gc1765

Carbon dioxide is not pollution, and I have never tried to claim that it is. There is, however, plenty of pollution made from the combustion of fossil fuels.

In that case you'd have less money in your pocket now wouldn't you?

Don't be fooled by the name...the two go hand in hand.

Your point?

I don't think they should be subsidized, but what does that have to do with a carbon tax? And why is having more money in your pocket a bad thing?

Because the people who pollute will have to pay to do so, and the people who do not pollute as much will have more money in their pockets. Why not do it?

So offer a rebate to those with a low income...kind of like how it is done with the GST.

If I means a big income tax cut, then I don't see why not. I don't know if he will force an election over this issue, but it would be a nice issue to run on whenever the next election happens to be.

I guess you can thank Mulroney for that. There is no reason why a carbon tax can't be revenue netural, just because the GST wasn't.

If they both serve the same purpose, then what's the problem with shifting taxation from income to pollution? It's not an excuse to raise general revenues, it's an excuse to cut income taxes without affecting general revenues.

It takes energy to extract oil. Oil companies pay a tax on that energy that they use. Since Americans buy that oil, they indirectly pay that same tax.

It will affect them considering how much energy it takes to extract the oil from the oil sands. Like I said, that cost is going to be passed on to the consumer...whether that consumer is Canadian or American.

Serves no function? If carbon taxes serve no function, then income taxes serve no function either.

Yes, I know. The quote is from a post by AngusThermopyle. I quoted both quotes because they were both about the views of the medical community vs. the views of the boy and his father, so I was addressing both at once. Sorry if that caused any confusion.

Why wouldn't the consumer pay for it, when it is the consumer that is doing the polluting? That is exactly what they will do.

Sounds great, and afterwards we can have only those in favour of paying income taxes having to pay income taxes.

I don't know specifically about the herbs that this boy was using, but certainly some herbs are just as effective against cancer as pharmaceutical drugs (where do you think most drugs come from?). If you want a peer-reviewed article, I'd suggest reading this reference: Newman DJ, Cragg GM Natural products as sources of new drugs over the last 25 years. Journal of Natural Products 70, 461-477 (2007) as well as the references in that article.

I can certainly see this point of view, but I think that the medical community is (quite rightly) focused on saving lives. I'm just not sure that the medical community is in the best position to make a judgment on the quality of life.

I pretty much agree with everything you said.

An update on this story for those interested: link At least he will be able to spend this time with his family. I just hope that after having to go through all of this, that this boy makes it. It would be a shame if it were all for nothing.

Personally, I don't see a difference between the two. If you make businesses pay, does Layton think that they won't pass that cost onto the consumers? Because if he does, I don't think he understands how competition & the free market work.

I'd rather a politician realize their mistake later rather than never... P.S. I'd love to see Jack Layton now try to claim that the NDP is the environmental choice. Even the Liberals are more green now than the NDP.

That is your opinion. In this case, I don't agree with the father either, but I don't think he is being completely unreasonable. I don't think it's unreasonable to want your son to spend what could very well be the last years of his life with his family doing what makes him happy, rather than spending those years in pain and misery. So who am I to tell him that he is wrong.

If the issue were black and white, then I would agree with you. But I hope we can all agree that this is one of those grey areas where no one can say for certain what is best for the boy. If the father thinks that the boy is old enough to make that decision, and if the father agrees with that decision, then I don't think the state should interfere.

That doesn't mean that this boy will necessarily survive. Certainly the father is old enough to make that decision.