Everything owned communally, and most people crushingly poor. Medicine, a rationed resource. Its free, but you just might die before you can get what you need (unless you are a doctor or know someone, then you can get in right away). I cannot think of one socialist program, that benefits people, or one socialist country that I would want to move my family to.

Capitalism on the other hand, has made more people wealthy, fed more people, spread more money around, and raised the standard of living higher than the world has ever seen. All the great places on earth to live? Capitalist economic systems.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism


First of all I'm not proposing changing our economic system to socialism.

Second of all I'm not even going to bother arguing with someone who beleives "socialism has not helped anybody ever". There are plenty of examples of "socialism" that benefit people greatly. A great example is our local credit union.

Also, if our medicare system has never helped anybody ever I must be missing something.

Sometimes working together to benefit everyone isn't that crazy an idea. Open up your mind a bit. The world isn't black and white.
Big Tuna





Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 368
Reputation: 15
votes: 6

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:

As for the heat, I do just fine. In fact, after the new furnace was installed, and a meter reading taken, there was no gas bill for about 2 months there. It is called looking after your own, instead of sitting on your duff waiting for the government to do it for you.


Mac wrote:

There is something definitely wrong with this situation... a couple things, actually. Why do you want to take my money and give it to other people? Why do you think that's okay? What proof do you have that "the people get poorer" unless you mean because of the outrageously excessive amount of taxation we pay?

Short of nationalizing oil resources (and you can guess how well another version of the National Energy Program would be received) you're talking about using tax dollars to subsidize energy costs which means I get to pay for someone else's problem again, per usual. Sure as hell if there is a subsidy program, I won't get a dime because I make too much money. Great incentive to work hard... you get to pay more taxes so your take-home pay stays the same!!

-Mac


People are getting poorer and it's a fact. They are paying more for oil to heat there homes and they are paying more for gas to drive their cars. Busineses are raising their prices to deal with the increased cost of fuel.

The 70 year old couple on a fixed old age pension can't afford to heat their home anymore but it's there fault. They should work harder. Bunch of lazy seniors.

Federal government revenues are increasing directly because of the price of oil.

and

The majority of the people's income is decreasing directly because of the price of oil.

If the government isn't doing enough to help the people I see a problem with that. Personally I don't think they are doing enough.

If I understand correctly, provincially, Alberta is making billions off royalties. I don't see a problem if the federal government uses it's share of the profits to help out the rest of the country (including those struggling in Alberta) deal with this cost of oil which is making Alberta so rich.
Cool Blue





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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If I understand correctly, provincially, Alberta is making billions off royalties.


Alberta also pays billions into equalization which goes to pay for services in other provinces.

Socialists don't understand that their proposed "cures" will make the problem worse by harming the Alberta economy.

Sure motorists may save a bit on gas, but when Alberta can no longer pay into equalization those complaining and blaming the price of gas on "greedy Alberta" will now have a new thing to complain about: the closings of schools and hospitals.
Cool Blue





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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
this cost of oil which is making Alberta so rich.


Canadians need to get over this.

Sure Alberta is doing well because of oil.

Saskatchewan is also doing well because of oil.

Newfoundland is doing well because of oil.

Nova Scotia is doing well because of oil.

CANADA IS DOING WELL BECAUSE OF OIL.

ALL CANADIANS ARE BETTER OFF THANKS TO ALBERTA.

The only difference between Alberta and the rest of the provinces is that Alberta wasn't held back by socialist government who poo-pooed developing their resources or over-regulated them out of viability. After decades of Albertan success, the other provinces have finally gotten with the program and are starting to catch up.

Finally after decades, thanks to the price of oil, Sask. is now a "have province".

Finally after decades, thanks to the price of oil, Newfoundland has a balanced budget AND a small surplus.

Nova Scotia too is on a path of self-sufficiency and in a few years will no longer be a have-not province.

It is madness to complain that fellow Canadians are having success and the government has to step in and correct this "unfairness".
Big Tuna





Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 368
Reputation: 15
votes: 6

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool Blue wrote:
Quote:
If I understand correctly, provincially, Alberta is making billions off royalties.


Alberta also pays billions into equalization which goes to pay for services in other provinces.

Socialists don't understand that their proposed "cures" will make the problem worse by harming the Alberta economy.

Sure motorists may save a bit on gas, but when Alberta can no longer pay into equalization those complaining and blaming the price of gas on "greedy Alberta" will now have a new thing to complain about: the closings of schools and hospitals.



Cool Blue wrote:
Quote:
this cost of oil which is making Alberta so rich.


Canadians need to get over this.

Sure Alberta is doing well because of oil.

Saskatchewan is also doing well because of oil.

Newfoundland is doing well because of oil.

Nova Scotia is doing well because of oil.

CANADA IS DOING WELL BECAUSE OF OIL.

ALL CANADIANS ARE BETTER OFF THANKS TO ALBERTA.

The only difference between Alberta and the rest of the provinces is that Alberta wasn't held back by socialist government who poo-pooed developing their resources or over-regulated them out of viability. After decades of Albertan success, the other provinces have finally gotten with the program and are starting to catch up.

Finally after decades, thanks to the price of oil, Sask. is now a "have province".

Finally after decades, thanks to the price of oil, Newfoundland has a balanced budget AND a small surplus.

Nova Scotia too is on a path of self-sufficiency and in a few years will no longer be a have-not province.

It is madness to complain that fellow Canadians are having success and the government has to step in and correct this "unfairness".


I'm just saying the federal government revenues are being boosted by the big jump in the price of oil and that I think they should use some of that extra money to help EVERYONE deal with implications of the big jump in oil prices. I don't think they are doing a good job in doing that.

I'm not saying to take every penny from Alberta and give it to everyone else. I definitely never said or would say "greedy Alberta". I completely agree that all Canadians are better off thanks to Alberta and I'm very happy that they are doing so well.

Oh but one more difference between Alberta and the rest of the provinces.. Alberta got to keep 100% of it's resource revenues while still receiving equalization from 1950 to 1964. :D (I just through that in to get you guys all riled up, we don't have to revisit the Atlantic Accords debate again).
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  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


Record oil prices

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB