NDP's Layton promises investments

[Wilber]

And it is the same tax that will continue to make people look for alternatives, efficiencies and changes in driving habits.

You mean the same tax that did nothing before but will as soon as you rename it. I guess you are satisfied with the vehicles people are driving, unless of course it is powered by diesel.

[bk59]

I'm not trying to tax you, you are trying to tax me. Tell me how you are going to do it with a seven cent a liter tax on diesel.

I have already done that. The point is to get people emitting less no matter what activity leads to those emissions.

Now you tell me about your plan. You are the one saying how much you are doing for the environment. What is your plan to reduce emissions? You are acting like a child screaming "no no no". You do not offer alternatives, yet you claim that you are in favour of reducing emissions.

But how about this for a start, you put a one time tax on the purchase price of a new vehicle based on its CO2 emissions per kilometer. Something like they already do for air conditioning. Now you are actually taxing emissions instead of carbon. After the vehicle is purchased, the owners will be paying more for fuel anyway because emissions are in direct proportion to consumption. Not a perfect plan but certainly does more than yours because it actually targets emissions.

A one time tax like you suggest may be a good way to place a disincentive on a particular technology like a higher emitting car. But it does not tax actual emissions. Let's say your tax is $1 for each kg of CO2 released per km. And let's say for vehicle X it comes out to $100. Both person A and person B buy the car. They both pay $100 for this tax. Person A then goes out and drives 100km. Person B drives 200km. Person B has emitted twice as much CO2 as person A, but they both paid the same tax. Therefore you are not taxing actual emissions. You are simply taxing a particular technology with a one time cost.

You have this disconnect between emissions and carbon. If you wanted to tax the emissions you would have to know how much person A emitted and how much person B emitted. I suppose you could go to each of them and somehow directly measure their emissions, but there is an easier way. We know that one litre of gas will emit a certain amount of CO2. Just like we know one litre of diesel will emit a certain amount of CO2. If you tax the fuel based on those values, then you guarantee that person B pays for what person B actually emits. In driving twice as far as person A, person B will use twice as much fuel. Person B will therefore pay twice as much carbon tax than person A. Et voila. Person B has now paid for what person B actually emitted.

You are right that person B would pay more for their fuel because they are consuming more. But current prices do not reflect emissions in any way. They only reflect the cost of the fuel.

So there is no commitment not to put a tax on gasoline. You know you will have to because what you are proposing now will do nothing to reduce passenger vehicle emissions.

Actually I thought that the Green Plan does say that there will be no increase on the tax on gasoline over the four years.

And yes, the Green Plan will do something to reduce passenger vehicle emissions. Not as much as you would like, and perhaps not as much as the environmentally ideal plan, but you have yet to give us your wisdom about how a political party can introduce a higher gas tax and still get elected so that they can put their plan into action.

For example, I think it would be ideal if I got public healthcare and paid zero taxes. Unfortunately that is not possible. You have admitted that adding a higher tax to gasoline is not possible right now given the current attitudes of the Canadian public. So when you are criticizing the Green Plan because of this you are essentially complaining that the Liberal party is not doing the impossible. It is irrational and certainly not constructive.

No plan is going to vaporize all the cars in Canada, the idea is to promote the use of lower emitting vehicles. Diesel is one of those, you should be promoting them, not taxing them.

I refuse to accept a tax that targets diesel only in the name of reducing passenger vehicle CO2 emissions, it is flat out dishonest.

1. The Green Shift does not tax diesel only.

2. The goal is not to only reduce passenger vehicle CO2 emissions.

3. Characterizing the plan in this way is flat out dishonest.

I suggested promoting diesel with rebates on new vehicles. You objected. And have offered no alternatives that would make diesels more attractive for Canadians.

What you say and what you are doing are not related.

To pull a page from your book, how do you know what I am doing?

You said that others are spending much more than me to reduce their CO2 emissions, I would like to know how you know that.

You said you bought a diesel. It's not hard to guess the cost of a diesel, particularly when you yourself posted some numbers. In terms of personal transportation I do know people spending more than that amount. As you yourself said, we were only talking about motor vehicles.

