Carbon Tax Propossal

madmax · May 15, 2008

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.

Remove the subsidies to extract the oil? Remove the Tax Breaks to Extract the oil. And if you want to go one step further, TAX them more?

What you are suggesting is STATUS QUO that doesn't do anything to reduce US consumption, nor does it TAX those in the US whom Consume Canadian Oil.

That is where the Canadian Oil Goes,

You want Change?

EXPORT TAX on the OIL.

(Insert howls of outrage here)

madmax · May 15, 2008

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.

And it accomplishes nothing.

madmax · May 15, 2008

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.

The INTENT of the MST (FST) changing to the GST was to relieve the burden upon manufacturers. Lower the product costs to the consumer, and benefit from the increased sales. It worked, including becoming an excellent tax revenue platform.

Relieve the burden on oil companies, lower the cost to the consumer, place CST on consumption and benefit from increased revenue.

Of course the government is a net benefitter already in Gas Taxes, at the Pump.

Michael Bluth · May 15, 2008

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.

Do you think the swing CPC-Liberal voters who will decide whether or not the CPC gets a majority in the election believe that?

I really hope the Liberal braintrust does and tries to force an election over the plan. Does Steph have the cojones? Doubtful, but man it would be sweet. The Liberals would be lucky to match their seat total from 1984. :lol:

Wilber · May 15, 2008

There is no reason why a carbon tax can't be revenue netural, just because the GST wasn't.

I could care less if a new tax is revenue neutral to the government, if it isn't revenue neutral to me, I'm not interested.

Wild Bill · May 15, 2008

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.

I know very few people who have enough trust in ANY party to believe that a tax will be revenue neutral. Most folks have heard that so many times in their life. It has always meant that you pay more, with a thousand excuses and lame denials afterwards.

You imply Mulroney couldn't be trusted. Do you really believe that Dion can successfully sell his plan by saying "Trust us! We won't screw you about being revenue neutral. We're Liberals!"

This could be the best thing that's ever happened to Harper. Even high profile Liberals in their caucus have told Dion he's nuts!

It sure looks like they want an election so that they can blame him for the loss and then dump him!

gc1765 · May 15, 2008

Do you think the swing CPC-Liberal voters who will decide whether or not the CPC gets a majority in the election believe that?

If I means a big income tax cut, then I don't see why not.

I really hope the Liberal braintrust does and tries to force an election over the plan. Does Steph have the cojones? Doubtful, but man it would be sweet. The Liberals would be lucky to match their seat total from 1984.

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.

Wilber · May 15, 2008

If I means a big income tax cut, then I don't see why not.

If you don't have a big income, you won't get a big cut but you will still be paying the tax.

AngusThermopyle · May 15, 2008

but it would be a nice issue to run on whenever the next election happens to be.

It would be a suicidal issue to run on, perhaps he is actually so disconnected that he will try it. That would be fun.

Oleg Bach · May 15, 2008

If you don't have a big income, you won't get a big cut but you will still be paying the tax.

I heard a radio talk show host say that as long as we are paying 5 cents to run a light bulb all day, we will not turn it off. He said that if it was one dollar a day we would turn it off..that was his premise for the carbon tax..well - I turn out the light when I don't need it and I would do it if it was free or if it cost a thousand dollars a day to run..that's conservatism in the core..If you don't need it don't use it! We ten to use things uselessly...fools will never turn off the light no matter how you tax them - The gov knows this and this is just a cash grab..besides..if we all stopped using energy we did not specifically need the gov could not have a CARBON TAX...AND THE VERY ECCENSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO TAX. So they know it will not work but in the meantime they will gouge us for more money....no matter what the gov come up with a way to steal from us and be a parasite. It is carbon tax one day and perhaps white light of day tax the next..they would tax the sun if they could!

gc1765 · May 15, 2008

If you don't have a big income, you won't get a big cut but you will still be paying the tax.

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

Wilber · May 15, 2008

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

So why bother. The GST came in to replace another tax, not as an exercises in social engineering. The government needed the revenue from the GST to replace that from the manufacturers tax. In this case the revenue is not needed. There is no way this will be revenue neutral. Sure the government will offer cuts to some other taxes but when they see that big blob of money rolling in there is no way they won't dream up ways of spending it. Many of them probably are already. The cent and a half per liter deficit reduction tax is a perfect example. People won't buy this revenue neutral BS. Count on it.

Oleg Bach · May 15, 2008

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

Ecellent! I will take the rebate and go out and buy gas for my lawn more and putter about stinking up the place...so - poor people get money for not polluting..and rich people get more money by sucking up more energy ..whats' changed? I say nothing. Tell the men that invest in China to stop polluting the world with high carbon levels due to manufacturing of junk..not going to happen!

noahbody · May 15, 2008

I'd just like to see Canada as the world leader in common sense. Maybe all the leaders could get together and discuss whether recent events like "whoops we forgot to take the oceans into consideration, just give it 10-20 years" might suggest that there is in fact time for debate and we won't all be doomed if we don't act before 2012 as promoted.

gc1765 · May 15, 2008

So why bother.

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?

Oleg Bach · May 15, 2008

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?

Ok..so the men that do buisness with China and become fabulously rich by investing money in that great polluter will pay for the right of their buisness partners to pollute..? Not likely..the fact that China is out of sight and out of mind lets them do what they want...those that enrich themselves by investing in China will pay nothing because in effect surrogate henchmen are doing the dirty work..you will not catch the right people with the carbon tax..they will escape the snare.

Wilber · May 15, 2008

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?

I told you why.

scribblet · May 16, 2008

82% INSIST DION CRAZY AS A BED BUG LOL

http://bourque.freepolls.com/cgi-bin/pollresults/097

Bryan · May 16, 2008

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?

CO2 and pollution are two different things.

jdobbin · May 16, 2008

82% INSIST DION CRAZY AS A BED BUG LOL
http://bourque.freepolls.com/cgi-bin/pollresults/097

Not a very legitimate poll. Kind of shows how Bourque is on the payroll of the Tories.

madmax · May 16, 2008

If I means a big income tax cut, then I don't see why not.

How is a LARGE income tax credit going to change peoples habits? THis is getting absurd.

madmax · May 16, 2008

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?

Why let the source off the hook and profit excessively and be subsidized?

While your posts suggest that people who pollute will have MORE money in their pocket because of LARGE income tax breaks. Therefore greater funds to do what they want.

Brilliant :rolleyes:

gc1765 · May 16, 2008

Why let the source off the hook and profit excessively and be subsidized?

I don't think they should be subsidized, but what does that have to do with a carbon tax?

While your posts suggest that people who pollute will have MORE money in their pocket because of LARGE income tax breaks. Therefore greater funds to do what they want.
Brilliant

And why is having more money in your pocket a bad thing? :blink: