Carbon Tax Propossal

bush_cheney2004 · May 14, 2008

Assuming either or both win the Whitehouse we hope Obama and Clinton keep their word on NAFTA, THEN we tax the shit out of it.

Canada can leave NAFTA with only six months notice. Go for it!

We could also apply heavy export duties, through clenched teeth so they feel more like sanctions, against countries that violate the Prime Directive and insist on militarily screwing around in other people's countries.

You mean like the Balkans, Haiti, and Afghanistan. How would Canada sanction itself? Isn't that like....well....you know! :lol:

Then we apply these funds towards developing newer cleaner energy technologies, paying dividends to Canadians and meeting our country's needs.

That's what happened in Alberta....new technology using natural gas and electricity to bake the crap out of bitumen sand. It is paying BIG DIVIDENDS!

M.Dancer · May 14, 2008

You mean like the Balkans, Haiti, and Afghanistan. How would Canada sanction itself? Isn't that like....well....you know!

Not to mention Cyprus, Cambodia, Vietnam, Golan Heights, Gaza, Lebanon...

oreodontist · May 14, 2008

In fact, that's how they should do it: hold a referendum on carbon taxes. Only those in favor of them will have to pay them. Irrevocably.

Ha! Ha!

Completely unrelated but along the same lines.

I spent a year working in Nova Scotia a couple decades ago. Like all cities, Halifax had the routine debate. about legalizing prostitition, setting up a licensed red light district, etc. Some wanted a plebiscite decided by the people. The 'progressive' folks were for it. Then one of the seasoned councillors made the proposal that if the vote was 'yes' then whichever district of Halifax had the highest percent of 'yes' would have the privilege of having the red light district in their neighborhood...needless to say support dropped dramatically and the idea was shelved.

gc1765 · May 14, 2008

People in favor of a carbon tax better be prepared to start paying huge premiums on everything they buy or consume, just to prove they aren't trying to force others to pay for their ideals.
In fact, that's how they should do it: hold a referendum on carbon taxes. Only those in favor of them will have to pay them. Irrevocably.

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

:rolleyes:

madmax · May 14, 2008

So now it's the same thing with the carbon tax! He either doesn't understand or is afraid to tell his people that the only viable way in a free society to cut carbon emissions, is to shift taxation in that direction and tax the causes of pollution.

So are you going to vote for DION?

Topaz · May 14, 2008

A carbon tax will work only if the consumer doesn't ended up paying for it. Tax the polluter like oil and gas and then what will they do, send that on to the consumer in price increases.

gc1765 · May 14, 2008

A carbon tax will work only if the consumer doesn't ended up paying for it.

Why wouldn't the consumer pay for it, when it is the consumer that is doing the polluting?

Tax the polluter like oil and gas and then what will they do, send that on to the consumer in price increases.

That is exactly what they will do.

Oleg Bach · May 14, 2008

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.

Carbon tax will just be given over to the super rich as a form of tribute..it's a fraud..you can have all the carbon taxing you want in and 40 years nothing will change..let those that own the world pay their own way - I'm not giving them a penny...carbon tax - we as carbon life forms should be taxed for breathing out carbon...maybe those that hold their breath the longest should be exempt?

Bryan · May 15, 2008

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

Income taxes are used for all kinds of things, some legitimate, some not.

A carbon tax is a political ideology that's being used as an excuse for a tax grab. A lot of people are in favor of this ideology, and think the ends justify the means. I'm saying, let them pay for it, because I'm not going to pay a tax that serves no function other than paying homage to their fantasies.

madmax · May 15, 2008

That is exactly what they will do.

Carbon Taxes won't affect the Americans, who purchase the vast majority of Canadian Oil?

Just like they don't pay a GST.

Which is essentially what this is, a glorified GST.

Mind You, I am waiting to see just what Dions Proposal is.

Edited May 15, 2008 by madmax

madmax · May 15, 2008

So now it's the same thing with the carbon tax! the........ only viable way in a free society to cut carbon emissions, is to shift taxation in that direction and tax the causes of pollution.

Really? The ONLY viable way!

That is not how ACID rain was addressed. It was how the TIRE TAX was addressed. There are many ways to address emmission. OH Yes, I recall, back in the 70s, as they started doing EMMISSIONS TESTING.

Companies built 2 gas analysers, then 4 gas analysers. Emmissions tested while in idle, then newer equipment to do both. Provinces like BC under the Social Credit and the NDP. These were LEGISLATED changes. Also, the changes, (WILD BILL Soon to comment) of Freon in vehicles.

Legislation is a TOOL, just like TAXING is a tool.

You may believe that Taxing is the ONLY viable way, but that is ONLY your opinion and it would appear that it is political motivated, not environmentally motivated.

I believe this true of Dion as well.

madmax · May 15, 2008

A carbon tax will work only if the consumer doesn't ended up paying for it. Tax the polluter like oil and gas and then what will they do, send that on to the consumer in price increases.

