Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

[Argus]

...which will still be lower than if there was no carbon tax...

I find it odd that you could complain about shifting taxation from income to pollution, but then complain if it is shifted back from to pollution to income.

First, it is not shifting taxes onto polluters. It is shifting taxes onto the middle class.

Second, I am not complaining about it shifting back, but the apparent pointlessness of the program to begin with, since if it succeeds at all it will require either still higher carbon taxes, or shifting it right back onto income taxes again.

Third, there does not appear to be any actual goals to this program, or any idea what the point is to it. Raising the price of fuels in order to discourage consumption? The market has already done that in spades.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Argus

[gc1765]

Second, I am not complaining about it shifting back, but the apparent pointlessness of the program to begin with, since if it succeeds at all it will require either still higher carbon taxes, or shifting it right back onto income taxes again.

Even if what you are saying is true, income taxes will be lower under the carbon tax than they would be without a carbon tax - unless emissions reach zero, which they won't. That's just fine by me, I'd be happy to see any lowering of income taxes.

Third, there does not appear to be any actual goals to this program, or any idea what the point is to it. Raising the price of fuels in order to discourage consumption? The market has already done that in spades.

Part of it is to discourage consumption, but I also think (despite the dogma people may have) it will be good for the economy. Think of it this way: do we want to discourage people making money? Then why do we tax people who make money and help the economy? And since we can't get rid of taxes all together, why not tax people for doing something that we don't want, rather than something that we do want?

[madmax]

Part of it is to discourage consumption, but I also think (despite the dogma people may have) it will be good for the economy. Think of it this way: do we want to discourage people making money? Then why do we tax people who make money and help the economy? And since we can't get rid of taxes all together, why not tax people for doing something that we don't want, rather than something that we do want?

Keep Spinning. It is a SCAM. It does not prevent anything that we don't want. Nor is it giving us anything that we do want. It is the worst part of the tax polices of Mike Harris, Brian Mulroney and Gordon Campbell all rolled into one. Then some Liberal spending Promises, revised again from the Red Book of neglect.

Much like the environment under their governance.

[Savant]

Part of it is to discourage consumption, but I also think (despite the dogma people may have) it will be good for the economy. Think of it this way: do we want to discourage people making money? Then why do we tax people who make money and help the economy? And since we can't get rid of taxes all together, why not tax people for doing something that we don't want, rather than something that we do want?

This is like trying to suggest that you can reduce congestion on roads by putting up toll booths and sending the toll booth money to squeegee kids. While there may be a minor impact on the number of cars using the road, simply using road tolls to deal with increased traffic congestion belies the fact that the main reason for the congestion is the increased number of people driving cars, a factor that cannot be mitigated by tolls alone. As the population grows, more roads have to be built, or more public transit has to be put in place. You can't try and short cut your way around this by trying to get people to stop driving with road tolls.

In the same vein, a carbon tax that does nothing to provide for increased choice to reduce one's reliance on high carbon sources will do very little to impact carbon output. If the only power source in a given province is coal fired electricity, then people really don't have a choice. A person who heats their house with fuel oil will still have to heat their house with fuel oil after a carbon tax is put in place. Manufacturers who make goods will simply pass on costs to the consumers, there is no incentive to reduce their carbon output since they know all their competition will be paying the same increased prices and passing on those costs to the consumer.

Since none of the carbon tax funds are going to environmental initiatives, there is nothing being done to provide for new clean energy resources. Without those choices, people will just be stuck paying higher bills without any real way to change to cleaner alternatives.

[Alta4ever]

Backbench Grit says Green Shift will raid Alberta

Oilpatch riches will help pay for new programs: Boshcoff

Jason Fekete , Canwest News Service

Published: Friday, July 11, 2008

CALGARY - An Ontario Liberal MP said Friday his party's Green Shift carbon tax proposal will raid Alberta's energy riches and transfer wealth "from rich to poor, from the oilpatch to the rest of the country."

Ken Boshcoff, Liberal MP for Thunder Bay-Rainy River, rekindled memories Friday of the controversial National Energy Program when he stated on a blog post that the Grits' Green Shift program will inflict financial pain on Alberta and its oil and gas industry.