You want to take my money, I think it is pretty clear.

I think it would actually be impossible for me to care less about your money. You are that guy, standing on the street corner yelling about how the government is stealing your money. FYI, the government is stealing everyone's money! It's called taxes. Almost all governments do this. And we all pay taxes. You are not special in this regard.

[bk59]

EDIT: For some reason my last post got put up twice. So I deleted this copy of it.

Edited August 22, 2008 by bk59

[bk59]

There are economic forums to have these discussions, with nicey charts, and curvs and economic lingo, but that is for economist banter. This is political banter, and the force behind the Green SHift are Liberals.

Do you have a link? I'd be interested in seeing that forum.

[jdobbin]

You mean the same tax that did nothing before but will as soon as you rename it. I guess you are satisfied with the vehicles people are driving, unless of course it is powered by diesel.

It did nothing before? I think not.

But please vote Tory if that will make you happy. The 40 cents a litre on fuel in passed on costs will look be an eye opener, I'm sure.

[Wilber]

It did nothing before? I think not.

Well it has certainly been in effect long enough to change peoples ways so you must be happy with the results. It's just those diesel drivers who need to change.

[jdobbin]

Well it has certainly been in effect long enough to change peoples ways so you must be happy with the results. It's just those diesel drivers who need to change.

Please. It will continue to work. These things are not just one time events. It is a consideration each time people buy a vehicle, when they don't maintain a vehicle for peak efficiency and when they don't use a vehicle efficiently.

But be happy voting Tory when the put a cap and trade on polluters such as the oil industry. The expert panels have said the cost on diesel is way bigger way than the Liberal plan proposes.

Edited August 22, 2008 by jdobbin

[Wilber]

A one time tax like you suggest may be a good way to place a disincentive on a particular technology like a higher emitting car. But it does not tax actual emissions. Let's say your tax is $1 for each kg of CO2 released per km. And let's say for vehicle X it comes out to $100. Both person A and person B buy the car. They both pay $100 for this tax. Person A then goes out and drives 100km. Person B drives 200km. Person B has emitted twice as much CO2 as person A, but they both paid the same tax. Therefore you are not taxing actual emissions. You are simply taxing a particular technology with a one time cost.

They both can't drive the car at the same time. It is taxing the vehicles emissions not the drivers emissions. Drivers don't emit unless they fart carbon.

You have this disconnect between emissions and carbon.

I'm not the one with the disconnect.

And yes, the Green Plan will do something to reduce passenger vehicle emissions. Not as much as you would like, and perhaps not as much as the environmentally ideal plan, but you have yet to give us your wisdom about how a political party can introduce a higher gas tax and still get elected so that they can put their plan into action.

So I was right, you want to sneak it in through the back door. Lie now, screw em later.

1. The Green Shift does not tax diesel only.

It is the only new tax on motor fuel.

2. The goal is not to only reduce passenger vehicle CO2 emissions.

Good, because it won't.

3. Characterizing the plan in this way is flat out dishonest.

It's absolutely honest.

I suggested promoting diesel with rebates on new vehicles. You objected. And have offered no alternatives that would make diesels more attractive for Canadians.

And I said giving someone a rebate on a vehicle then slapping a new tax on the fuel it uses would be the act of an idiot. Or words to that effect.

I think it would actually be impossible for me to care less about your money. You are that guy, standing on the street corner yelling about how the government is stealing your money. FYI, the government is stealing everyone's money! It's called taxes. Almost all governments do this. And we all pay taxes. You are not special in this regard.

You care for your agenda and need my money to carry it out. It's that simple.

I know they do, that is why they are potentially dangerous and need to be curbed by people standing up to them. Revolutions have been fought over it, lives have been sacrificed and it is part of the genesis of every free country.

You seem to think that people should meekly shut up and let government take what they want from them just because they are the government.

[bk59]

They both can't drive the car at the same time. It is taxing the vehicles emissions not the drivers emissions. Drivers don't emit unless they fart carbon.

