NDP's Layton promises investments

[bk59]

If you say it enough times........

That does seem to be the strategy of the Conservatives and NDP. "If we say tax grab enough times maybe Canadians will believe us." Isn't it convenient that opponents of the Green Shift always talk about the carbon tax, but somehow always seem to forget about the income tax reductions.

[jdobbin]

The LPC have chosen to sell the Green Shift. It will be at the cost of my MP.

In favour of what? The NDP is going to play it coy when their supporters ask what their Green plan is and how it is costed?

The Tories are going to stay silent on their plan or are they going to turn around and say they no longer believe in global warming?

The Greens are going to dial down their program?

If it comes down to the Torie and the Liberals in the election, I expect the NDP might lose a large component of its soft support. Likewise, the Greens could see some of their soft support move over as well.

I don't know if it will win the election. I fully expect it won't. But these predictions that the Liberals will be wiped out don't seem realistic at all. In fact, it looks like a repeat of a minority.

That probably would have each party including the NDP looking at who might lead them next.

Edited August 13, 2008 by jdobbin

[madmax]

In favour of what? The NDP is going to play it coy when their supporters ask what their Green plan is and how it is costed?

The Tories are going to stay silent on their plan or are they going to turn around and say they no longer believe in global warming?

There is more to an election then Global Warming. But the LPC platform main plank is using the luke warm Green SHift to address it.

If it comes down to the Torie and the Liberals in the election, I expect the NDP might lose a large component of its soft support.

This is Ontario not Manitoba. P

I don't know if it will win the election. I fully expect it won't. But these predictions that the Liberals will be wiped out don't seem realistic at all. In fact, it looks like a repeat of a minority.

I don't dispute your argument. I don't expect the LPC to be wiped out. I expect my LPC MP to lose his seat over the Green SHift

[madmax]

That does seem to be the strategy of the Conservatives and NDP. "If we say tax grab enough times maybe Canadians will believe us." Isn't it convenient that opponents of the Green Shift always talk about the carbon tax, but somehow always seem to forget about the income tax reductions.

That is why the Green SHift is a scam.

It is 3 card monty. It is a shell game.

I swear it was devised in a carnival setting next to the fishing pond.

[jdobbin]

There is more to an election then Global Warming. But the LPC platform main plank is using the luke warm Green SHift to address it.

And to take it away as an issue from the NDP and the Green party. You can be sure that Dion will pull out the NDPers who support his plan.

This is Ontario not Manitoba. P

There is no soft support for the NDP?

I don't dispute your argument. I don't expect the LPC to be wiped out. I expect my LPC MP to lose his seat over the Green SHift

How popular are they now? What was the percentage they received in the last election?

[jdobbin]

That is why the Green SHift is a scam.

It is 3 card monty. It is a shell game.

I swear it was devised in a carnival setting next to the fishing pond.

And that is how some people describe the NDP's cap and trade plan.

[madmax]

And that is how some people describe the NDP's cap and trade plan.

That all depends if people believe this.

John McCallum, Liberal MP and the party's finance critic, came to Guelph yesterday to support local Liberal candidate Frank Valeriote's campaign and address a small group of the city's business leaders at the Guelph Chamber of Commerce.

He answered questions about a variety of economic issues and spoke about the Green Shift.

He added "the vast majority" of Canadians will find the tax breaks included in the plan will outweigh the extra costs incurred by higher energy prices.

Well there you have it.

In a pigs eyes.

[jdobbin]

That all depends if people believe this.

It looks as if they might according to the latest poll from Decima. Liberals are sitting at 40% in the polls in Ontario. In Quebec, the Liberals have pulled ahead of the Tories and are tied with the BQ.

I'm a little suspicious of the poll for Quebec.

[madmax]

It looks as if they might according to the latest poll from Decima. Liberals are sitting at 40% in the polls in Ontario. In Quebec, the Liberals have pulled ahead of the Tories and are tied with the BQ.

I'm a little suspicious of the poll for Quebec.

Polling numbers and snake oil. I think that means status quo.

But in for my MP, Status Quo won't hold the seat, and neither will 40%.

[jdobbin]

Polling numbers and snake oil. I think that means status quo.

But in for my MP, Status Quo won't hold the seat, and neither will 40%.