The carbon tax proposal - which is being sold to Canadians as an environmental initiative, first and foremost - would slap a levy on greenhouse-gas emissions in Canada, and return the roughly $15 billion in annual revenues through a series of cuts to income and corporate tax.

b]Failing to say much about any environmental benefits of the plan, Boshcoff proudly proclaimed on a political news blog that the Green Shift is the "most aggressive anti-poverty program in 40 years," which will target wealthy provinces - particularly Alberta.

"The shift will transfer wealth from rich to poor, from the oilpatch to the rest of the country, and from the coffers of big business to the pockets of low-income Canadians," he said in a post on NetNewsledger.com.

The MP explains in his post that the $15 billion in revenues will be used to pay for Liberal party social policies, including $9 billion in tax cuts for low-income earners and $2.9 billion for a universal child tax benefit.[/b]

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...42-14b827d683fe

Straight from the liberal party, this won't be "revenue neutral", its nothing more than a wealth transfer program. Dion and his NEP 2 will destroy this country, and this is proof that it really never was about climate change, its just been all about keeping Albertans at the oars of the slave ship Canada.

[Alta4ever]

Oh look here is the same comment again from another liberal.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion unveiled his Green Shift platform recently which calls for a carbon tax. When asked if an election can be won or lost on one issue, Mr. Rae said the plan makes the tax system more progressive and could reduce poverty by 30 per cent and child poverty by 50 per cent with a child tax credit.

http://www.stratfordbeaconherald.com/Artic....aspx?e=1116927

Nothing but another tax for wealth transfer programs. Hopefully may will stop drinking the liberal kool-aid and see this cash grab for what it is.

[stevoh]

Straight from the liberal party, this won't be "revenue neutral", its nothing more than a wealth transfer program. Dion and his NEP 2 will destroy this country, and this is proof that it really never was about climate change, its just been all about keeping Albertans at the oars of the slave ship Canada.

I don't think you understand what revenue neutral means. Even if ALL of the tax cuts go to poor people, its still revenue neutral if the money coming in equals the money going out.

Just because you don't agree with where the money is coming from doesn't mean it isn't revenue neutral.

[Riverwind]

I don't think you understand what revenue neutral means. Even if ALL of the tax cuts go to poor people, its still revenue neutral if the money coming in equals the money going out.

That is not exactly true. Politicians want people to believe that 'revenue neutral' means that most people will not see their net taxes go up (i.e. only the really bad emitters will pay). However, the reality is if you are well off then your taxes will go up and the amount of CO2 you emit does not mean much. If you are poor then you will get large tax/credits breaks even if you emit a lot of CO2. In other words, the claim of revenue neutrality is intentionally deceptive just like the Liberal promise to 'replace' the GST was intentionally deceptive. Edited July 18, 2008 by Riverwind

[Wilber]

I don't think you understand what revenue neutral means. Even if ALL of the tax cuts go to poor people, its still revenue neutral if the money coming in equals the money going out.

Just because you don't agree with where the money is coming from doesn't mean it isn't revenue neutral.

Justifying a tax by calling it "Revenue Neutral" is complete horse crap. Any time a government balances a budget it is revenue neutral. Have a surplus or a deficit and it is not. The only issue is who does the paying and who does the receiving.

[stevoh]

That is not exactly true. Politicians want people to believe that 'revenue neutral' means that most people will not see their net taxes go up (i.e. only the really bad emitters will pay). However, the reality is if you are well off then your taxes will go up and the amount of CO2 you emit does not mean much. If you are poor then you will get large tax/credits breaks even if you emit a lot of CO2. In other words, the claim of revenue neutrality is intentionally deceptive just like the Liberal promise to 'replace' the GST was intentionally deceptive.

Ok, then I don't understand something. I thought that the tax was going to be on carbon producing fossil fuels, with the exception of gasoline. So, if my house is heated by natural gas, then my natural gas cost will increase due to the carbon tax. And, because I am wealthy, I will not see a decrease in my income tax. So, so far, the only way my taxes went up is the cost of natural gas. Ok, all of that makes sense.

