The Liberal Green Shift

[LiberalJim]

THE GREEN SHIFT

The thing people don't understand is that the green shift will cut taxes and create jobs. Not only that, it will create GOOD, DECENT and PROGRESSIVE jobs. It's a fantastic and innovative piece of politics. Doing Canada proud and putting us ahead of the rest of the world.

[Riverwind]

The thing people don't understand is that the green shift will cut taxes and create jobs.

The tax cuts woud be more than offset by higher prices. The only carbon taxes that work are carbon taxes that don't spend the proceeds on new social programs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opinion/...?pagewanted=all

Denmark avoids the temptation to maximize the tax revenue by giving the proceeds back to industry, earmarking much of it to subsidize environmental innovation. Danish firms are pushed away from carbon and pulled into environmental innovation, and the country’s economy isn’t put at a competitive disadvantage. So this is lesson No. 1 from Denmark.

The second lesson is that the carbon tax worked in Denmark because it was easy for Danish firms to switch to cleaner fuels. Danish policy makers made huge investments in renewable energy and subsidized environmental innovation. Denmark back then was more reliant on coal than the other three countries were (but not more so than the United States is today), so when the tax gave companies a reason to leave coal and the investments in renewable energy gave them an easy way to do so, they switched. The key was providing easy substitutes.

The op ends with this advice:

Instead, if we want to reduce carbon emissions, then we should follow Denmark’s example: tax the industrial emission of carbon and return the revenue to industry through subsidies for research and investment in alternative energy sources, cleaner-burning fuel, carbon-capture technologies and other environmental innovations.

Ironically, the conservative plan is already very close to this model. I say ironic because most environmentalists criticize the conservative plan. Edited September 3, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

The tax cuts woud be more than offset by higher prices. The only carbon taxes that work are carbon taxes that don't spend the proceeds on new social programs.

Think you forget that the Liberal plan also includes corporate tax cuts and R & D. Dion spoke again tonight on the subject.

Ironically, the conservative plan is already very close to this model. I say ironic because most environmentalists criticize the conservative plan.

Economists criticize it too because it had so many loopholes as to be useless which is exactly how it was intended.

[Riverwind]

Think you forget that the Liberal plan also includes corporate tax cuts and R & D. Dion spoke again tonight on the subject.

Read the op I linked to. It makes a very good point: carbon cuts don't happen by magic - there needs to be a very direct incentives. Taking the proceeds from the tax and directing them all towards R&D provides that incentive. Broadly based tax cut do not.

Economists criticize it too because it had so many loopholes as to be useless which is exactly how it was intended.

Those can be fixed. The concept of a carbon tax which is used to fund social programs is fundementally flawed and cannot be fixed.

[DanInOttawa]

THE GREEN SHIFT

The thing people don't understand is that the green shift will cut taxes and create jobs. Not only that, it will create GOOD, DECENT and PROGRESSIVE jobs. It's a fantastic and innovative piece of politics. Doing Canada proud and putting us ahead of the rest of the world.

I don't think I agree, I have not heard how the Green Shift is going to help or hurt me. From what I have heard so far I believe it is a radical move and we don't a plan to transition. If we just take the big leap with out a proper plan we could find our country in trouble. Even today, Dion has stated that he has to make changes to the shift for rural farmers. Next it will be the auto industry because it is in trouble and then others will complain. Where will it end?

I think a much better approach is to invest in innovation that will get us there. Once that happens the market will kick in and people will shift on their own.

[jdobbin]

Read the op I linked to. It makes a very good point: carbon cuts don't happen by magic - there needs to be a very direct incentives. Taking the proceeds from the tax and directing them all towards R&D provides that incentive. Broadly based tax cut do not.

Read Dion's statement where he says money will be directed to R&D.

Those can be fixed. The concept of a carbon tax which is used to fund social programs is fundementally flawed and cannot be fixed.

It isn't just to programs. It is to tax cuts directed at those most affected.

As far as your assertion that the loopholes can be fixed, they have not been in 2 1/2 years.

Edited September 3, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

I don't think I agree, I have not heard how the Green Shift is going to help or hurt me. From what I have heard so far I believe it is a radical move and we don't a plan to transition. If we just take the big leap with out a proper plan we could find our country in trouble. Even today, Dion has stated that he has to make changes to the shift for rural farmers. Next it will be the auto industry because it is in trouble and then others will complain. Where will it end?

Dion had said from the beginning that there would be consultation as to best help those most affected by the change.

Ask Harper what he is doing for Ford tomorrow with his handouts there.

I think a much better approach is to invest in innovation that will get us there. Once that happens the market will kick in and people will shift on their own.

And the Dion's plan does invest in R&D.

[Riverwind]

Read Dion's statement where he says money will be directed to R&D.

A small fraction. The vast majority of the money collected is redistributed to people

It isn't just to programs. It is to tax cuts directed at those most affected.

Translation: it redistributes wealth via the tax system. IOW - it is a massive new social program disguised as a tax cut. If it was just a tax cut the taxes would be cut equally across the board.

