Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

[madmax]

We all now in Ontario the rates for hydro will be going up and at least with Dion plan we'll some get some money back.

I giveth with one hand, and I taketh with the other.

Hey....... wait a minute................................ someone changed my thread title.

What is very clear, is that this is no long an environmental issue. This is simply a tax shift, a tax restructuring, and has nothing to do with the environment.

I do find it interesting to hear some CPC supporters sound like Socialists, defending the poor against the lowering of the progressive tax and creating a regressive tax.

Some of the tax shifting would make Peter Pocklington jump for joy. (Remember him).

Many on the right would like to see income tax replaced completely with a consumption tax. And this shifting is simply taking advantage of the move away from the consumption tax that Harper engaged in, with his 6% to 5% reductions.

The Liberals are pulling a fast one, and trying to get those monies before the Provinces do.

Thus in the other thread, New Brunswick is going to claim back the 2% that the Feds Reduced.

Politics is politics and the spinners spin.

This aint about the environment baby.

[eyeball]

Dion's tax will inevitably lead to 'carbon bureaucrats' who will be responsible for assessing appropriate carbon tariffs on imported goods. The mishmash of exclusions and credits designed to appeal political constituencies will only increase over time. In the end the carbon tax will be far from simple and will most likely rival income taxes when it comes to complexities and bureaucratic costs.

The only way to keep the bureacrats honest is to get between them and the lobbyists that polluters and environmentalists throw at them.

If secrecy is allowed to prevail, well... I can't think of anything that will make Canadians hate this faster than corruption.

[Argus]

The Liberal plan addresses how lower income will get tax decreases and tax credits.

Absolute total bullshit. It will give grants to the welfare people, yes, to and to people so poor they currently pay no taxes, in order to make up for the across-the-board rise in prices due to this tax. It will do absolutely NOTHING to help the working poor and lower middle income earners cope with the rise in home heating fuel and gas, and NOTHING to help seniors on fixed incomes - not poor by government measures - who will be freezing in the dark under the Liberal plan, or will have to give up their homes. And, of course, the middle class will get hammered as usual.

On the other hand, if you're a double income no kids upper class type in an expensive condo in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal - this is the plan for you.

If I was a tory strategist I would start up new commercials, showing a freezing winter scene, and a couple of seniors shivering under blankets in their darkened bungalow. When one tries to turn up the heat there'd be a picture of Dion, a cartoon (which is accurate since Dion is a cartoon) right above the dial, wagging its finger and saying "I'll tax you to death!"

Or maybe, they finally turn up the heat 1 degree, and a couple of thugs from the Liberal party come in and grab their wallet and take the one remaining dollar left in it.

Or another. Even simpler. It shows an expensive condo in Vancouver and two very nattily dressed types smiling. The text under the picture is "Who benefits from the Liberal plan." Then a picture of a poor, shivering elderly couple in an old house with the text "Who gets to pay extra."

Edited June 20, 2008 by Argus

[Argus]

I agree 101%!!!

So who do you suggest Canadians vote for?

[Argus]

The Tory plan is reported to end costing 30 to 40 cents a litre at the pumps.

I don't know what the tory plan might or might not cost a the pumps. I do know that the Liberals complained it wasn't enough. And the only reason Dion is exempting gasoline, because it would insane to tax heating fuel but not gasoline, is because the Tories are already doing it. If they weren't, we can be damned sure Dion would be applying this tax to gasoline.

[Keepitsimple]

Sounds like you might be.

Dobbin, my "analysis" - which really was just common sense - indicated that the middle class was going to get whacked - as usual. You disagreed. Here's an excerpt from the Toronto Star, certainly no friend of the Conservatives. Seems pretty clear that not only is the middle class getting hosed, Dion is trying to orchestrate his "tax shift" to fund his expensive anti-poverty promises. Even a blind man can see that he's desperately trying to win votes at the expense of the NDP and the Greens. Not sure how he'll prevent right-leaning Liberals from jumping to the Tories. But Dobbin - do you still dispute the fact that the middle class - the major consumers - will benefit the least from Dion's plan?

Not everyone, of course, has the same degree of flexibility or the means to respond to the price (tax) signals Dion is proposing. Low-income Canadians have far less freedom than the wealthy to replace refrigerators, dryers and other home appliances with new, energy-saving models. Rural Canadians do not have the same choice in switching from their cars to public transit as big-city dwellers.

