Are CPP funds at risk?

[jdobbin]

This is coming from the guy who got upset someone called him 'dobby'.

Listen, if you can't abide by the rules as clearly stated by the moderator, you don't deserve to be here. I have seen quite a few people come and go who seemed to think they were above those rules.

I already acknowledged it! Scroll up a little! My response was that there is no possible way to justify the AMOUNT of concessions made in the plan towards the poor. The math doesn't work out! Again, because you have such an amazing talent to squirm away from a question you can't answer, I'll repeat my question. Can you go over the MATH we me explaining how the carbon tax would increase the cost of living for the poorest Canadians by over 10%??? That would be the only way the government could justify a 10% income tax reduction for the poor, which is what the Green Shift calculator is showing. Don't even bother replying unless you're willing to address that. I've wasted too much time responding to your avoidance of the CENTRAL issue in my argument.

The cost of living increases for the poor do add up to more since they are less able to mitigate the exposure to it. You say there is no way to justify it but the hit to the poor on the carbon tax is huge. The percentage is far greater than what others will face. At some of the meetings prior to Dion decision, some of the speakers said the cost for the poor on cap and trade or carbon tax would be about 10% since they would be hit with the extra charges of the tax or the costs passed on from regulation or cap and trade. Due to the lower incomes, the poorer would also not be able to invest in higher efficiency furnaces, transportation or other things to lower their carbon exposure. 10%. That was what the expected costs to the poor were and that was why Dion first said a carbon tax would not be a good thing when it was first proposed.

This is the difference between my argument and yours. Your argument is fervent repetition of what Dion is telling us. My argument is going over numbers taken directly off the Liberal website.

It tells you what the cost of living exposure to carbon tax will be? I can't recall seeing that there.

This is why I can't take your arguments seriously. I JUST went over this only 1 post previous. I asked you to stop bringing this up with me because I've OPENLY acknowledged that Harper has put ZERO priority on the environment right now and that it's VERY likely he'll never follow through on his plan. Does it make him a liar? As much a liar as Dion for claiming the Green Shift is revenue neutral. Revenue neutral for the government means NOTHING. Whether my money goes towards debt reduction, hospitals, welfare or thinly disguised subsidization of the poor (the Green Shift), the bottom line is that when the government takes more of my money and I get less back, it's not revenue neutral.

Dion has said the government won't take in more than it does now. That is called revenue neutral. You seem to think that it means no one will pay more and no one will pay less. It does not mean anything of the sort.

The poor face huge challenges in whatever carbon plan is proposed. Their costs will be higher as a percentage of what they earn than anyone else.

Harper does nothing for the poor with his plan.

Harper cares nothing for the poor and cancelled the income tax cut that helped the poor the most when he was first elected.

You want a plan where you get equal money back despite the fact that your ability to escape further exposure to the tax is higher than that of lower income people.

[Jobu]

Listen, if you can't abide by the rules as clearly stated by the moderator, you don't deserve to be here. I have seen quite a few people come and go who seemed to think they were above those rules.

The cost of living increases for the poor do add up to more since they are less able to mitigate the exposure to it. You say there is no way to justify it but the hit to the poor on the carbon tax is huge. The percentage is far greater than what others will face. At some of the meetings prior to Dion decision, some of the speakers said the cost for the poor on cap and trade or carbon tax would be about 10% since they would be hit with the extra charges of the tax or the costs passed on from regulation or cap and trade. Due to the lower incomes, the poorer would also not be able to invest in higher efficiency furnaces, transportation or other things to lower their carbon exposure. 10%. That was what the expected costs to the poor were and that was why Dion first said a carbon tax would not be a good thing when it was first proposed.

It tells you what the cost of living exposure to carbon tax will be? I can't recall seeing that there.

Dion has said the government won't take in more than it does now. That is called revenue neutral. You seem to think that it means no one will pay more and no one will pay less. It does not mean anything of the sort.

The poor face huge challenges in whatever carbon plan is proposed. Their costs will be higher as a percentage of what they earn than anyone else.

Harper does nothing for the poor with his plan.

Harper cares nothing for the poor and cancelled the income tax cut that helped the poor the most when he was first elected.

You want a plan where you get equal money back despite the fact that your ability to escape further exposure to the tax is higher than that of lower income people.

