Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

[Wilber]

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.

It's not cheating or a black market, it is just good business to keep your costs down, particularly if your very survival depends on it. If the differential is great enough, every method of transportation, Canadian or foreign owned that enters this country will be loaded to the gunnel's with fuel so that they have to buy as little as possible in Canada. There is nothing illegal or abusive about it and you certainly can't dictate to foreign carriers how much fuel they can buy in their own country. The only thing abusive would be a government strategy that makes such practices necessary.

[Riverwind]

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.

The difference between a carbon tax and a tobacco tax is the same as the difference between a fiat currency and a gold-based currency. The former is only useful when very very strict limits are placed on the entities responsible for issuing the currency and economic diasaster occurs when politicians are allowed to control the supply of money. There is no reason to believe that the economic problems would be any less if politicians are allowed to issue and control the supply of a fiat commodity like CO2. Edited June 21, 2008 by Riverwind

[peter_puck]

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

Okay, you are saying that rising fuel prices are causing airlines to operate in an effecient manner ? You are saying it makes them concerned about flying fuel effecient aircraft. THese are good things, are they not ? I really don't like hearing about half empty airplanes flying around. I really don't see the downside here.

. 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%

I don't think this senario will wipe out the gains from ineffecient aircraft that never leave the ground, but if it does, you can simply move to the same system that every interstate trucker has to use. (roughly, you pay the tax where you use the fuel). Problem solved.

[Wilber]

I don't think this senario will wipe out the gains from ineffecient aircraft that never leave the ground, but if it does, you can simply move to the same system that every interstate trucker has to use. (roughly, you pay the tax where you use the fuel). Problem solved.

Problem not solved. Interstate is within the same country, international is not. Are you going to tax airlines for the fuel they use only during the segment of flights within your airspace. Like to see you figure out how to do that. I can see the NAFTA challenges piling up already.

[jdobbin]

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.

Another bile filled post. Yeesh.

Can't recall saying anything on how the gas tax will hurt people. The Tories have been saying that. The howler is that the Tory plan will pass that a gas increase to the consumer whereas the Liberal plan will not.

The Tories promise to remove the excise tax on gas in 2005. They haven't done that at all? Do they think the public has forgotten?

The Liberals have said that the excise gas on tax is enough as it is.

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.

The Conservative party promised to end the excise tax when they came to power. What happened to that? Another broken promise?

[jdobbin]

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.

The middle class has a large income tax cut as well.

Right here in the editorial.

But under Dion's plan, all that money would be given back to consumers and businesses in the form of income tax cuts. With that shift in taxes from income to carbon, Canadians who make reasonable strides in reducing their reliance on fossil fuels would find themselves no worse off; those making a significant effort would end up with more money to spend on other things. And Canadians who make little effort to cut their emissions would end up paying a stiff price.

Now where in the article does it say the middle class gets whacked?

[Wilber]

Okay, you are saying that rising fuel prices are causing airlines to operate in an effecient manner ? You are saying it makes them concerned about flying fuel effecient aircraft. THese are good things, are they not ? I really don't like hearing about half empty airplanes flying around. I really don't see the downside here.

They have always tried to operate in an efficient manner. The more efficient you are the more money you make. It's a simple concept. You don't just go down to the store and buy the latest most efficient aircraft. You have to get in line and it can take years. You also have to get the infrastructure to support them as well as train the personnel to operate and maintain them. It is a very expensive and time consuming process. What's going on now is about survival, not efficiency. During the three years during and after the first Gulf War, airlines lost more money than they had made in their whole history. That pales in comparison to what is going on now. They are losing money with 80+% load factors. Adjusted for inflation and minus taxes, air fares are less than they were thirty years ago yet the cost of buying and operating aircraft has increased by a factor of more than ten. That's efficiency.

I think Dion and his buddies have this pie in the sky view of how things should be and a wonderful plan to make it happen but are oblivious to many of the consequences it will have in the real world.

[Argus]

Another bile filled post. Yeesh.

In other words, I'm right and you know it.