But if I decrease my consumption of natural gas (which is the point of this tax after all), then wouldn't I see a reduction in my overall expenditures as well as reducing emissions?

Basically, I don't see what you mean by "amount of CO2 you emit does not mean much". If I use less, I emit less, and I spend less. Isn't that the point?

[gc1765]

The only issue is who does the paying and who does the receiving.

Well, we agree on that much. Like I've said before, I'd rather see the people paying for polluting rather than for making money.

[stevoh]

Justifying a tax by calling it "Revenue Neutral" is complete horse crap. Any time a government balances a budget it is revenue neutral. Have a surplus or a deficit and it is not. The only issue is who does the paying and who does the receiving.

I think it also implies where the money is going to. Revenue neutral implies that the money being recieved by the tax is being given back to Canadians. Rather than being used to fund a new program that has little direct effect on most of us. So, if it was being used to fund carbon capture schemes (like the 2 billion alberta has put aside for that purpose), it is not revenue neutral as most of us would not see any financial benefit. However, if it offers 15.5 billion dollars in tax breaks to Canadians, which it does, then is called revenue neutral.

I agree that its a bit of a "catch phrase", but when you look into the details, I can see a difference.

[gc1765]

Basically, I don't see what you mean by "amount of CO2 you emit does not mean much". If I use less, I emit less, and I spend less. Isn't that the point?

I think you are right. The more you emit, the more you pay. The less you emit, the less you pay.

Anyone who emits less will be better off than they would be if they emitted more.

[gc1765]

I think it also implies where the money is going to. Revenue neutral implies that the money being recieved by the tax is being given back to Canadians. Rather than being used to fund a new program that has little direct effect on most of us. So, if it was being used to fund carbon capture schemes (like the 2 billion alberta has put aside for that purpose), it is not revenue neutral as most of us would not see any financial benefit. However, if it offers 15.5 billion dollars in tax breaks to Canadians, which it does, then is called revenue neutral.

I agree. I've always said that it doesn't matter how much the government taxes, it is how much it spends. For example, if Alberta wants to spend 2 billion on carbon capture without a carbon tax, that means they have to generate 2 billion more in revenue through higher income taxes.

[Argus]

I think you are right. The more you emit, the more you pay. The less you emit, the less you pay.

Anyone who emits less will be better off than they would be if they emitted more.

You will be forced to pay more for goods and services because business will have to pay more for transportation, heating, cooling and electricity. You will be paying more for those, as well. And there are other changes to your taxes, ie, the elimination of the employment tax credit for those earning over $50k, which will cost you big. The compensation is supposed to be that you'll get a big income tax cut, but in reality, that cut will in no way make up for the extra costs to you unless you're poor. This therefore represents a large tax increase for middle class folks.

And how much you "emit" is often not under your control anyway. For example, Quebecers will not be punished as much because their electricity is generated by hydro (which apparently destroyed massive tracts of forest, thus worsening global warming, but that's not important). But people in other provinces will see big electricity price increases.

[gc1765]

You will be forced to pay more for goods and services because business will have to pay more for transportation, heating, cooling and electricity. You will be paying more for those, as well.

True. Like I said, if you emit more (even indirectly though the purchase of goods and services) then you pay more. But for every cent in price increase, that is a cent less in other taxes, so if you emit less than the average person you will be better off.

And how much you "emit" is often not under your control anyway. For example, Quebecers will not be punished as much because their electricity is generated by hydro (which apparently destroyed massive tracts of forest, thus worsening global warming, but that's not important). But people in other provinces will see big electricity price increases.

I agree that this is one of the biggest problems with a carbon tax, that people need to heat their homes and they don't often have a choice on which method to do so. However, I still think that if you are not "wasting" energy you will still be using less than average and will be better off. Besides, some things just cost more depending on where you live. If you live in the north it will cost more to heat your home, should the government subsidize energy for those people? I live in Vancouver where housing is more expensive, should the government subsidize housing here?

[segnosaur]

Ok, then I don't understand something. I thought that the tax was going to be on carbon producing fossil fuels, with the exception of gasoline. So, if my house is heated by natural gas, then my natural gas cost will increase due to the carbon tax. And, because I am wealthy, I will not see a decrease in my income tax. So, so far, the only way my taxes went up is the cost of natural gas. Ok, all of that makes sense.