[M.Dancer]

I wonder if thye Green Shift Tax will be known as the GST or the Green Shaft?

[jdobbin]

A small fraction. The vast majority of the money collected is redistributed to people

Corporate and personal income tax cuts.

Translation: it redistributes wealth via the tax system. IOW - it is a massive new social program disguised as a tax cut. If it was just a tax cut the taxes would be cut equally across the board.

Which you would still be unhappy about.

The Tory plan though raises gas 40 cents a litre but that plan is gold.

[Ontario Loyalist]

The tax cuts woud be more than offset by higher prices. The only carbon taxes that work are carbon taxes that don't spend the proceeds on new social programs.

As opposed to Conservative tax cuts which are just more than offset by user fees and hidden taxes.

People complain about "carbon taxes" like we have unlimited resources and the air we breathe is free from pollution... Truckers complain that they are being taxed to much as it is, and that this will be more of a burden. Good; that's the point. The taxes are supposed to force the system to change so that it costs too much to transport fruits and veggies from California which could be being grown more locally. It simply means that these guys will eventually be trucking shorter distances, therefore they have lower or similar costs and are in no different position. If they can't handle it, then they can go look for another job or get their high school equivalency and then go to college to learn a new trade. Life went on after computers we introduced into the workplace, despite hysteria that that caused at the time. Same goes with this.

[DanInOttawa]

Dion had said from the beginning that there would be consultation as to best help those most affected by the change.

Ask Harper what he is doing for Ford tomorrow with his handouts there.

And the Dion's plan does invest in R&D.

What R&D? that's the problem. You have to have some R&D in the works now or all we will have is us paying taxes. I agree we have to change, in-fact the whole world has to change but Rome was not built in on "Green Shift". Slow the race down and lets lay down some track.

[jdobbin]

What R&D? that's the problem. You have to have some R&D in the works now or all we will have is us paying taxes. I agree we have to change, in-fact the whole world has to change but Rome was not built in on "Green Shift". Slow the race down and lets lay down some track.

R&D tax cuts were always part of the plan. The first part was a general 1% reduction in corporate tax, an additional 1% for small business which are the innovators in green change and additional R&D tax credits after that. It amounts to billions of dollars.

[capricorn]

If we just take the big leap with out a proper plan we could find our country in trouble. Even today, Dion has stated that he has to make changes to the shift for rural farmers. Next it will be the auto industry because it is in trouble and then others will complain. Where will it end?

Do the Liberals have their act together on the Green Shift plan?

When Mr. Dion launched the Green Shift last June, he said Liberals would spend the summer having a "dialogue" with Canadians about the complicated plan. Since then, one insider said the leader has rejected any criticism of the plan, insisting "there will be no changes, not a comma."'

However, Mr. Easter and other MPs clearly remain under the impression that the plan can and will be fine-tuned.

Robert Thibault, a Nova Scotia MP, said the purpose of the summer consultations was to determine "what are the adjustments that have to happen, not to assume we got it all 100 per cent, completely right."

While Mr. Dion has touted the green shift as a comprehensive, detailed plan to combat climate change, Mr. Thibault said: "In my mind, it's a statement of principles, it's not a recipe."

Unlike Mr. Easter, who would like changes made before the election is called, Mr. Thibault said he thinks voters will accept that they won't get all the details until the plan is actually implemented.

"I think if we talk to people (and tell them) this is a statement of principles, of intent . . . and during the implementation that there's leeway to discuss with Canadians, I think that's the logical way to do it."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../National/home/

(emphasis mine)

Thibault insinuates we will get the details of the plan when the plan is implemented. That worries me. If the Liberals can't explain the plan to Canadians, how would we know its impact if it is adopted? Too many unanswered questions.

[jdobbin]

Thibault insinuates we will get the details of the plan when the plan is implemented. That worries me. If the Liberals can't explain the plan to Canadians, how would we know its impact if it is adopted? Too many unanswered questions.

Seems to me when I saw Dion tonight along with the caucus they had the details pretty much decided.

[DanInOttawa]

Dion had said from the beginning that there would be consultation as to best help those most affected by the change.

That is very much a big part of the problem. "Dion Said", he turns to the left and says something and then turns to the right and says something else. I can never keep it straight. I am fearful of the hidden details of the "Green Shift".

[stevoh]

A small fraction. The vast majority of the money collected is redistributed to people

Considering the people are the end users who will bear the extra cost, seems like the best idea to me.

Translation: it redistributes wealth via the tax system. IOW - it is a massive new social program disguised as a tax cut. If it was just a tax cut the taxes would be cut equally across the board.

Leave it to a right winger to call a liberal tax cut "income redistribution". I don't see conservative based corporate tax cuts distributed evenly among all businesses either. Maybe we should just call conservatives "corporate socialists" due to THEIR income redistrubution efforts.

A tax cut is a tax cut. All tax increases/cuts are income redistrubution.

[stevoh]

That is very much a big part of the problem. "Dion Said", he turns to the left and says something and then turns to the right and says something else. I can never keep it straight. I am fearful of the hidden details of the "Green Shift".