Can't recall saying anything on how the gas tax will hurt people. The Tories have been saying that]

When people question your tax on home heating fuels you constantly bring up the tax on gasoline - as if it weren't your party's idea in the first place.

. The howler is that the Tory plan will pass that a gas increase to the consumer whereas the Liberal plan will not.

What you mean is the Tories aren't pretending the tax won't hit consumers, while your party, being filled with despicable lying scum who couldn't tell the truth to save their lives, is.

[blueblood]

Does this tax include diesel fuel???

[jdobbin]

In other words, I'm right and you know it.

That your posts are filled with bile? Yes, you're right. It always amazes me the anger each post seems to have.

When people question your tax on home heating fuels you constantly bring up the tax on gasoline - as if it weren't your party's idea in the first place.

What tax are you referring to?

What you mean is the Tories aren't pretending the tax won't hit consumers, while your party, being filled with despicable lying scum who couldn't tell the truth to save their lives, is.

It is always good to see the level of discussion to rise above the nasty.

The Tories promised to end the excise tax in 2005. Where did that promise go?

Edited June 22, 2008 by jdobbin

[Keepitsimple]

The middle class has a large income tax cut as well.

Right here in the editorial.

Now where in the article does it say the middle class gets whacked?

Right where I said it was. A middle class family with a combined income of $100K get 80% less (so my previously posted Star article says) because a lot of the revenue will be re-directed to special groups. Here's another Star article that offers other examples. It's easy to calculate how much you could "save" in tax cuts - it's another thing to try and estimate what impact a carbon tax will have on the price of goods. One thing is certain - the more money you have to spend, the more you will be taxed. As these figures show, the middle class gets far less in tax savings but will pay proportionally more in carbon tax...and don't spout any gobbley-gook about making choices. It should be crystal clear to even you Dobbin - that this is simply a way to pay for Dion's anti-poverty promises - it's social engineering in environmental clothes.

According to the plan released today, a two-earner family with two children and a combined income of $20,000 will receive a benefit of nearly $2,400 when the plan is fully implemented in four years.

A family with two children earning $40,000 a year will save nearly $1,900.

A family with two children earning $60,000 will save over $1,300.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/446002

[jdobbin]

Right where I said it was. A middle class family with a combined income of $100K get 80% less (so my previously posted Star article says) because a lot of the revenue will be re-directed to special groups. Here's another Star article that offers other examples. It's easy to calculate how much you could "save" in tax cuts - it's another thing to try and estimate what impact a carbon tax will have on the price of goods. One thing is certain - the more money you have to spend, the more you will be taxed. As these figures show, the middle class gets far less in tax savings but will pay proportionally more in carbon tax...and don't spout any gobbley-gook about making choices. It should be crystal clear to even you Dobbin - that this is simply a way to pay for Dion's anti-poverty promises - it's social engineering in environmental clothes.

And the editorial also said the middle class also has the ability to adapt to the tax do decrease their carbon tax exposure whereas the lower incomes don't. I know Tories think those are special groups but are they any less special than the seniors who get income spitting because Harper screwed up on income trusts?

Look, I know that many if not most of the right wing don't believe in climate change and don't believe anything should be done about it. Let the Tories campaign on that in the next election.

Edited June 22, 2008 by jdobbin

[Wilber]

And the editorial also said the middle class also has the ability to adapt to the tax do decrease their carbon tax exposure whereas the lower incomes don't. I know Tories think those are special groups but are they any less special than the seniors who get income spitting because Harper screwed up on income trusts?

Look, I know that many if not most of the right wing don't believe in climate change and don't believe anything should be done about it. Let the Tories campaign on that in the next election.

Some of the middle class will have much more ability than others depending on where they live and what options are available to them. . As I said before, merely imposing a tax requires little effort or imagination. The real imagination must be shown by those who have to live with that tax.

The market itself is doing something about it. Look at the auto industry, they can't build efficient cars fast enough and can't give gas guzzlers away. Saw an add by an Okanagan Ford dealer last week. Up to 14 grand in incentives on new HD pickups. Already own a truck? they will give you another 4 grand off if you keep it. They don't want it. It didn't take a carbon tax to do that.