You must be acting this simple on purpose. Fine, let me hold your hand. Person A and person B buy identical cars. Idiot response number one dealt with.

Of course it is taxing the emissions from the vehicle! But guess what? Vehicles don't just emit CO2 on their own. They must be driven in order to do that. By drivers.

Now maybe you would like to admit that your idea does not tax emissions at all. Because under your plan the car and driver emitting more does not pay more for their CO2 than the car and driver emitting less CO2. They both pay the same upfront tax no matter how much they drive and no matter how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere. Therefore you are taxing the purchase of a particular car and not emissions.

I'm not the one with the disconnect.

Here is the truly ironic thing about your last point that drivers don't emit CO2: vehicles don't emit CO2 either. A car sitting on the curb emits absolutely nothing. It is the burning of the fuel that emits CO2. And no matter how you burn it, whether it's in a diesel car or in a bucket, one litre of fuel will emit a certain amount of CO2 when burned. You continually confuse the technology used to burn the fuel with the actual burning of the fuel. You are literal when you want to be (it's the vehicle not the driver) and yet when the exact same logic applies to the rationale behind taxing the fuel itself (it's the fuel not the vehicle) you take the opposite point of view.

So I was right, you want to sneak it in through the back door. Lie now, screw em later.

Oh really? Where is it being snuck in? More and more of your objections are becoming made up.

It is the only new tax on motor fuel.

It is also the only new tax on a number of other things. Congratulations on only looking at one aspect of the plan.

Good, because it won't.

Except that it will.

It's absolutely honest.

Except that you ignore the plan as a whole. You ignore the fact that your criticism is based on something that you yourself admit is currently impossible.

And I said giving someone a rebate on a vehicle then slapping a new tax on the fuel it uses would be the act of an idiot. Or words to that effect.

A rebate on the car would encourage people to buy the technology. A carbon tax on the fuel would encourage them to use less fuel and hopefully drive less. These are two different goals, and they are not mutually exclusive.

The only act of an idiot I see around here is the person criticizing a plan for not doing what the person has already admitted is impossible.

You care for your agenda and need my money to carry it out. It's that simple.

Just like the supporters of any party care for their agenda and need the money of other people to carry it out. Welcome to a democracy. It's that simple.

You seem to think that people should meekly shut up and let government take what they want from them just because they are the government.

Not even remotely. Nice try on the mischaracterization. You are coming across as the guy who rejects every proposal simply because it comes from a political party.

People need to engage in the debate and discuss how we should deal with this problem. My opposition to your reasons are that they are outright false (like the idea that there would be no incentive to switch to diesel if a carbon tax was implemented) or they just make no sense at all (like the fact that your opposition to the plan is based on something that you yourself admit is impossible to accomplish right now).

[madmax]

.........as much as changing UI to EI reduced unemployment.

[madmax]

You must be acting this simple on purpose. Fine, let me hold your hand. Person A and person B buy identical cars. Idiot response number one dealt with.

Take your patronizing crap and shove it.

[Wilber]

Now maybe you would like to admit that your idea does not tax emissions at all. Because under your plan the car and driver emitting more does not pay more for their CO2 than the car and driver emitting less CO2. They both pay the same upfront tax no matter how much they drive and no matter how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere. Therefore you are taxing the purchase of a particular car and not emissions.

Gore, Suzuki and your other heroes are constantly leaping up and down crying, WE MUST DO SOMETHING NOOOWWW OR WE ARE DOOOOOMMMED!

Lets assume they are right and we really want to do something about it

My plan would be implemented now, it would penalize people for buying higher emissions vehicles now, not four years from now. They would still be paying the same penalty at the pump as your "plan" because you are not changing anything there for four years. Right? It would start lowering emissions now, not four years from now. You could take the taxes garnered from the people buying high emitters and use them to provide incentives to those buying lower emitters. You don't pick fuels and you don't pick technologies, all taxes and rebates would be based strictly on the grams per km coming out of a vehicle tailpipe. If it works well enough you may not even be faced with trying to sell higher fuel taxes in four years and even if you do, they wouldn't have to be as big.

