NDP's Layton promises investments

[jdobbin]

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...TJ4yQ8v8at_qzlw

The NDP's solution for Montreal's aging public transit system is this: take money from polluters and invest it in solutions.

Jack Layton announced the NDP's plans for Montreal's public transit system on a campaign stop on in the city Sunday. By-elections are taking place in Montreal's Westmount-Ville-Marie riding.

The leader of the NDP promised $591 million in investments over four years for Montreal's public transit.

The money would come from the pockets of polluters by taking one cent from the taxes on each litre of gas sold and also using the eventual carbon trading market.

The details are a little hazy on this one. Which polluters are they talking about and what will they take from the carbon trading market?

It sounds to me that all they are doing is using the excise gas to fund public transit. What will they do for communities with no public transit?

This announcement comes on the heels of the announcement to fund transit in Toronto to the tune of $840 million.

Edited August 11, 2008 by jdobbin

[M.Dancer]

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...TJ4yQ8v8at_qzlw

The details are a little hazy on this one. Which polluters are they talking about and what will they take from the carbon trading market?

It sounds to me that all they are doing is using the excise gas to fund public transit. What will they do for communities with no public transit?

This announcement comes on the heels of the announcement to fund transit in Toronto to the tune of $840 million.

That is not ian nvestment, that is redistribution of other peoples money. Investments generally are intended to produce profits...

[Wilber]

It sounds to me that all they are doing is using the excise gas to fund public transit. What will they do for communities with no public transit?

What will a carbon tax do for communities with no public transit?

[jdobbin]

What will a carbon tax do for communities with no public transit?

Put a price on carbon and make income tax cuts.

[Wilber]

Put a price on carbon and make income tax cuts.

I'll take it you didn't understand the question.

[gc1765]

I'll take it you didn't understand the question.

I guess that depends on whether you think income tax cuts are a good thing or a bad thing...

[Wilber]

I guess that depends on whether you think income tax cuts are a good thing or a bad thing...

Know I know you didn't understand the question.

[jdobbin]

I'll take it you didn't understand the question.

Since many communities outside of cities don't have public transit, they won't be hit with an extra diesel charge in that area and since there is no increase in the gas tax, they won't be paying more for gas either.

I take it as that what you mean.

[Wilber]

Since many communities outside of cities don't have public transit, they won't be hit with an extra diesel charge in that area and since there is no increase in the gas tax, they won't be paying more for gas either.

I take it as that what you mean.

So by not hitting them with an extra tax they don't already have you will be increasing their access to public transit.

I take it that is what you mean.

[bk59]

What will a carbon tax do for communities with no public transit?

Why are you asking about a carbon tax? That article says nothing about a carbon tax. It mentions "the eventual carbon trading market", but not a carbon tax. Are you bringing this up in this thread for a reason? Or do you just want to rant against a carbon tax?

[Army Guy]

Correct me if i'm wrong but is this tax not a punitive measure, for companys ,cities, etc that exceed thier quotas....if so why not throw all these funds into research and development, ....rather than giving this money back to cities and companys which should be paying a carbon tax in the first place.....

[jdobbin]

So by not hitting them with an extra tax they don't already have you will be increasing their access to public transit.

Some communities will never have a traditional public transit system since their densities could never make it economical. In the end, trying to provide mass transit in those areas means more fuel burned. So in their cases, more carbon emissions.

The NDP plan is geared towards cities.

I have nothing against a program to help cities with their mass transit needs. Even the Tories have kicked in money for Toronto's transit system which I gave them credit for. However, using 1 cent of the gas tax for a national mass transit system means many communities without public transit will be asking for their share of the transfer. I'm a little hazy on what the NDP will be doing in their case.

Will they let places like Kenora use it for infrastructure? Will Tofino be using it for water treatment? Can Digby use it for a bridge?

The NDP seem destined to go to various large cities and make public transit announcements. I'm just wondering if it will include smaller communities and in what form.

Layton has indicated that the Liberals only plan to add to the costs of public transit with a diesel tax. That ignores the agreement in 2005 on using a part of the gas tax for every municipality to let it make decisions on infrastructure including mass transit.

Martin tried to direct the gas to mass transit systems when he started the program but met stiff resistance. The municipalities welcomed the money but said the infrastructure needs varied in each place. The Liberal agreement still continues under the Tories and crumbling roads, bridges, water and sewer, public transit systems and other public facilities have been built since.

I'm wondering now how the mayors and city councils in cities will react to the NDP funding announcement. Not every city including Toronto will be able to afford a major purchase of train cars without using their own money and getting provincial help. Can cities bank the money until they have enough for something like this? Some cities will indicate their biggest need is a bridge to cut transport time rather than 100 buses. Can the NDP plan adjust for that or is it inflexible?

