Carbon Tax Propossal

Bryan · May 16, 2008

Your point?

You said:

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?

This is a thread about carbon taxes, not pollution taxes. Those would be completely separate things.

gc1765 · May 16, 2008

This is a thread about carbon taxes, not pollution taxes. Those would be completely separate things.

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

gc1765 · May 16, 2008

It's not, you can buy gas for muscle cars and SUV's with it.

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

Wilber · May 16, 2008

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

I'm going to have less money in my pocket anyway. My car gets 50 MPG. I've replaced the windows and furnace in my house, added insulation plus all my appliances and lights are energy star and low E. I'm on a fixed income and don't need another bloody tax lowering my standard of living. Do I believe I will get back from the government what I give in this tax? Not a chance.

Michael Bluth · May 16, 2008

I'm on a fixed income and don't need another bloody tax lowering my standard of living. Do I believe I will get back from the government what I give in this tax? Not a chance.

There's the rub Wilber. Seems like Dion's flip flop on a carbon tax will be the defining issue of the campaign and it's a surefire path to a Conservative majority.

Less than two years ago Dion was against a carbon tax. Link

What has changed in the last two years? How will he explain the flip flop?

Wilber · May 17, 2008

It's not just that, fuel and natural gas prices have increased over 30% in the past year with no end in sight and these idiots are talking about making them even more expensive. They've missed the boat, it is already happening. Give me a break.

jdobbin · May 17, 2008

It's not just that, fuel and natural gas prices have increased over 30% in the past year with no end in sight and these idiots are talking about making them even more expensive. They've missed the boat, it is already happening. Give me a break.

Fuel prices for your vehicle aren't going to go up in this proposal. The broader tax will affect home heating and gas but coupled with reduced income tax cuts, it isn't like the taxpayers are going to get whacked.

Dion just has to reverse the argument here and say that he lowering income taxes. To pay for that, he should indicate that he is going to cut spending and to have a tax on energy use.

Michael Bluth · May 17, 2008

It's not just that, fuel and natural gas prices have increased over 30% in the past year with no end in sight and these idiots are talking about making them even more expensive. They've missed the boat, it is already happening. Give me a break.

It must drive some left wingers here crazy the claims this 'plan' won't raise fuel prices is so patently false that ABSOLUTELY no one is buying it. :lol:

Alta4ever · May 17, 2008

Fuel prices for your vehicle aren't going to go up in this proposal. The broader tax will affect home heating and gas but coupled with reduced income tax cuts, it isn't like the taxpayers are going to get whacked.
Dion just has to reverse the argument here and say that he lowering income taxes. To pay for that, he should indicate that he is going to cut spending and to have a tax on energy use.

Taxpayers are going to get whacked because the money will be coming out of cash flow. Lets think about this, you get 2000 dollars a month in income, you spend 300 of it in energy costs, the government slaps a 20% carbon tax on it. The rest is spent on living food, mortgage/rent, misc bills, with maybe 40 bucks left over at the end of the month. Now that same person has to $60 more a month, the pay cheque hasn't gone up where is the money going to come from? In that kind of tax bracket you get most of your taxes back at the end of the year, how is this going to be revenue neutral? For people on fixed income who pay next to nothing in taxes are going to be hit the hardest, as they won't get anything back anyway. This will just drive more households into poverty.

For a party that is suppose to be so concerned with the down trodden, they sure like to push agendas that with push more people into poverty.

The green movement wanted bio fuels we get them and the price of food goes through the roof, the green movement wants carbon taxes implemented, guess what it will end up doing. Refrigeration units require energy, food prep requires energy, added costs will be pushed onto the consumer, then having to pay more for heating won't help either. No matter how Dion sells it, its still the most idiotic policy he has come out with to date.

gc1765 - Carbon is not pollution, without carbon life would not exist on this planet.

The AGW movement is nothing but a rebranding of statism, the friendly fascism.

Edited May 17, 2008 by Alta4ever

jbg · May 17, 2008

Taxpayers are going to get whacked because the money will be coming out of cash flow. Lets think about this, you get 2000 dollars a month in income, you spend 300 of it in energy costs, the government slaps a 20% carbon tax on it. The rest is spent on living food, mortgage/rent, misc bills, with maybe 40 bucks left over at the end of the month. Now that same person has to $60 more a month, the pay cheque hasn't gone up where is the money going to come from?

Money that would otherwise be spent on beer and popcorn.

Alta4ever · May 17, 2008

Money that would otherwise be spent on beer and popcorn.

mmmmmmmmm Beer and popcorn.......better go get some some

eyeball · May 17, 2008

In the meantime...some major investment bank said that prices would go up today, so they did.

This is what we should be taxing the hardest.

Alta4ever · May 17, 2008

In the meantime...some major investment bank said that prices would go up today, so they did.
This is what we should be taxing the hardest.