Those type of numbers usually mean big majority in Ontario seats, don't they? They certainly do around here.

Edited August 13, 2008 by jdobbin

[madmax]

Those type of numbers usually mean big majority in Ontario seats, don't they? They certainly do around here.

Back to the busses. This can continue in the polling thread.

[bk59]

That is why the Green SHift is a scam.

It is 3 card monty. It is a shell game.

How exactly does that make it a scam? Taxing different things will have different effects on a society. It lowers the tax on income and raises a tax on carbon. Different things are taxed and the behaviour of Canadians will change because of that simple fact.

I swear it was devised in a carnival setting next to the fishing pond.

If so, many of the arguments against the plan were devised on the other side of that same fishing pond.

[madmax]

How exactly does that make it a scam? Taxing different things will have different effects on a society. It lowers the tax on income and raises a tax on carbon. Different things are taxed and the behaviour of Canadians will change because of that simple fact.

If so, many of the arguments against the plan were devised on the other side of that same fishing pond.

Good Lord BK59, the LPC intent has been to lower income taxes. During that Paul Martin was handed out $$$$ to households to cover the higher costs of heating oil.

Sunday, October 9, 2005

Canada's federal government has announced a new program that plans to share unexpected budget surpluses with ordinary citizens. It should be introduced in Ottawa as early as Friday.

The Surplus Allocation Act would share any surplus equally between tax cuts, new spending and debt relief. It would not replace Canada's $3 billion emergency fund. Under existing law any surplus is funneled completely into debt relief.

The benefit would come as an amount added on to the income tax returns of that year. It would then be added on to the amount a person can earn tax-free for each subsequent year.

Along with the new home heating oil rebate program are considered to be pre-election maneuvering from the liberals. Paul Martin has promised an election within 30 days of the Gomery Commission Report's release. The report is expected in February.

So now the LPC wants to continue removing the progressive tax, and replace it with revenues from a regressive tax. The LPC can't increase the GST because that would be political suicide, like taxing gas at the pump.

There won't be anymore money, but according to McCallum (an Economist) there will be more money.

Gosh, look at this, a tax that eliminates the GHG and puts more money in my pocket.

That is toro kaka and any rational person would recognise this.

Meanwhile...... things are so simple, that the LPC MPs are falling overthemselves, and contradicting one another from riding to riding about WHO PAYS. Fact is, people on these forums are pretending that they know exactly how this tax is supposed to work, yet the people who will be involved in implementing don't understand it, and have decided to leave their shoelaces untied.

[bk59]

Good Lord BK59, the LPC intent has been to lower income taxes. During that Paul Martin was handed out $$$$ to households to cover the higher costs of heating oil.

"Good Lord" indeed. What a sad attempt. During Mulroney's term the Conservatives introduced the GST at a certain rate. During Harper's term the Conservatives lowered the GST rate. Oooooo what a shell game! Oh wait... priorities change over time. Particularly when someone new is leading the party.

So now the LPC wants to continue removing the progressive tax, and replace it with revenues from a regressive tax.

Nothing in that statement is bad policy per se. This may surprise you, but regressive taxes have their uses. Not to mention the fact that the Green Shift's planned changes to the income tax system actually make that tax more progressive (despite the fact that you phrased your sentence to indicate that the plan made income taxes more unfair). The unfortunate fact is that if you are going to have any type of carbon tax or carbon trading it will be regressive.

The LPC can't increase the GST because that would be political suicide, like taxing gas at the pump.

OK. Again, you imply a sinister motive to the carbon tax plan. An implication not supported by anything.

There won't be anymore money, but according to McCallum (an Economist) there will be more money.

An economist you say?!? One whole economist?!? Gee, that proves your point. Economics is not an exact science. On any complex issue, and this is complex, there will always be multiple economists on either side of that issue. On both sides there will be people who are reputable and know their stuff. But there is room in economics for disagreement. So saying that one guy thinks something does not prove that an economic plan is a "sham".

Meanwhile...... things are so simple, that the LPC MPs are falling overthemselves, and contradicting one another from riding to riding about WHO PAYS.

Who said it was simple? It isn't. The specific details will need to be worked out. I'm sure the system will need to be tuned over the first few years. Quite frankly we've had an income tax system for decades and it is constantly tuned and adjusted for various reasons.