Hey dobby, when's the last time a revenue neutral program actually turned out to be revenue neutral? Gun registry worked out pretty well.

As for your explanation of revenue neutral, you are right. But why does Dion keep perpetrating the myth that everyone's increased costs will more or less be offset by tax cuts? Why not admit that it's as much of a redistribution scheme as it is an environmental plan?

Edited October 14, 2008 by Jobu

[jdobbin]

Hey dobby, when's the last time a revenue neutral program actually turned out to be revenue neutral? Gun registry worked out pretty well.

Please read the rules as outlined by the moderator.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...E=01&HID=17

Avoid using abbreviated terms such as "Cons" or "Libs" that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best and official abbreviations are acceptable.

Do not use diminutives or character substitutions in proper names that are not recognized by the original person to whom the reference is being made. For example, Prime Minister Stephen Harper does not identify himself as Stevie therefore, it is unacceptable to identify him as Stevie. Likewise, Paul Martin does not identify himself as Mr. Dithers, therefore, it is unacceptable to identify him as Mr. Dithers.

In the discussion forums, such infractions will be considered as third-party insults.

If you can't use proper names, you are likely to face the same problem the other posters who thought it was okay. Some of those posters no longer are here.

As for your explanation of revenue neutral, you are right. But why does Dion keep perpetrating the myth that everyone's increased costs will more or less be offset by tax cuts? Why not admit that it's as much of a redistribution scheme as it is an environmental plan?

Citation for that?

It was never indicated as such. The Liberals said it would not take more money in than what was in place before. To ensure that, the plan was to give the Auditor oversight so that the costs would not pad the government's coffers.

It was never said that the plan would be offset at every stage by tax cuts.

It is my opinion that the plan should have included double tax credits so that for every aspect of the carbon tax, there should have been twice that in income tax cuts. In lieu of that, the best plan of any of the carbon plans was to make sure there were tax cuts to lower the impact of the carbon exposure and that the plan did not bring in more money than what was in place before.

The Harper plan does not limit that exposure. The best Harper supporter can say is that Harper doesn't mean it. He really won't introduce his plan because he really doesn't believe in global warming. We are told to believe that he is lying.

Edited October 14, 2008 by jdobbin

[Jobu]

Please read the rules as outlined by the moderator.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...E=01&HID=17

If you can't use proper names, you are likely to face the same problem the other posters who thought it was okay. Some of those posters no longer are here.

Citation for that?

It was never indicated as such. The Liberals said it would not take more money in than what was in place before. To ensure that, the plan was to give the Auditor oversight so that the costs would not pad the government's coffers.

It was never said that the plan would be offset at every stage by tax cuts.

It is my opinion that the plan should have included double tax credits so that for every aspect of the carbon tax, there should have been twice that in income tax cuts. In lieu of that, the best plan of any of the carbon plans was to make sure there were tax cuts to lower the impact of the carbon exposure and that the plan did not bring in more money than what was in place before.

The Harper plan does not limit that exposure. The best Harper supporter can say is that Harper doesn't mean it. He really won't introduce his plan because he really doesn't believe in global warming. We are told to believe that he is lying.

Please, every speech Dion gives (you know, where he calls Harper a liar 18 times without talking about his own policies) gives the impression that revenue neutral = neutral balance sheet for every Canadian.

BTW, "Humans caused global warming..". Page 25 of the LPC platform. Why do they claim this as fact?

Also, you didn't answer my question. When is the last time a revenue neutral plan, imposed by any party, actually turned out to be revenue neutral?

Edited October 14, 2008 by Jobu

[Moonbox]

Listen, if you can't abide by the rules as clearly stated by the moderator, you don't deserve to be here. I have seen quite a few people come and go who seemed to think they were above those rules.

I highly doubt anyone is going to get banned for calling you Dobby. Way to nitpick though.

At some of the meetings prior to Dion decision, some of the speakers said the cost for the poor on cap and trade or carbon tax would be about 10% since they would be hit with the extra charges of the tax or the costs passed on from regulation or cap and trade.

I would really like a citation for that. I've not been able to find anything stating anything like that. I've not really been able to find anything PERIOD on what this will cost us.