And how do you per pose to tax speculation?

Unless you are talking about capital gains, and there is already a tax there.

eyeball · May 17, 2008

Increase it to the point of pain because speculation on such a vital commodity is a practice that should be discouraged. Capital gains from speculation on oil should be in a seperate and heavily taxable bracket all of its own.

Alta4ever · May 17, 2008

Increase it to the point of pain because speculation on such a vital commodity is a practice that should be discouraged. Capital gains from speculation on oil should be in a seperate and heavily taxable bracket all of its own.

Ya right....we need fewer taxes more. Sounds like you don't like investing.

eyeball · May 17, 2008

Ya right....we need fewer taxes more. Sounds like you don't like investing.

No I just think allowing people to gamble with something that has such an effect on millions of people who can't afford to invest is a very stupid thing to do. Its reckless and dangerous.

Alta4ever · May 17, 2008

No I just think allowing people to gamble with something that has such an effect on millions of people who can't afford to invest is a very stupid thing to do. Its reckless and dangerous.

So buy a GIC. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.

You have no right to decide for me what risk I am willing to take in the markets.

What is reckless and dangerous is adding idiotic taxes, why punish those who do look the future.

Speculation doesn't take away a persons ability to invest.

Bryan · May 17, 2008

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

No there are completely disparate issues. I'm all in favour of pollution control. What I'm not in favour of is this ridiculously deceitful political campaign against carbon dioxide.

jbg · May 17, 2008

No I just think allowing people to gamble with something that has such an effect on millions of people who can't afford to invest is a very stupid thing to do. Its reckless and dangerous.

I am not sure taxes are the way to do it but I agree with reducing speculation. I probably prefer making speculators buy less on "margin" or credit and more with their own money. I strongly suspect that a lot of this commodity surge is fueled by speculators playing mostly with "other people's money". That is why price swings, both up and down, are far faster than can be explained by supply, demand shifts. I cannot believe that a gallon of gas that sold on the Hutchinson Parkway for $2.77 a gallon in August 2005 was "worth" $3.39 a week later, then $2.29 a gallon in November 2005, then $3.39 again May 2006, then $2.44 from November 2006 to February 2007, then $2.59 for a while, then back to $3.39, then down to $3.03 last August, and now $4.15.

Oleg Bach · May 18, 2008

I am not sure taxes are the way to do it but I agree with reducing speculation. I probably prefer making speculators buy less on "margin" or credit and more with their own money. I strongly suspect that a lot of this commodity surge is fueled by speculators playing mostly with "other people's money". That is why price swings, both up and down, are far faster than can be explained by supply, demand shifts. I cannot believe that a gallon of gas that sold on the Hutchinson Parkway for $2.77 a gallon in August 2005 was "worth" $3.39 a week later, then $2.29 a gallon in November 2005, then $3.39 again May 2006, then $2.44 from November 2006 to February 2007, then $2.59 for a while, then back to $3.39, then down to $3.03 last August, and now $4.15.

Speculators love to create spectors and sell the smoke along with the mirror. The only persons generating real wealth are the ones that grow food - create shelter etc. Speculators or investors want something for nothing. I could never understand the offence supposedly committed by Conrad Black. When investors are bilked out of money that they got for free. They toss in a buck and expect ten. And I will not mention the fact that with our fiat currencey system..one friend declares that nothing is something and the other friend recieves that nothing and sells it to a sucker for something..usually service..sounds a tad userish to me.

geoffrey · May 19, 2008

Speculators love to create spectors and sell the smoke along with the mirror. The only persons generating real wealth are the ones that grow food - create shelter etc. Speculators or investors want something for nothing. I could never understand the offence supposedly committed by Conrad Black. When investors are bilked out of money that they got for free. They toss in a buck and expect ten. And I will not mention the fact that with our fiat currencey system..one friend declares that nothing is something and the other friend recieves that nothing and sells it to a sucker for something..usually service..sounds a tad userish to me.

Did you pay full cash for your house?

madmax · May 20, 2008

Did you pay full cash for your house?

Yes, I did. I prefer doing things in Cash.

gc1765 · May 20, 2008

gc1765 - Carbon is not pollution, without carbon life would not exist on this planet.

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.

gc1765 · May 20, 2008

No there are completely disparate issues. I'm all in favour of pollution control. What I'm not in favour of is this ridiculously deceitful political campaign against carbon dioxide.

Don't you see that pollution control and carbon dioxide control go hand in hand? Where there is carbon dioxide being formed from the combustion of fossil fuels, there is also pollution being formed.

madmax · May 20, 2008

Don't you see that pollution control and carbon dioxide control go hand in hand? Where there is carbon dioxide being formed from the combustion of fossil fuels, there is also pollution being formed.

Which will be cured with a tax. ( A revenue Neutral Tax)

Edited May 20, 2008 by madmax