In recognition of such differences, Dion is proposing income tax cuts that are highly progressive as well as richer tax credits for families with children, the disabled, seniors, the working poor and people living in rural areas and remote northern communities. Through this combination of environmentalism, economics and progressive social policy, Dion's plan would give a family with two children and an income of $20,000 an extra $2,400, or roughly 80 per cent more than a similar family earning $100,000 a year.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/446391

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, my "analysis" - which really was just common sense - indicated that the middle class was going to get whacked - as usual. You disagreed. Here's an excerpt from the Toronto Star, certainly no friend of the Conservatives. Seems pretty clear that not only is the middle class getting hosed, Dion is trying to orchestrate his "tax shift" to fund his expensive anti-poverty promises. Even a blind man can see that he's desperately trying to win votes at the expense of the NDP and the Greens. Not sure how he'll prevent right-leaning Liberals from jumping to the Tories. But Dobbin - do you still dispute the fact that the middle class - the major consumers - will benefit the least from Dion's plan?

I didn't disagree nor did Dion. He said clearly that the plan would require more help for lower income people to adjust.

I asked for your citation that the people were going to get hosed and I still don't see it.

I'd like to know how Harper's plan is better when it entails a 30 to 40 cent increase in gas prices.

[jdobbin]

I don't know what the tory plan might or might not cost a the pumps. I do know that the Liberals complained it wasn't enough. And the only reason Dion is exempting gasoline, because it would insane to tax heating fuel but not gasoline, is because the Tories are already doing it. If they weren't, we can be damned sure Dion would be applying this tax to gasoline.

The Liberals complained that intensity based targets would allow emissions to go while letting businesses pass on the cost of going green to consumers resulting in higher prices at the fuel pumps.

All of this would happen without the benefit of a large tax cut to compensate people's higher costs.

Edited June 20, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Or another. Even simpler. It shows an expensive condo in Vancouver and two very nattily dressed types smiling. The text under the picture is "Who benefits from the Liberal plan." Then a picture of a poor, shivering elderly couple in an old house with the text "Who gets to pay extra."

Actually, that sounds like the Tory plan except in it, people are also finding it hard to pay for food because it is going into gas tanks.

[Wilber]

Like BC's carbon tax this is a city centric plan which will shift money from those who have few options to those who have many, further alienating urban and rural voters.

It's interesting that Dion will apply the tax to diesel but not gasoline when diesel powered vehicles use about 30% less fuel and produce about 25% less CO2 than equivalent gasoline powered vehicles. Well done Stephane, what was that again about good policy making good politics? Sure you didn't have your fingers crossed you came up with that one?

If government takes four dollars from you in tax money and has to give one dollar to those who pay little or no taxes in order to insulate them from the effects of that tax, there is no way you are going to get four dollars back in other tax cuts. Anyone who thinks otherwise would have trouble with grade one arithmetic and it's not surprising they will go for this. Revenue neutral for the average tax payer, my ass.

[Bryan]

Like BC's carbon tax this is a city centric plan which will shift money from those who have few options to those who have many, further alienating urban and rural voters.

It's interesting that Dion will apply the tax to diesel but not gasoline when diesel powered vehicles use about 30% less fuel and produce about 25% less CO2 than equivalent gasoline powered vehicles. Well done Stephane, what was that again about good policy making good politics? Sure you didn't have your fingers crossed you came up with that one?

Making diesel cost more is probably the single dumbest thing Dion could do. Trucks use diesel. Trucks that ship food, clothes, furniture, and appliances. Fabulous.

If government takes four dollars from you in tax money and has to give one dollar to those who pay little or no taxes in order to insulate them from the effects of that tax, there is no way you are going to get four dollars back in other tax cuts. Anyone who thinks otherwise would have trouble with grade one arithmetic and it's not surprising they will go for this. Revenue neutral for the average tax payer, my ass.

"Revenue neutral" is always a lie. ALWAYS. If any tax really was revenue neutral, that alone would erase any point in doing it.

[Fortunata]

Would you not agree that this Parliament has passed its best before date and is dysfunctional? The conduct you allude to describes this state of affairs perfectly. The only way to get things back on track on Parliament Hill is to have an election. Personally, I am not too happy that the Liberal party hasn't yet pulled the plug in spite of all the opportunities offered to them, and I am not alone.

IMO politics is akin to a game. When the game turns to childishness, pettyness and personal agendas, most of us are turned off. Perhaps that is the source of so much negativity and personal attacks on political forums.

This government's best before date expired the day after the election when Harper went to Emerson, imv. It wasn't different than the last government (well in reality, it was since the Libs would have waited at least until the papers were signed), it wasn't ethical. And they've only gone downhill since. The attacks. Hiding expenses. Not answering questions. I can't actually believe we voted in a government like this.

And as far as the Libs and their voting on the everongoing confidence votes that are completely this governments everongoing style of control, control, control, (and is undemocratic as far as I am concerned because the people are not being truly represented) they could have voted the bills down, gone to an election and had the same result as we did in the last election. Millions of dollars down the drain and what would it have changed? Nothing. Just slimmer coffers and the way this government is spending they need every penny they can shake out of us.