[Argus]

The middle class has a large income tax cut as well.

Right here in the editorial.

Now where in the article does it say the middle class gets whacked?

This plan may or may not be "revenue neutral" as far as government is concerned - my guess is not, but that's beside the point. It makes no bones about the fact that people who will not "make reasonable strides" in reducing their energy use will be punished, and those who do will be rewarded. That's the whole idea behind the thing, after all. So those who can afford to buy the priciest energy saving appliances, put in new doors and windows, etc, and who already live in high priced, hermetically sealed condos in TO, Vancouver and Montreal will benefit - in other words, those with a lot of money.

Those who will lose out, will be seniors on fixed incomes and the middle class who don't have the luxury of putting tens of thousands of dollars out for new windows, doors and appliances. The very poor will get some kind of income distribution back, but those who earn too much to qualify are shit out of luck. They'll have to choose between freezing in the dark or eating that week. Seniors will have to sell their homes because they can't afford to heat them.

[Argus]

And the editorial also said the middle class also has the ability to adapt to the tax do decrease their carbon tax exposure whereas the lower incomes don't.

The editorial writer probably has a family income approaching $200,000. This is a tax made for the well-off, after all. The middle class are usually people struggling to raise a family and pay off the mortgage. Unlike the editorial writer, laying out thousands of dollars is not something many in the middle class can do at the drop of a hat.

Look, I know that many if not most of the right wing don't believe in climate change and don't believe anything should be done about it. Let the Tories campaign on that in the next election.

What you mean is many on the right are honest enough to admit they don't believe CO2 emissions are causing climate change. They're in the same boat as most Liberals I think, and with Stephane Dion, who clearly, by his actions during his time in office, does not believe in climate change either. The purpose of this plan, let's be clear, like all Liberal plans, is not to address a genuine problem or issue, but to garner votes. That's the only reason Liberals - who care about nothing and none but power, ever do anything. There are no issues, no causes a Liberal will not passionately embrace if he or she thinks it will get them votes.

Edited June 22, 2008 by Argus

[jdobbin]

Some of the middle class will have much more ability than others depending on where they live and what options are available to them. . As I said before, merely imposing a tax requires little effort or imagination. The real imagination must be shown by those who have to live with that tax.

The market itself is doing something about it. Look at the auto industry, they can't build efficient cars fast enough and can't give gas guzzlers away. Saw an add by an Okanagan Ford dealer last week. Up to 14 grand in incentives on new HD pickups. Already own a truck? they will give you another 4 grand off if you keep it. They don't want it. It didn't take a carbon tax to do that.

The market has also been fooled more than once by a flood of fresh oil supply where the auto industry built vehicles of a size not seen since the 1960s and then some.

Royal Dutch Shell has stated this year that if the world wants to make a difference on a emissions that it has to put a price on carbon.

The Conservatives are content to let industry pass on the burden to consumers but let emissions rise with intensity based targets and loopholes.

[jdobbin]

This plan may or may not be "revenue neutral" as far as government is concerned - my guess is not, but that's beside the point. It makes no bones about the fact that people who will not "make reasonable strides" in reducing their energy use will be punished, and those who do will be rewarded. That's the whole idea behind the thing, after all. So those who can afford to buy the priciest energy saving appliances, put in new doors and windows, etc, and who already live in high priced, hermetically sealed condos in TO, Vancouver and Montreal will benefit - in other words, those with a lot of money.

Those that are not reducing their energy use now are being punished.

Those who will lose out, will be seniors on fixed incomes and the middle class who don't have the luxury of putting tens of thousands of dollars out for new windows, doors and appliances. The very poor will get some kind of income distribution back, but those who earn too much to qualify are shit out of luck. They'll have to choose between freezing in the dark or eating that week. Seniors will have to sell their homes because they can't afford to heat them.

Guess that is happening now. What are the Tories doing about that? Letting seniors freeze in the dark? Are they removing the excise tax like they promised in 2005?