These are questions that are going to come up. I look on the NDP website to see if there were any answers and so far there are none.

I take it that is what you mean.

If you have something to say on the NDP announcement, please say it. I've raised the questions I think are pertinent. As I've said, there is a long term funding agreement for infrastructure already in place that includes public transit for those communities where it is a priority. To the credit of the Tories, they have continued the program.

[madmax]

Correct me if i'm wrong but is this tax not a punitive measure, for companys ,cities, etc that exceed thier quotas....if so why not throw all these funds into research and development, ....rather than giving this money back to cities and companys which should be paying a carbon tax in the first place.....

[jdobbin]

Correct me if i'm wrong but is this tax not a punitive measure, for companys ,cities, etc that exceed thier quotas....if so why not throw all these funds into research and development, ....rather than giving this money back to cities and companys which should be paying a carbon tax in the first place.....

What tax are you referring to? And into whose funds for research and development?

[Wilber]

If you have something to say on the NDP announcement, please say it. I've raised the questions I think are pertinent. As I've said, there is a long term funding agreement for infrastructure already in place that includes public transit for those communities where it is a priority. To the credit of the Tories, they have continued the program.

I think the NDP announcement is blatant electioneering aimed at the upcoming by elections. No great insight there.

My point is that Layton's announcement would take people's money and spend it on transit for cities. The carbon tax would take people's money and redistribute it to other people. Neither would help communities which don't have existing transit.

Hey, you brought it up.

[Army Guy]

What tax are you referring to? And into whose funds for research and development?

The Carbon tax, now perhaps i'm way out to lunch but i thought it was a punitive tax for those that exceeded thier limits on polution....if so would it not make more sense to try and futher develope new tech and ideas to futher reduce our emmissions...or go into national projects such as cleaning up our air, or our waterways, landfills etc.etc...or updating other forms of tech and ideas that add to our polution such as outdated sewage treatment plants, etc etc.

[jdobbin]

I think the NDP announcement is blatant electioneering aimed at the upcoming by elections. No great insight there.

The NDP will likely run into the same problems the Liberals did when they tried to direct money into public transit. Municipalities were quite vocal that they had a large list of infrastructure projects and while they appreciated Fed support, they had to be able to direct the money to where it was needed most.

The 2005 agreement allowed municipalities to make those choices with oversight from Ottawa. That meant, the program could be cancelled if money was used for tax cuts rather than actual work outlined.

This is probably something Harper wished he had done when he transferred billions to Quebec only to see it used in the election campaign as a tax cut.

My point is that Layton's announcement would take people's money and spend it on transit for cities. The carbon tax would take people's money and redistribute it to other people. Neither would help communities which don't have existing transit.

I have no problem with money being used for transit so long as the municipalities have agreed to the work. I've seen no evidence that they have. I also wonder what the share is for places that don't have public transit. The NDP party policy is a bit hazy there.

While the carbon tax will put a price on diesel that goes to Ottawa, money flows back to municipalities for infrastructure including public transit.

Hey, you brought it up.

And the solution of the critics to do nothing looks to put the bill into the future. The critics talk about hypothetical problems much in the same way the industry talked about it with cigarettes even when faced with a scientific consensus.

[Wilber]

While the carbon tax will put a price on diesel that goes to Ottawa, money flows back to municipalities for infrastructure including public transit.

I thought this was all to be revenue neutral and go back to individual tax payers in the form of "tax cuts". Also, individual or company diesel owners will not be exempt.

[Wilber]

The NDP will likely run into the same problems the Liberals did when they tried to direct money into public transit. Municipalities were quite vocal that they had a large list of infrastructure projects and while they appreciated Fed support, they had to be able to direct the money to where it was needed most.

The 2005 agreement allowed municipalities to make those choices with oversight from Ottawa. That meant, the program could be cancelled if money was used for tax cuts rather than actual work outlined.

This is probably something Harper wished he had done when he transferred billions to Quebec only to see it used in the election campaign as a tax cut.

d

I don't dissagree with most of this.

I also wonder what the share is for places that don't have public transit. The NDP party policy is a bit hazy there.

I don't dissagree with this either.

[jdobbin]

The Carbon tax, now perhaps i'm way out to lunch but i thought it was a punitive tax for those that exceeded thier limits on polution....if so would it not make more sense to try and futher develope new tech and ideas to futher reduce our emmissions...or go into national projects such as cleaning up our air, or our waterways, landfills etc.etc...or updating other forms of tech and ideas that add to our polution such as outdated sewage treatment plants, etc etc.

The Tories tried this water and air program one time already and it was rightly identified as not being an emissions reduction program. What you describe above is not an emission reductions program. While it is commendable to build a sewer treatment plant, it doesn't reduce CO2 emissions.