While it may be that the Liberals should have done a better job of educating and prepping their MPs, having some MPs get details wrong does not make the plan a sham. And no, not every single MP will be involved in implementing the program. Just like every single Conservative MP was not involved in the tax benefits introduced over the last two years. I have no doubt that if you asked all of the Conservative caucus how much money a family can get out of the (for example) sports tax benefit for kids, there would be more than a few who either wouldn't know at all or would get the answer wrong.

[madmax]

OK. Again, you imply a sinister motive to the carbon tax plan.

I am used to LPC campaign promises.

An economist you say?!? One whole economist?!? Gee, that proves your point. Economics is not an exact science. On any complex issue, and this is complex, there will always be multiple economists on either side of that issue.

McCallam is the LPC MP and is Promoting exactly what I quoted in Guelph. He is an Economist sending mixed Messages about the Green Shift. You are not the LPC messenger, but someone promoting your beliefs on a Forum, McCallam Is the LPC messenger, and sending this message within the current by Election.

Who said it was simple?

This Guy

Dion called the plan "as powerful as it is simple."

Stephane Dion Wants To Add Carbon Tax, Cut Income Tax

Thursday June 19, 2008

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_23970.aspx

The specific details will need to be worked out.

Sure they do.

In the meantime, tell people what sounds good. Its the LPC way.

[Wilber]

How so? Do you get less mileage with the change? Will your fuel be taxed more than gas? Will you not save with a diesel engine?

You keep arguing for no tax on the diesel but the tax applies fairly to all carbon.

However, by all means vote Conservative next election since it is estimated that their plan will add 40 cents a litre to fuel costs.

Here we go again. I'm not arguing for no tax on diesel, I am arguing against the insanity going out of your way to add to the cost of a fuel used by a substantialy lower emitting technology and doing nothing to increase the cost of a less expensive fuel used by technology that emits more. Diesel vehicles emit 30% less CO2 than the equivelent gas powered vehicle which would lead me to believe that anyone seriously wanting to reduce CO2 emissions would want to promote them. How is increasing the cost of their fuel which is already higher than gasoline going to encourage people to buy them? People could care less about your mental masterbation over what part of the price is or isn't tax, it is not tax which will effect their purchasing decision, it's the bloody cost of a tank full of the fuel. I guess the concept is beyond you.

[Wilber]

In terms of emitting greenhouse gases, more efficient fuels are fuels that release less greenhouse gases per litre. This is a characteristic of the fuel. NOT the machine that burns the fuel.

Drivel, in terms of emissions the more efficient technology is the one that uses less carbon. If a fuel contains 20% more carbon by volume but the machine using it goes 50% farther on the same volume, that machine produces 30% less CO2 per mile . Can't be more than grade three arithmetic. There isn't an automotive engineer on the planet that won't back that up and I challenge you to find one.

Yes. Very good. CO2 is produced when the fuel is burned. Now here was my point: different fuels give off different amounts of CO2 when burned.

Yes and the amount of CO2 produced is directly proportional to the amount of carbon contained in the volume of fuel used. See my previous comment.

Those numbers were not the amount of carbon in a litre. They were the amount of CO2 that gets produced by burning a litre of the fuel. This is pretty simple stuff and it's all written down right there.

Those numbers speak for themselves and are about emissions produced by a vehicle for a distance driven but that is obviously over your head.

Exactly! Which is why it taxes all carbon, regardless of its source. It makes no sense to create a patchwork of taxing some carbon, but not taxing other carbon, and then maybe taxing some carbon in some applications, but not in others. Just make it simple: tax all sources of carbon.

Exactly, it taxes carbon and ignores the fact that machines using higher carbon content fuels can actually emit less because they use the fuel much more efficiently.

I've humoured you long enough on this particular subject. This is one thing I actually do know something about so go get some informed advice before coming back.

[Wilber]

As an aside. I just looked at my gas bill. I am being charged GST on the BC provincial carbon tax. Another nice little windfall for the feds.

[bk59]

I am used to LPC campaign promises.

Yes, the boogeyman is quite scary. Why examine with an open mind when it is so much easier to say "this plan is total crap because the Liberals did not scrap the GST in 1993"?