[Wilber]

Making diesel cost more is probably the single dumbest thing Dion could do. Trucks use diesel. Trucks that ship food, clothes, furniture, and appliances. Fabulous.

Guess I will have to dump my TDI and get a gas VW which emits 25% more CO2 according to Transport Canada's own numbers. It also costs less to buy up front. Knob.

[capricorn]

Revenue neutral for the average tax payer, my ass.

From what I've read, the plan is supposed to be revenue neutral for the government, not individuals. That's why he says the AG would look at the books yearly to make sure all carbon taxes are allocated in tax cuts.

[Wilber]

From what I've read, the plan is supposed to be revenue neutral for the government, not individuals. That's why he says the AG would look at the books yearly to make sure all carbon taxes are allocated in tax cuts.

If they are going to subsidize people who can least afford these taxes, there is no way all carbon taxes can be allocated as tax cuts. Grade one arithmetic remember. If I was the AG, I would tell them to get stuffed, I wouldn't want any part of it. There are far more important things that she is not allowed to look at but should be.

[Keepitsimple]

I didn't disagree nor did Dion. He said clearly that the plan would require more help for lower income people to adjust.

I asked for your citation that the people were going to get hosed and I still don't see it.

I'd like to know how Harper's plan is better when it entails a 30 to 40 cent increase in gas prices.

Ummmmm...methinks you don't see it because you choose not to see it. It's right there in the Star Editorial that I posted......the "poor" get a bunch of tax refunds/credits, the middle class get 80% less yet we all know - collectively they are the big consumers and will have to pay the brunt of the Carbon Tax.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[Argus]

Actually, that sounds like the Tory plan except in it, people are also finding it hard to pay for food because it is going into gas tanks.

It sounds nothing like the Tory plan. And let's not forget that the Tory plan only came about after howls and howls of almost hysterical demand from the Liberals, BQ and NDP. For you to now be sniveling about how the tax on gasoline will hurt people takes a lot of gall. You wanted this tax. You absolutely demanded this tax. When the program was announced your complaint was that it wasn't nearly enough. So don't for a moment dare to pretend Dion wouldn't have taxed the hell out of gasoline. As I said, it would be utterly insane to tax all other fuels, including home heating fuel while exempting gasoline.

But at least the tories didn't tax Canadians on the fuel they need to heat their homes in the winter. It took the Liberal party to do that.

[myata]

Flash: Stephan Dion will be on CBC Radio 1 (91.5 FM) "The House" this morning (9 am) with presentation of Liberal carbon tax.

[August1991]

Dion's tax will inevitably lead to 'carbon bureaucrats' who will be responsible for assessing appropriate carbon tariffs on imported goods. The mishmash of exclusions and credits designed to appeal political constituencies will only increase over time. In the end the carbon tax will be far from simple and will most likely rival income taxes when it comes to complexities and bureaucratic costs.

We have such bureaucrats now and the task is not that difficult. Regulating a private business (as Harper proposes doing) is an open invitation to abuse and costs.

CO2 emissions are ideally suited to a tax solution. Harper knows this but he lacks the courage to pursue what he knows is right. Harper has drank the koolaid of "incremental conservatism" and is pretending to be a Liberal circa 1975 in the false belief that this will make him PM for a decade or two.

OTOH, Dion is simply proposing what he believes is the right thing to do. Voters can smell that we are not seeing the real Harper.

What is very clear, is that this is no long an environmental issue. This is simply a tax shift, a tax restructuring, and has nothing to do with the environment.

I do find it interesting to hear some CPC supporters sound like Socialists, defending the poor against the lowering of the progressive tax and creating a regressive tax.

The government requires revenues. What is wrong if it raises revenues by taxing those activities that use the environment?

Alberta itself has no income tax and instead raises most of its revenues from royalties on energy production. Dion is proposing the same principle at the federal level.

On the other hand, if you're a double income no kids upper class type in an expensive condo in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal - this is the plan for you.

If I was a tory strategist I would start up new commercials, showing a freezing winter scene, and a couple of seniors shivering under blankets in their darkened bungalow. When one tries to turn up the heat there'd be a picture of Dion, a cartoon (which is accurate since Dion is a cartoon) right above the dial, wagging its finger and saying "I'll tax you to death!"

Harper can run such an ad - and lose the election.

Why should people who harm the environment get away with a free ride?

Edited June 21, 2008 by August1991

[peter_puck]

Who benefits under the Liberal plan to tax home heating oil and gas.

Rich people: People in well-built homes, people in high priced condos in downtown Toronto, people who can afford to lay out tens of thousands to retrofit their homes to high standards of insulation.

Who will get hammered:

Poorer people. Lower income people who live in rental housing which does not have the best insulation, by far, and who either pay their own heating, or who pay it through rent.