Your plan is to ignore the major source of motor vehicle emissions for four years while taxing everything else and using the money to to build entitlements that have nothing to do with emissions.

Which leads me to three possible conclusions.

Either

1: You are not serious about dealing with the major source of vehicle emissions.

2: You have no intention of keeping your promise about not adding tax to them for four years.

3: You will be so far behind in four years that you will have to play catch up big time. But then you will be facing another election and have the same problem. Then what?

Fortunately there is a third option. Unfortunately it is based on something that works and it seems in our system a politician who does something that works instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, has no "vision".

Carbon from vehicles is a tailpipe emission like any other. Why not treat it like one?

Back in the late sixties governments decided that air pollution produced by cars was a major problem that had to be dealt with. They got a bunch of very smart people to sit down and figure out what was possible with existing technology and they set limits. They then let the pros figure out how to meet those limits. As the technology improved they continued to set ever lower limits. The result was the vehicles we drive now emit a very tiny fraction of the targeted pollutants and guess what, no one got taxed. Problem is, it has been done before and it takes a lot of work. Not sexy or easy like a tax.

Here is the truly ironic thing about your last point that drivers don't emit CO2: vehicles don't emit CO2 either. A car sitting on the curb emits absolutely nothing. It is the burning of the fuel that emits CO2. And no matter how you burn it, whether it's in a diesel car or in a bucket, one litre of fuel will emit a certain amount of CO2 when burned. You continually confuse the technology used to burn the fuel with the actual burning of the fuel. You are literal when you want to be (it's the vehicle not the driver) and yet when the exact same logic applies to the rationale behind taxing the fuel itself (it's the fuel not the vehicle) you take the opposite point of view.

I don't confuse it all. The only confusion is with someone who believes adding a tax to lower emitting vehicles while leaving higher emitting ones alone, will actually reduce emissions.

It is also the only new tax on a number of other things. Congratulations on only looking at one aspect of the plan.

But not a new tax on the major source of CO2 emissions.

Oh really? Where is it being snuck in? More and more of your objections are becoming made up.

Not being made up at all. You will have no choice but to bring it in if you want to reduce vehicle emissions. You are not being up front about that so you must be intending to sneak it in. Of course if you had the integrity to admit that, you wouldn't be sneaking.

Except that you ignore the plan as a whole. You ignore the fact that your criticism is based on something that you yourself admit is currently impossible.

I don't know if it is impossible. If people really believe as you do that taxation is the only way to deal with vehicle emissions, maybe it is possible. You are the one who believes it is impossible by delaying four years, so why should people who do believe it take you seriously? The thing is, a politician breaking a promise is nothing special, it is almost expected. That is why it is usually only other politicians who get bent out of shape when it happens. The average Joe just shrugs and says, so what's new, they're politicians. Maybe you are counting on that cynicism and maybe you are right to do so. That is why your "plan" may have a chance.

A rebate on the car would encourage people to buy the technology. A carbon tax on the fuel would encourage them to use less fuel and hopefully drive less. These are two different goals, and they are not mutually exclusive.

Giving incentives and rebates in order to get people to buy a product then jacking up the user fees later on, is a time honoured marketing principle used by everyone from cell phone providers to crack dealers. You are suggesting I advocate jacking up the user fees first, then try to sell the product. Frankly, that isn't very bright and I respectfully decline.

Not even remotely. Nice try on the mis-characterization. You are coming across as the guy who rejects every proposal simply because it comes from a political party.

Not at all, I am just adhering to my first principle of politics. ALL politicians are potentially dangerous. I also don't believe that politicians or political parties have all the answers, in fact the opposite is often true. And that is a completely non partisan statement, politically speaking.

[bk59]

Take your patronizing crap and shove it.

Wilber has been nothing but patronizing throughout this entire thread. I refrained from such rhetoric for most of it. But quite frankly his responses have become tiresome and I have no problem with treating him the same way he treats me and others.

You will notice that I am not doing the same with other posters here.

I wonder when you will tell Wilber to cut his crap. Fair is fair after all.