But if I decrease my consumption of natural gas (which is the point of this tax after all), then wouldn't I see a reduction in my overall expenditures as well as reducing emissions?

The problem with your argument is that you're assuming that there is actually room to reduce the consumption of natural gas.

People already had an incentive to reduce their consumption... its called their utility bill. Many (possibly even most) people have already taken as many steps as possible to reduce their use of natural gas. Putting an additional tax on the price of fossil fuel (even if there is a corresponding cut in income tax) isn't going to really do much to cut the fuel consumption of people who have already lowered their thermostats to the lowest comfortable temperature.

Unfortunately, fans of the Liberal plan don't seem to understand that concept... they keep chanting "incentive" with no logic or thought behind it, in an attempt to drown out the fact that all the 'incentive' isn't going to be beneficial if natural gas usage is already near its lowest possible point.

Edited July 24, 2008 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

True. Like I said, if you emit more (even indirectly though the purchase of goods and services) then you pay more. But for every cent in price increase, that is a cent less in other taxes, so if you emit less than the average person you will be better off.

As I (and others) have pointed out, the corresponding tax decreases won't necessarily get applied to people who can or will reduce their fossil fuel usage. For example, people in Quebec will benefit from the tax decreases, even though much of their energy us derived from Hydro. So, in theory, a Quebecer can use their tax rebate to keep their El Camino idling in their driveway 24/7, and still be better off than someone in Ontario.

If you live in the north it will cost more to heat your home, should the government subsidize energy for those people?

Actually, the Liberal plan includes special tax cuts for both rural and northern residents.

So yes, the government is (or would be) subsidizing energy for these people.

Edited July 18, 2008 by segnosaur

[stevoh]

The problem with your argument is that you're assuming that there is actually room to reduce the consumption of natural gas.

People already had an incentive to reduce their consumption... its called their utility bill. Many (possibly even most) people have already taken as many steps as possible to reduce their use of natural gas. Putting an additional tax on the price of fossil fuel (even if there is a corresponding cut in income tax) isn't going to really do much to cut the fuel consumption of people who have already lowered their thermostats to the lowest comfortable temperature.

Unfortunately, fans of the Liberal plan don't seem to understand that concept... they keep chanting "incentive" like a retarded parrot, in an attempt to drown out the fact that all the 'incentive' isn't going to be beneficial if natural gas usage is already near its lowest possible point.

I don't have Canadian statistics, but I know from the US that the average age of furnaces in peoples houses is 17 years. A furnace that old generally has around 75% efficiency. New furnaces are 95% or greater in efficiency. So, its looks like most people would benefit from a new furnace, the higher the costs go, the faster the efficiency will pay for itself.

So, I don't believe your premise that "Most people have already taken as many steps as possible", they haven't.

[Wilber]

I don't have Canadian statistics, but I know from the US that the average age of furnaces in peoples houses is 17 years. A furnace that old generally has around 75% efficiency. New furnaces are 95% or greater in efficiency. So, its looks like most people would benefit from a new furnace, the higher the costs go, the faster the efficiency will pay for itself.

So, I don't believe your premise that "Most people have already taken as many steps as possible", they haven't.

My gas bill is going up 24% for the coming 12 months assuming Terasen doesn't get any more increases in the mean time. My furnace is 10 years old and was the most efficient available at the time. I don't need Dion making it worse than it already is with his horses ass taxes which will give more of my money to those who didn't earn it.

[myata]

... if natural gas usage is already near its lowest possible point.

Is it a rethorical statement? Or a cute way to pull in unconfirmed unsubstantiated opinion?

Are you saying that our society is near 100% (of technically possible) efficiency in using that particular fuel?

And is there any reason, grounds, why you're saying that? Other than maybe that you want to say something that'd look like a solid foundation for your argument.

[segnosaur]

I don't have Canadian statistics, but I know from the US that the average age of furnaces in peoples houses is 17 years. A furnace that old generally has around 75% efficiency. New furnaces are 95% or greater in efficiency. So, its looks like most people would benefit from a new furnace, the higher the costs go, the faster the efficiency will pay for itself.