Older people: Seniors living in fifty year old bungalows on fixed incomes who can't afford twenty thousand to retrofit them with better doors, windows and insulation.

The optics are not good, especially coming off two years worth of massive price increases in home heating fuels.

I think the absolute opposite is true. This plan has two purposes. One is to address global warming but the other is to shift money from the working to the non-working. People on welfare are going to get huge credits despite the fact they don't even pay for their heating (exactly what happened the last time "energy credits" were given out". I have a friend who lives near a public housing project and he can point out three windows that stay open almost all year. These people will get big bucks, while not giving a dam about energy.

It will be just like GST credits. The poor get the money, the middle-upper class pay the bills.

There are things right now that would - over the long term- actually save people money. On demand hot water heaters (and/or solar assistance), hybrid cars (for some people), proper insulation, passive solar houses. All of these things would not only fight greenhouse gasses, but actually save people money. This is where the money should have been spent.

[peter_puck]

One good thing about this. It will be the first election in a long time over bold ideas, instead of a "you are sleazier that us" theme that we have had for a while.

[August1991]

There are things right now that would - over the long term- actually save people money. On demand hot water heaters (and/or solar assistance), hybrid cars (for some people), proper insulation, passive solar houses. All of these things would not only fight greenhouse gasses, but actually save people money. This is where the money should have been spent.

Federal government bureaucrats should not be involved in these questions. They can't pick winners.

The Liberal plan is to tax CO2 at $10/tonne rising to $40/tonne and then let markets decide how to reduce CO2 emissions.

-----

Harper's best attack against Dion is to question the Liberals' credibility on all tax issues. Liberals never do what they say they will do and Dion is just another Liberal.

Harper should raise doubts in voters' minds about Liberal credibility. "This is such a crazy scheme that once in power, the Liberals would never do it anyway... "

Credibility is the Achille's heel of the Liberals.

[Wilber]

CO2 emissions are ideally suited to a tax solution.

Simplistic thinking, everything is not always what it seems. Tax something to high and all kinds of things can happen. One example. Airlines are struggling to remain afloat due to already high fuel costs, cutting flights and employees, operating their aircraft in the most efficient manner possible, grounding their less efficient aircraft, anything to remain afloat. Air Canada is already considering legal action against Boeing over late delivery of new more fuel efficient aircraft that they desperately need. Now Dion wants to hit them with another stick. Airlines also keep careful records of fuel costs at different locations. They balance those costs against other operating costs on different routes and know at all times at what price point it becomes more economical to tanker fuel from other locations. Say that carrier operates from Vancouver to Los Angeles four times daily and the price differential dictates that filling the aircraft to the max on return flights instead of just taking the amount needed for the trip will save them say just $500 dollars per round trip even though they will have to burn 15 or 20% more fuel and emit a corresponding amount more CO2 on the return trip to carry that extra fuel. That amounts to $730,000 added to the airlines bottom line each year on that one route alone just because of a regressive tax. With todays climate in the industry where every nickle counts, they won't be able to afford not to do it. Many US carriers will be able to carry return fuel and not have to uplift any in Canada giving them an automatic competitive advantage when it comes to fuel.

Far fetched? They have been doing it for decades even between Canadian cities where there are big price differences and the bigger the discrepancy, the more common the practice. The same can be said for any other mode of transport that crosses the border from cruise ships to vehicle owners who live in close proximity to border crossings. Carriers will be hauling in as much fuel as possible, not buying it from our suppliers and emitting more to boot. If you really want to keep emissions down in the transport industry, jacking prices to unreasonable rates in different locations is definitely not the way to do it. Uniform pricing, whatever that may be, is.

This is just one aspect of the tax that has either not been foreseen or deliberately ignored, no doubt there will be dozens more.

[Riverwind]

CO2 emissions are ideally suited to a tax solution.

I disagree completely. Tangible goods such as tabacco or gasoline where the quantities can be measured precisely are well suited to a tax solution. CO2 emissions monitoring is challenging at the best of times and will virtually impossible if there is an incentive to cheat. The fact that we have so much trouble enforcing our existing tabacco tarriffs demonstrates my point.

[madmax]

I disagree completely. Tangible goods such as tabacco or gasoline where the quantities can be measured precisely are well suited to a tax solution. CO2 emissions monitoring is challenging at the best of times and will virtually impossible if there is an incentive to cheat. The fact that we have so much trouble enforcing our existing tabacco tarriffs demonstrates my point.

Those are very good points. And I think if you take into consideration the previous post regarding US airline fuel strategy, you can see the blackmarket possibilities or cheating that could occur.

There is much left to be discussed before people start suggesting that a government tax is the solution. Or shifting the burden from the rich to the working poor is the best way to implement it.