I read the green shift plan on the website, and have understood the reasons behind the latest farming cost changes (don't increase costs of food supply). I also haven't seen an inconsistency in his message. If you have something specific that is confusing, define it here, and maybe we can clear it up.

[segnosaur]

I don't think I agree, I have not heard how the Green Shift is going to help or hurt me.

Here's a general rule... if you live in Ontario, Alberta, or any other province that generates a significant portion of its electricity through coal or oil, you will be hurt. On the other hand, if you live in Quebec or Manitoba (where they generate almost all their electricty through hydro electric projects) you will benefit.

The reason? While everyone has the potential for receiving tax cuts, the tax cuts will be more than offset by increased costs for electricity and other products in Ontario. But if you live in Quebec/Manitoba, you will end up receiving the tax cuts, but won't have to deal with increased electicity costs (as hydro would not be affected by the carbon tax plan.)

You see, that's the major flaw in the green shift program... it punishes people not for how wasteful they are (in fact, someone in Quebec can actually WASTE more gas/oil and still come out ahead under the green shift plan), but on where they live. And sadly, you have no option (as an individual consumer) to change how your power is generated. That makes the Liberal plan pretty much useless.

I live in Ottawa, and it will increase my tax burden by several hundred dollars per year.

I think a much better approach is to invest in innovation that will get us there. Once that happens the market will kick in and people will shift on their own.

Hey, I'm all for innovation. But for all the claims about how the Green Shift plan will increase R&D, its just not the major focus of the plan. Heck, the plan has almost as much detail about how they'll increase child benefits as they will increase R&D. (And even if increasing child benefits is a good idea, why exactly is it part of an environmental program?)

[segnosaur]

Considering the people are the end users who will bear the extra cost, seems like the best idea to me.

Leave it to a right winger to call a liberal tax cut "income redistribution".

Actually, it is an 'income redistribution'. The tax cuts are not broad, across the board cuts... for example, there are increases to child benefits. Similarly, not everyone will end up paying the same in tax cuts; those in certain provinces will end up paying more based on how the province generates its electricity.

So, basically the Liberal plan involves taking money from single people in Ontario and Alberta and transfering it to poor families in Quebec/Manitoba.

I don't see conservative based corporate tax cuts distributed evenly among all businesses either.

Irrelevant... this is a thread about the Liberal green shift, not the Tory plan.

A tax cut is a tax cut. All tax increases/cuts are income redistrubution.

Some 'tax cuts' are more focused on 'income redistribution' than others.

A broad tax cut that applies to every individual (or every business) equally is not 'income redistribution'. A tax cut that applies more to some people than others is income redistribution, especially when the taxpayer (or corporation) has little say in their ability to reduce their tax burden.

[Riverwind]

Considering the people are the end users who will bear the extra cost, seems like the best idea to me.

Did you read the NYT piece I linked to at the beginning of the thread on the Denmark Carbon Tax? For the most part consumers are the least able to make investments to reduce emissions. All most can really do is reduce consumption by giving up on discretionary activities but that is not likely to make much of a differences. In Denmark, they taxed the industrial emitters *and* gave all the money back to the emitters with the stipulation that money must be spent to reduce emissions. This provided the incentive required to actually reduce emissions rather than simply swallowing the costs or moving production overseas.

[jdobbin]

That is very much a big part of the problem. "Dion Said", he turns to the left and says something and then turns to the right and says something else. I can never keep it straight. I am fearful of the hidden details of the "Green Shift".

I think that is that was meant by the consultative approach that was outlined from the very beginning. Unlike Harper's plan which was laid out the first time as a misdirection on the greenhouse gases and the second time as a plan that had major loopholes for emissions but huge costs on things like fuel for the consumer.

Edited September 3, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

I live in Ottawa, and it will increase my tax burden by several hundred dollars per year.

Wow, that number keeps growing.

Edited September 3, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Did you read the NYT piece I linked to at the beginning of the thread on the Denmark Carbon Tax? For the most part consumers are the least able to make investments to reduce emissions. All most can really do is reduce consumption by giving up on discretionary activities but that is not likely to make much of a differences. In Denmark, they taxed the industrial emitters *and* gave all the money back to the emitters with the stipulation that money must be spent to reduce emissions. This provided the incentive required to actually reduce emissions rather than simply swallowing the costs or moving production overseas.

It seems to me that you would be opposed to that to and say the market could do that. Why tax something when you can regulate it? And why regulate it when you don't even believe it is a problem?

[DanInOttawa]

R&D tax cuts were always part of the plan. The first part was a general 1% reduction in corporate tax, an additional 1% for small business which are the innovators in green change and additional R&D tax credits after that. It amounts to billions of dollars.

And who will deside in the company are innovators in green change? How do we know if the change is green or not? Will companies have to apply for grants? from Who? will there be a board, (arm's length from government) that desides?

With out some rules, AKA "tracks" the room for political gamesmenship is hugh! it's like open season... Friends and family first then some other token companies?