McCallam is the LPC MP and is Promoting exactly what I quoted in Guelph. He is an Economist sending mixed Messages about the Green Shift.

Yeah, I don't really see how he is sending mixed messages. He didn't say enough to give a mixed message. What exactly is the message you think he is sending? And how does it contradict something else? All he said was that "'the vast majority' of Canadians will find the tax breaks included in the plan will outweigh the extra costs incurred by higher energy prices". The plan is supposed to be revenue neutral so if a vast majority of Canadians save a bit of money that will mean that a few Canadians will lose a (larger) amount of money. Given that all of the tax cuts are aimed at the lower brackets it will probably be Canadians with substantially higher incomes that will make up the difference and make the plan revenue neutral.

This Guy

Dion called the plan "as powerful as it is simple."

So when Dion says it is simple you'll quote him, but not when he says anything else?

Look, this may come as a surprise to you, but ALL political parties oversell their glorious plans. The Green Shift is simple in one respect, it's basic premise: tax all carbon and compensate individuals with income tax cuts.

But I don't think all of the mechanics are simple in the same way that the mechanics behind saying "we're going to give people a $1200 child tax benefit" is not simple. Implementing both of those things takes effort and planning even though the basic premises are quite simple.

I'm not so concerned with the "look how amazing our plan is" type of statements. Everyone makes them. I'd rather look at the plan.

In the meantime, tell people what sounds good. Its the LPC way.

And the Conservative Party way. And the NDP way. And the... well, you get the idea.

[bk59]

Drivel, in terms of emissions the more efficient technology is the one that uses less carbon.

You have constantly rejected the statement that different fuels emit different levels of carbon and therefore different fuels have different efficiencies with respect to carbon emissions. You do this by continually shifting the argument. No one is arguing that technologies which emit more carbon are more efficient with respect to emissions. I was talking about the fuel. And fuel does not equate to technology no matter how much you would like it to. Neither my statement nor your statement is contentious. I have no idea why you keep trying to turn what I am saying into something else unless it is just so that you can make yourself feel better by arguing against it and calling everyone else stupid.

If a fuel contains 20% more carbon by volume but the machine using it goes 50% farther on the same volume, that machine produces 30% less CO2 per mile . Can't be more than grade three arithmetic. There isn't an automotive engineer on the planet that won't back that up and I challenge you to find one.

Yeah, I've already said long ago that people who drive diesel cars will pay less carbon tax per year than gas drivers. (Obviously this is because less carbon dioxide is emitted over the year.) So why do you think we are arguing that? I say that the tax is on all of the fuels because they all emit carbon, diesel included, and you continue to harp about cars. We are talking about two different things. All the grade three math in the world can't help you if you refuse to engage with what people are actually saying.

Yes and the amount of CO2 produced is directly proportional to the amount of carbon contained in the volume of fuel used. See my previous comment.

Which is why the figures are given in kg of carbon dioxide PER LITRE. That way you can compare fuels without this tiresome debate about gas mileage (which has nothing to do with the fuel itself).

Those numbers speak for themselves and are about emissions produced by a vehicle for a distance driven but that is obviously over your head.

I am not arguing about the numbers for the Jetta. Perhaps that is over your head. You talked about the numbers I quoted regarding kg of carbon dioxide emitted per litre of fuel burned. Except you called it something else. I simply pointed that out. But by all means bring up your Jetta numbers rather than read the headings on the chart.

Exactly, it taxes carbon and ignores the fact that machines using higher carbon content fuels can actually emit less because they use the fuel much more efficiently.

That is because a carbon tax is concerned about the source of carbon emissions, not how you get the carbon emissions. People who drive diesel cars will still pay less than people who drive gas cars - that does not change. But taxing all fuels means that those who are already driving with those fuels will hopefully cut down. This means less carbon emissions.

Now you seem to be all concerned about the tax discouraging people from changing from gas to diesel. Well, since diesel will still be cheaper than gas, there is still an incentive to switch. The people who do the math now will still do the math after the tax is introduced. People who do not do the math and simply look at the pump price will not switch. But since the pump price for diesel is higher right now, they were never going to switch whether the carbon tax was introduced or not. You also are ignoring the obvious question of how many people could actually afford to go out and buy a new Jetta (or other diesel car)?

