Myths about the Green Shift

[Moonbox]

I was just playing around on the Liberal website and I came across a calculator where they told you to 'calculate' your savings under the Green Shift. The Green Shift

I fiddled a bit and found that if you are a family with 2 kids and a combined income of $20,000, you end up saving over $2000 under the Green Shift.

If you do not have children, however, or if your income is above what a high school student makes at McDonald's those savings erode VERY quickly. Someone with 2 kids with a family income of $60,000 saves only about $1000 a year under the Green Shift and someone with no kids saves almost NOTHING.

Considering now that it's widely accepted that carbon taxes WILL pass on costs to consumers, how much do prices really need to increase before your non-minimum wage Green Shift savings erode into the negative?

People, this is from the Liberal's own website. Nobody can argue after playing with the calculator that this isn't just another social income equilization tax. Even if you're poor yourself this isn't going to save you a lot of money.

You have to be at the very bottom of the barrell as far as income is concerned (as in pitifully low combined FAMILY incomes of $20-30,000) and have multiple children for this plan to look good to you.

Nobody is exaggerating how bad this plan looks to the AVERAGE or WEALTHY Canadian. Now the question should be: Are hardworking Canadians excited about the idea of subsidizing Canadians that can't manage (for numerous reasons likely) to find a job that pays more than minimum wage?

Edited September 16, 2008 by Moonbox

[Chuck U. Farlie]

As soon as they put that on their website I played around with it.

I am single, no kids, live in a city, and make about $60k a year.... I would get a whooping $36 a month or $437 a year in total.

Because I am single I don't consume much energy, or produce much waste, and I live less than 10km from work so often I bike it ... there is not much I can do to reduce my carbon footprint...

Yet... if the green shaft happens, then my food and all my utility expenses will increase, and probably by a lot more than $36 a month. The prices of everything will go up (whether the Liberals admit that or not) and very few will be getting back more than they pay out.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Yet... if the green shaft happens, then my food and all my utility expenses will increase, and probably by a lot more than $36 a month. The prices of everything will go up (whether the Liberals admit that or not) and very few will be getting back more than they pay out.

Not to worry..Dion says you can sell your carbon credits on eBay!

[Riverwind]

---

Edited September 16, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Yet... if the green shaft happens, then my food and all my utility expenses will increase, and probably by a lot more than $36 a month. The prices of everything will go up (whether the Liberals admit that or not) and very few will be getting back more than they pay out.

Have you calculated your costs with the Tory plan?

[jdobbin]

If you do not have children, however, or if your income is above what a high school student makes at McDonald's those savings erode VERY quickly. Someone with 2 kids with a family income of $60,000 saves only about $1000 a year under the Green Shift and someone with no kids saves almost NOTHING.

The question you should have asked is how much it will cost you. Did you figure that out?

In any event, it is academic at this point. The latest polls are now predicting the Liberals will lose Official Opposition status based on trends.

[blueblood]

The question you should have asked is how much it will cost you. Did you figure that out?

In any event, it is academic at this point. The latest polls are now predicting the Liberals will lose Official Opposition status based on trends.

But it's so fun to debate this...

[cgarrett]

so the conservative and liberal agendas for the environment are a wash? well, do the cons _have_ a plan? remember steve saying that he "wasn't convinced global warming was even happening"?

what about the ndp agenda? aren't they at least addressing the right issue of promoting the 'shift' that needs to happen? by promoting capacity in alternative methods of transportation.

the biggest problem seems to be waste. pretty well 100% of pleasure vehicles on the road today are completely over powered for transportation needs. how much could we reduce our carbon footprint by regulating these vehicles off the road and promoting fuel efficient vehicles? could we lower it enough to make drastic cuts in the costs of diesel/aviation and commercial fuels? wouldn't that be a win situation?

[jdobbin]

But it's so fun to debate this...

Won't be a Liberal party to debate with next election. Just NDP and possibly Green.

[M.Dancer]

how much could we reduce our carbon footprint by regulating these vehicles off the road and promoting fuel efficient vehicles?

The cost of social services to support the families of the Canadian workers who make these vehicles you want to ban will outweigh any meagre benefits from the banning of the vehicles.

If human activitry is the cause of GW and CO2 emmisions are the smoking gun, we could reduce our output to zero and it would mean squat as long as China, India and other emerging 3rd world polluters continue as always.

[eyeball]

The cost of social services to support the families of the Canadian workers who make these vehicles you want to ban will outweigh any meagre benefits from the banning of the vehicles.

If human activitry is the cause of GW and CO2 emmisions are the smoking gun, we could reduce our output to zero and it would mean squat as long as China, India and other emerging 3rd world polluters continue as always.

Human economic activity is the smoking gun. These countries will only continue as long as we keep buying from them as always. Producing stuff without putting a price on carbon is a subsidy so we need to put a offsetting tariff on imports from these countries and apply the proceeds into broadening our own greener manufacturing base.

[M.Dancer]

Human economic activity is the smoking gun. These countries will only continue as long as we keep buying from them as always. Producing stuff without putting a price on carbon is a subsidy so we need to put a offsetting tariff on imports from these countries and apply the proceeds into broadening our own greener manufacturing base.

So you think a trade war will increase our productivity?

[bush_cheney2004]

Human economic activity is the smoking gun. These countries will only continue as long as we keep buying from them as always. Producing stuff without putting a price on carbon is a subsidy so we need to put a offsetting tariff on imports from these countries and apply the proceeds into broadening our own greener manufacturing base.

You mean like tar sands oil production?

[Moonbox]

Have you calculated your costs with the Tory plan?

Jdobbin I've already discussed this with you i'm pretty sure. I don't think Stephen Harper has any intentions of implementing ANY plan while he's in office. He made one up but I think it was just something to say. Personally I'm not going get upset about it.