The carbon tax is a regressive tax to put a price on carbon. Economists and business leaders have said one of the best solutions to reducing carbon usage is to put a price on it. The expense of the tax is blunted by the tax cuts given on income.

There is already funding for programs on research and development. Some are government led, some are industry led. Are you suggesting more tax to support even more research? if not, what cuts in programming are you suggesting to allow the government to fund more research?

Those are the two choices: more tax to fund research or more government cuts to fund research. I'm not against research but exactly where will the funding come from?

[jdobbin]

I thought this was all to be revenue neutral and go back to individual tax payers in the form of "tax cuts".

The funding agreement for infrastructure preceded the Liberal proposal for a carbon tax. It has been an expense for the feds all the this time. A carbon tax will bring some tax back as it applies to diesel. The municipalities still do quite well with the transfer in the end.

Also, individual or company diesel owners will not be exempt.

They are the ones who are the recipient of income tax cuts.

[Wilber]

The funding agreement for infrastructure preceded the Liberal proposal for a carbon tax. It has been an expense for the feds all the this time. A carbon tax will bring some tax back as it applies to diesel. The municipalities still do quite well with the transfer in the end.

Then it is not all going to "tax cuts".

They are the ones who are the recipient of income tax cuts.

As do gas vehicle owners.

Not if they are a private transportation provider such as a cab or delivery company unless of course they use gasoline powered vehicles which will be exempt even though they emit more.

You say that the NDP proposal is fuzzy and I agree, but no fuzzier than this assertion of "revenue neutrality".

[jdobbin]

Then it is not all going to "tax cuts".

The government has ongoing funding agreements, transfers and the like regardless of any carbon tax.

As do gas vehicle owners.

How so? The carbon tax is $40 per tonne. That is what it will be for diesel. For gas, it will be $43 per tonne. Gas gets the heavier hit.

Not if they are a private transportation provider such as a cab or delivery company unless of course they use gasoline powered vehicles which will be exempt even though they emit more.

They are not exempt. They pay more than diesel in tax. You want them to pay even more than $43 a tonne? Why? Carbon is carbon.

You say that the NDP proposal is fuzzy and I agree, but no fuzzier than this assertion of "revenue neutrality".

I believe the revenue neutrality has always meant that the government will not take in more tax with carbon pricing than it did prior to the tax. It never meant that people would necessarily pay the exact amount of tax as they did before.

The plan is to make sure that people are not dramatically and immediately hurt by the change financially. Since it is phased in slowly and there are tax cuts to go along with it, people should be able to adapt to costs that are way below inflation.

[Wilber]

The government has ongoing funding agreements, transfers and the like regardless of any carbon tax.

Then why point out that money will be coming back from Ottawa from previous agreements even though municipalities will be sending more to Ottawa in the form of a diesel tax? You made the connection, not me.

They are not exempt. They pay more than diesel in tax. You want them to pay even more than $43 a tonne? Why? Carbon is carbon.

And here I thought the idea was to reduce emissions. Silly me.

I believe the revenue neutrality has always meant that the government will not take in more tax with carbon pricing than it did prior to the tax. It never meant that people would necessarily pay the exact amount of tax as they did before.

Of course it will be taking in more, it is an additional tax. This is true of any tax. Government takes money and then decides who will receive it. What is different about this one? The only time it is not revenue neutral is if a government is it deficit or surplus. Quite frankly this assertion of revenue neutrality is insulting.

I bring this up because even if the government initially could in fact return every penny of the carbon tax in personal income tax reductions for certain people, it is only a matter of time before it starts going into general revenue to be used for whatever. That has been the history of every special purpose tax ever introduced, from the 1.5 cent a liter "deficit reduction tax" to the income tax itself.

Edited August 11, 2008 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

Then why point out that money will be coming back from Ottawa from previous agreements even though municipalities will be sending more to Ottawa in the form of a diesel tax? You made the connection, not me.

Municipalities will be paying a price for any carbon emissions they produce. I think my point was that they get money back from the Feds in the form of the 2005 infrastructure agreements.

And here I thought the idea was to reduce emissions. Silly me.

Why wouldn't they? All carbon is taxed at $40 a tonne. Gas gets taxed even more than diesel under the plan. Carbon is carbon, is it not? You think gas should be taxed at $50 a tonne? Any reason why you want it singled out even more?

Of course it will be taking in more, it is an additional tax. This is true of any tax. Government takes money and then decides who will receive it. What is different about this one? The only time it is not revenue neutral is if a government is it deficit or surplus. Quite frankly this assertion of revenue neutrality is insulting.

I bring this up because even if the government initially could in fact return every penny of the carbon tax in personal income tax reductions for certain people, it is only a matter of time before it starts going into general revenue to be used for whatever. That has been the history of every special purpose tax ever introduced, from the 1.5 cent a liter "deficit reduction tax" to the income tax itself.

So this stand is against tax in principle.