........like the purchasers of the Oil and Gas will pay the added on costs, no matter what country they live in? Sounds to easy. Could even work.

Edited May 15, 2008 by madmax

Wild Bill · May 15, 2008

Companies built 2 gas analysers, then 4 gas analysers. Emmissions tested while in idle, then newer equipment to do both. Provinces like BC under the Social Credit and the NDP. These were LEGISLATED changes. Also, the changes, (WILD BILL Soon to comment) of Freon in vehicles.

Glad to, MM!

There's an interesting story behind the new freon. It seems that the company that held the patent rights to freon had finally run out of extensions and legal tricks to protect their patent. Freon was about to become public domain, where anybody could make and sell it. Odds are the price would immediately have fallen with all the competition. No more patent-protected monopoly.

Suddenly, CFCs become a big environmental issue. Everybody is talking about how they attack the ozone layer. NASA pictures of the Ozone Hole in the Arctic hit the media, claiming the hole is shrinking and it's all the fault of CFCs from freon that escaped from car and building airconditioning, refrigerators and BO killer spray cans.

Some of us had a little trouble wrapping our heads around some contradictions in the story. Those NASA pictures of the ozone hole were brand new. We never had satellites before. So how did we know the hole was shrinking?

Also, one volcano erupting would shoot a zillion times more CFCs into the atmosphere than Man had ever produced. The contribution from freon seemed insignificant.

Of course, voices like us were quickly shouted down. We were told to stop asking ridiculous questions. Obviously, we were trying to kill the planet.

So the old freon that had worked very well for generations became illegal. A new 'freon' is created, BY THE SAME COMPANY THAT PRODUCED THE OLD ONE!

Complete with brand new patent protections!

Makes you wonder who's REALLY in the pay of big corporations! Well, to be fair, more likely it was just 'useful idiots" poli-sci majors easily fooled 'cuz they are so 'science challenged'.

Wild Bill · May 15, 2008

Just thought folks might be interested to know that 'freon' is a registered trademark of Dupont Corp.

Oleg Bach · May 15, 2008

Just thought folks might be interested to know that 'freon' is a registered trademark of Dupont Corp.

Great - freon must be protected as a brand...heaven forbid that someone steals Duponts frinkin freon.

gc1765 · May 15, 2008

I'm saying, let them pay for it, because I'm not going to pay a tax that serves no function other than paying homage to their fantasies.

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

gc1765 · May 15, 2008

Carbon Taxes won't affect the Americans, who purchase the vast majority of Canadian Oil?

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.

madmax · May 15, 2008

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.

HOW?

Edited May 15, 2008 by madmax

Oleg Bach · May 15, 2008

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.

Funny that the consumer gets sucked in and Alberta acts all haughty taughty like they have real oil wealth. It's a joke. Albertain oil sands are not a fantasitic resourse...it is not a source of real wealth and prosperity. We as a nation foot the bill for the silly extraction..Imagine..You have a bunch of dirt that is ladden with a bit of old tar...You have to pump in good water and heat it to steam then blast this hot vapour through the oily mud..and then - you get for every ton of mucky sad..a litre or two of gas. If the water is turned to steam..I wonder how many litres of fuel they use to get one liter of refined product? What is the ratio? If it takes two litres of fuel to create one..then this is high fraud the we all pay for...Plus the invironmental damage is unmeasurable.

Bryan · May 15, 2008

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

What function does a carbon tax specifically serve that other already instituted taxes do not? In what meaningful way is a carbon tax anything other than a convenient excuse to raise general revenues?

gc1765 · May 15, 2008

HOW?

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.

gc1765 · May 15, 2008

What function does a carbon tax specifically serve that other already instituted taxes do not?

If they both serve the same purpose, then what's the problem with shifting taxation from income to pollution?

In what meaningful way is a carbon tax anything other than a convenient excuse to raise general revenues?

It's not an excuse to raise general revenues, it's an excuse to cut income taxes without affecting general revenues.

Wilber · 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.

Not really, oil and natural gas are subject to world pricing, not tar sands pricing.

Michael Bluth · May 15, 2008

It's not an excuse to raise general revenues, it's an excuse to cut income taxes without affecting general revenues.

Just like the MST to GST move was supposed to be revenue neutral?

Yet another reason why this policy is a sure-fire election loser. Please, please, please force a fall election Steph and try and make this policy the centrepiece of the election.

Another sage set of observations by Warren Kinsella on the carbon tax proposal.

Forget about the fact that it is unfair to people on fixed incomes (like the elderly) and the poor (who have to heat their homes and buy food, too), and is therefore profoundly un-Liberal. Forget about the fact that it neglects to tax other dangerous greenhouse gases. Forget about the fact that we would all like to see political parties investing in things like electric cars, instead of continuing to invest in internal combustion engines (and not just lunging at our wallets all the time). Forget about the fact that not a single voter - not one - will ever be convinced that a government will apply the resulting mountains of revenue to helping the environment and not, say, paving a road in someone's riding.