Here is the really basic argument:

1. Taxing all fuels provides an incentive for all users of all fuels to use less and reduce emissions. Not taxing diesel means diesel drivers have no incentive to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions.

2. To find the number of people who will not switch to diesel because of the carbon tax you must take the number of people who will switch right now and find the number of people within that group who will change their mind about switching because they consider the price of diesel at the pump to be too high compared to gas. Your position is logically inconsistent. The price of diesel at the pump is already higher than gas so these people would still do the math, see that diesel was cheaper in terms of the carbon tax, and continue to switch.

I've humoured you long enough on this particular subject. This is one thing I actually do know something about so go get some informed advice before coming back.

You might know something. It's hard to tell though. Instead of reading what people are writing you constantly return to your Jetta numbers or talk about technologies when I am talking about fuel. Your position in its basic form is also not entirely logical.

[Wilber]

bk59, I see you still haven't got any informed advice.

You have constantly rejected the statement that different fuels emit different levels of carbon and therefore different fuels have different efficiencies with respect to carbon emissions.

A fuel is just a fuel, it emits nothing until it is consumed. The amount of emissions depends on the efficiency of the machine using it. I you use less carbon, you emit less, the actual carbon content of the fuel is not relative. Bottom line is you believe that by taxing the carbon content of the fuel, you are taxing emissions. In the case of gasoline versus diesel powered vehicles, this is patently untrue.

No one is arguing that technologies which emit more carbon are more efficient with respect to emissions.

No, the technologies which consume less carbon are more efficient with respect to emissions. Diesels consume less carbon than gasoline engines because they consume far less fuel, even though that fuel contains slightly more carbon by volume. If you can't make that simple connection between carbon consumption and emissions, why do you wish to impose a tax?

So what are you arguing?

Yeah, I've already said long ago that people who drive diesel cars will pay less carbon tax per year than gas drivers.

When is it going to sink in that people won't give a crap about your airy fairy notions of tax fairness but they will care big time about what they have to pay for a liter of fuel?

We are talking about two different things. All the grade three math in the world can't help you if you refuse to engage with what people are actually saying.

Yes, I am talking about reducing CO2 emissions and you are talking about taxing people.

I say that the tax is on all of the fuels because they all emit carbon, diesel included, and you continue to harp about cars.

My point exactly. I harp about not penalizing cars which emit less and all you can harp about is a tax. Which one of us is really interested in reducing emissions?

But taxing all fuels means that those who are already driving with those fuels will hopefully cut down. This means less carbon emissions.

Yikes, you are saying that taxing people who drive cars which emit less while leaving alone those which emit more will reduce emissions. What are you on?

Now you seem to be all concerned about the tax discouraging people from changing from gas to diesel. Well, since diesel will still be cheaper than gas, there is still an incentive to switch. The people who do the math now will still do the math after the tax is introduced. People who do not do the math and simply look at the pump price will not switch. But since the pump price for diesel is higher right now, they were never going to switch whether the carbon tax was introduced or not. You also are ignoring the obvious question of how many people could actually afford to go out and buy a new Jetta (or other diesel car)?

Well you've got me confused here. First you say diesel is cheaper, then it is more expensive. You were right the second time, it is more expensive, 6 to 10 cents a liter seems to be the range around here. One of the reasons people switched to diesel is because they were cheaper to run in spite of the the higher cost. Driving the price even higher will reduce that incentive considerably. What I really don't get is your assertion that people won't switch because the price is higher at the pump. I keep asking this question IF YOU THINK PEOPLE WON'T SWITCH BECAUSE OF HIGHER PRICES, WHY THE HELL DO YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE A TAX? but all I get is the same tired dogma, as if people really care about anything other than the price at the pump. As for the affordability of diesel cars, 53% of European new car buyers find it possible. They really don't cost much more in markets where they are in large scale use and there is a large sellection of manufacuterers and models. Did you know that more than 50% of Chrysler products sold in Europe are diesel including Mini vans and PT Cruisers?

You might know something. It's hard to tell though. Instead of reading what people are writing you constantly return to your Jetta numbers or talk about technologies when I am talking about fuel. Your position in its basic form is also not entirely logical.