Moreover, the Tory plan will only increase those charges that are passed on. Where is their tax plan to assist the lower income people?

[jdobbin]

The editorial writer probably has a family income approaching $200,000. This is a tax made for the well-off, after all. The middle class are usually people struggling to raise a family and pay off the mortgage. Unlike the editorial writer, laying out thousands of dollars is not something many in the middle class can do at the drop of a hat.

And the Tory plan is one meant to hit the poorest? Let the consumers get whacked for the Tory targets but offer no change in the tax to compensate?

What you mean is many on the right are honest enough to admit they don't believe CO2 emissions are causing climate change. They're in the same boat as most Liberals I think, and with Stephane Dion, who clearly, by his actions during his time in office, does not believe in climate change either. The purpose of this plan, let's be clear, like all Liberal plans, is not to address a genuine problem or issue, but to garner votes. That's the only reason Liberals - who care about nothing and none but power, ever do anything. There are no issues, no causes a Liberal will not passionately embrace if he or she thinks it will get them votes.

And the Tories are not there to garner votes and play politics like a zero sum game? They don't believe in carbon emissions so they create a policy that will let industry pass on the costs to the consumers, especially the poorest and then try to keep quiet about it. They are quiet that it won't reduce carbon with all the intensity targets and loopholes and it will let industry pass on things like a 40 cent gas increase for upgrades which will bring in $400 million to tax coffers because the the Tories kept the excise tax they promised to get rid of.

Totally dishonest.

[Wilber]

The market has also been fooled more than once by a flood of fresh oil supply where the auto industry built vehicles of a size not seen since the 1960s and then some.

People are regularly fooled by politicians who don't know what they are doing because they have to be seen doing something even if they don't understand the ramifications of their actions. We know that the supply of oil is not going to keep up with demand already because of the expansion in places like China and India. They were still riding bicycles the last time. They are not now and that is why oil is $135 a barrel and gas is $1.40 a liter, not because of Dion and his ilk.

[jdobbin]

People are regularly fooled by politicians who don't know what they are doing because they have to be seen doing something even if they don't understand the ramifications of their actions. We know that the supply of oil is not going to keep up with demand already because of the expansion in places like China and India. They were still riding bicycles the last time. They are not now and that is why oil is $135 a barrel and gas is $1.40 a liter, not because of Dion and his ilk.

And Harper and is ilk are okay with their cap and passing on a 40 cent increase in gas via companies passing on their cost? Where is the outrage?

[YEGmann]

Does this tax include diesel fuel???

Yes, it does. And here you see one more big Liberal lie. Many people will face huge rise in their cost at the pump.

[jdobbin]

Yes, it does. And here you see one more big Liberal lie. Many people will face huge rise in their cost at the pump.

The Tory plan will increase gas around 40 cents a litre. I guess that is okay?

[YEGmann]

The Tory plan will increase gas around 40 cents a litre. I guess that is okay?

You substitute one problem with another. Liberals lie, they say "you save the planet and it costs you nothing!" Tory do not lie they say "if you want to follow this climate change rush, it will cost you dearly!" I think Tory's position is honest, Liberals position is dishonest.

Edited June 23, 2008 by YEGmann

[eyeball]

You substitute one problem with another. Liberals lie, they say "you save the planet and it costs you nothing!" Tory do not lie they say "if you want to follow this climate change rush, it will cost you dearly!" I think Tory's position is honest, Liberals position is dishonest.

I think the Tory's are just as dishonest. They don't believe in CO2/GW in the first place so why do they need a carbon plan? Why is Harper simply saying Dion is insane when we know deep down he and the rest of his party and constituents probably thinks the entire left wing is insane too?

[jdobbin]

You substitute one problem with another. Liberals lie, they say "you save the planet and it costs you nothing!" Tory do not lie they say "if you want to follow this climate change rush, it will cost you dearly!" I think Tory's position is honest, Liberals position is dishonest.

Really? Where does it say in the Tory policy that gas, heating oil and the like are going to increase dramatically?