So, I don't believe your premise that "Most people have already taken as many steps as possible", they haven't.

Well, lets see...

Your '95% efficiency' refers to a new high efficiency furnaces... a new mid-range furnace would be still be only 78-82% efficient. The problem is, high efficiency furnaces also cost more (around $1000) than less efficient furnaces.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/energy/consumertips.html

Lets see... Installing a high efficiency will cost around $3000. In my case, the Liberal tax cuts would only give me back around $350/year, only around 12% of the total cost of that new furnace. Even if I applied every dollar of my tax cut into buying a new furnace (something that wouldn't be realistic, since I'll also be paying more for electricity and various products), it would still take more than 8 years to pay for this new high-efficiency furnace. And in fact in most cases the tax cuts don't come anywhere near paying for the price of a new furnace.

So, in the vast majority of cases the Liberal tax cuts wouldn't really assist people in buying high-efficiency furnaces. If they couldn't afford to buy a new furnace before, they likely couldn't afford to buy one now.

[Argus]

True. Like I said, if you emit more (even indirectly though the purchase of goods and services) then you pay more. But for every cent in price increase, that is a cent less in other taxes, so if you emit less than the average person you will be better off.

Untrue. More clealy stated, for every extra cent the government takes in in carbon taxes it will forego a cent in income taxes. If, of course, their promise of revenue neutral holds true. However, this in no way means that for every extra cent I in particular pay in carbon taxes I will get a reciprical cut in my income taxes. That will not happen. I will wind up paying more simply because I earn over $50,000 per year. That is because this plan is only partially designed with the environment in mind. Primarily, this is an income redistribution plan designed to take money away from the middle class and give it to the poor.

[segnosaur]

... if natural gas usage is already near its lowest possible point.

Is it a rethorical statement? Or a cute way to pull in unconfirmed unsubstantiated opinion?

Are you saying that our society is near 100% (of technically possible) efficiency in using that particular fuel?

No, what I'm saying is that there are few (or no) energy savings that can reasonably be made with our current level of technology.

Yes, there may be some people who go for 'joyrides'. There may be people who forget to turn their thermostat down when they leave the house. But if the recent increases in energy costs haven't convinced them to reduce their costs, I doubt an extra carbon tax will have an effect.

And is there any reason, grounds, why you're saying that?

Well, how about simple basic human greed? Do you really think there are people out there who are deliberately wasting gas or oil? Do you think that there are companies out there who, given a choice between using more energy and increasing profits, will say "I think profits are high enough, lets burn more gas. We don't need to, we just don't want our shareholders getting any more.

And of course, there's also the fact that our carbon emissions actually peaked a few years ago and have been going down recently, even without a carbon tax. If emissions have been going down, then efficiencies are being found and exploited.

[Alta4ever]

I don't have Canadian statistics, but I know from the US that the average age of furnaces in peoples houses is 17 years. A furnace that old generally has around 75% efficiency. New furnaces are 95% or greater in efficiency. So, its looks like most people would benefit from a new furnace, the higher the costs go, the faster the efficiency will pay for itself.

So, I don't believe your premise that "Most people have already taken as many steps as possible", they haven't.

Not everyone can afford to buy a new furnace (roughly $4,500 installed), and new high efficiency hotwater box ($3500-$4000 installed), and high efficiency appliances washer dryer fridge, and stove ($5000 to $10,000).

How many people can afford all of this? Not to mention these will all be needed to be replaced before the you've saved enough in energy savings to pay for them. YOu might be lucky if the savings pay for the debt servicing that would be required. Welcome to the Green Shaft Tax grab.

You are living in a dream world, can you afford $20,000 tomorrow to save a few pennies in taxes? You can bet the the liberals know that most middle class Canadians won't be able to afford to upgrade and will be stuck paying the tax. A tax that will increase as energy prices do.

This will do nothing but drive up inflation and push more lower middle class families into poverty.

This tax was not devised to save the planet it was devised to provide a slush fund for a Dion/liberal government. Talk about your smoke and mirrors.