I keep returning to the Jetta numbers because they present a near perfect comparison of the difference in efficiency between the two power plants. Same car, same transmission, same size engine. Based on driving 20,000 KM per year the gas Jetta emits. 4021 KG of CO2 per year or 201 grams per KM. ]The diesel Jetta emits 2992 KG of CO2 or 149 grams per KM. The only difference is that one is gas powered and one diesel. What's so freaking hard to understand?

VW Audi, the third largest car maker in the world is committed to diesels as the immediate future in low emissions. The only hybrid they have presented is a Golf diesel hybrid which emits 15% less CO2 than a Prius. Take that gas engine out of the Prius and drop in the same size clean diesel and it to will emit less. Toyota the largest car maker and largest maker of hybrids is also planning on clean diesels so don't be surprised to see a diesel hybrid Prius or Camry in the not too distant future. The same goes for Nissan who presently use the Toyota hybrid technology. While retaining the Civic hybrid, Honda has decided that diesel is the way to go in larger models. They have dumped the Accord hybrid and will be offering a diesel Accord and Acura TL in the near future.

All of them are doing it to reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. What is it you know that these fools don't?

Please, stop just spouting the party line and do some research. Find out what emits what and who is doing what in the industry to deal with it. Otherwise it is like debating with the Borg.

By the way, the diesel option on my Jetta cost just about $1200. In the time I have owned it, I have pumped well over 4000 fewer kilos of CO2 into the atmosphere than the gas engined version. Unlike a theoretical exercise on the impact of a tax, that is something you can actually measure.

[jdobbin]

Here we go again. I'm not arguing for no tax on diesel, I am arguing against the insanity going out of your way to add to the cost of a fuel used by a substantialy lower emitting technology and doing nothing to increase the cost of a less expensive fuel used by technology that emits more. Diesel vehicles emit 30% less CO2 than the equivelent gas powered vehicle which would lead me to believe that anyone seriously wanting to reduce CO2 emissions would want to promote them. How is increasing the cost of their fuel which is already higher than gasoline going to encourage people to buy them? People could care less about your mental masterbation over what part of the price is or isn't tax, it is not tax which will effect their purchasing decision, it's the bloody cost of a tank full of the fuel. I guess the concept is beyond you.

There's that insulting tone that you can't seem to get a control of.

I'm afraid you are the only one I have ever seen making this argument on their diesel fuel and that is saying a lot. The only was I have seen heaping abuse on others about the tax on diesel is you.

The tax is not on the technology but on the carbon content of the fuel which is emitted even if it is at a 30% lower rate from a diesel engine. The fuel gets taxed less than gas, gets better mileage but there is not getting around the fact that it still emits carbon when burned. The fairest way to tax carbon is to set a rate that is standard across the border.

It will will end up costing the drivers of diesel vehicles a lot less than gas vehicles. It will cost a lot less than the NDP and Tory plans will pass on large costs in fuel charges.

[Wilber]

It will will end up costing the drivers of diesel vehicles a lot less than gas vehicles. It will cost a lot less than the NDP and Tory plans will pass on large costs in fuel charges.

d

If you are adding a tax to diesel that you are not adding to the present price of gasoline, how will it end up costing drivers of diesels less? By increasing the price differential between gasoline and diesel, how does that give anyone an incentive to invest in the lower emitting technology? These are very simple questions and you should have no trouble answering them.

[jdobbin]

If you are adding a tax to diesel that you are not adding to the present price of gasoline, how will it end up costing drivers of diesels less? By increasing the price differential between gasoline and diesel, how does that give anyone an incentive to invest in the lower emitting technology? These are very simple questions and you should have no trouble answering them.

It is the industry that is increasing the price differential not government taxes. Even without a carbon tax, industry is now pricing diesel higher.

Gas is $42 per metric tonne of carbon. Diesel is $40. Gas is more expensive.

[Wilber]

It is the industry that is increasing the price differential not government taxes. Even without a carbon tax, industry is now pricing diesel higher.

Gas is $42 per metric tonne of carbon. Diesel is $40. Gas is more expensive.

Two very simple questions but just as I thought, you can't answer them. Either that or you can but don't like the answers.