Assuming that the Green Shift WILL cost the poor 10% of their income in extra costs, care to explain where these costs are coming from? Is heating, energy or transportation going to get 10% more expensive, or everything in general? Forget the notion that the poor can't improve their energy efficiency for a second. What is it that makes life 10% more expensive for the poor?

For what you're saying to be true that would mean that the Green Shift is ultimately a 10% tax on consumption. It's a 10% consumption tax where the ONLY people who get their money back are the poor.

Under this scenario, providing you can prove to me that's what the experts were saying will happen, Harper is right and this is going to have an ENORMOUS negative effect on the economy. If people are being over taxed and the over taxed portion goes to the poor so that they can continue to live inefficiently (their fault or not), it stands to reason that the economic effect of this plan would be billions of dollars taken out of the economy. That's JUST what we need right now....right????

Dion has said the government won't take in more than it does now. That is called revenue neutral. You seem to think that it means no one will pay more and no one will pay less. It does not mean anything of the sort.

Dion's not lying? Wait...reallly:

"Many of them (Canadians) think that the propaganda of the Conservatives is right, and that their taxes will go up because of the Liberals. No! It will be good for your wallet and good for the planet," Dion said in the community east of Ottawa.

Dion says....

According to you, it's not good for the poor's wallet, which is the group standing to get the biggest tax cuts from the plan. If we go back to the math....assuming energy or transportation costs or whatever else we're talking about go up 10%, if the poor aren't coming out on top, who is? If not the poor, then nobody. Who's wallet IS it good for? My math is suggesting the poor, but according to you not even them.

The poor face huge challenges in whatever carbon plan is proposed. Their costs will be higher as a percentage of what they earn than anyone else.

Just explain specifically how the carbon tax is going to cost the poor an extra $2200/year. We'll go from there.

[jdobbin]

Please, every speech Dion gives (you know, where he calls Harper a liar 18 times without talking about his own policies) gives the impression that revenue neutral = neutral balance sheet for every Canadian.

He has never said that.

BTW, "Humans caused global warming..". Page 25 of the LPC platform. Why do they claim this as fact?

Poorly written in my view. It should read that humans have contributed greatly to global warming. Are you of the opinion that global warming is not in any way shape or form happening or that humans have not helped it along?

Also, you didn't answer my question. When is the last time a revenue neutral plan, imposed by any party, actually turned out to be revenue neutral?

When is the last time a program has been proposed with the Auditor specifically asked to ensure it is revenue neutral?

[Jobu]

He has never said that.

He has consistently suggested it.

Poorly written in my view. It should read that humans have contributed greatly to global warming. Are you of the opinion that global warming is not in any way shape or form happening or that humans have not helped it along?

Poorly written? Hehehe.

I don't think these is any consensus on this. I am not a scientist.

When is the last time a program has been proposed with the Auditor specifically asked to ensure it is revenue neutral?

So you agree, the answer is never. Given that there's about a $24b hole in the Green Shift, I don't imagine it being the first. Thanks.

[jdobbin]

I highly doubt anyone is going to get banned for calling you Dobby. Way to nitpick though.

I have reported the namecalling as a violation of the rules.

It is just another indication of the lack of courtesy we have come to expect from some in these forums.

I would really like a citation for that. I've not been able to find anything stating anything like that. I've not really been able to find anything PERIOD on what this will cost us.

I am looking around now for what was written at the time of the convention.

I know there was a lot of debate from quite a few sources about the cost increases on a number of income levels. I am trying to see if it was Jack Mintz or Paul Volcker who first indicated what the high cost would be to the poor. I know that Dion first rejected the carbon tax because it was heavily weighted against the poor and middle incomes.

It was about that time that the C.D. Howe Institute and others formulated a tax decrease plan.

I am looking at the European experience in this area as well since they have had the carbon tax plan for a while now.

Assuming that the Green Shift WILL cost the poor 10% of their income in extra costs, care to explain where these costs are coming from? Is heating, energy or transportation going to get 10% more expensive, or everything in general? Forget the notion that the poor can't improve their energy efficiency for a second. What is it that makes life 10% more expensive for the poor?

Rent was a large factor. Middle and higher incomes were more likely to own homes and be able to update areas of the home to be more efficient. The lower incomes were expected to get hit with higher rents and higher utility rates with no way to change their circumstances in ways home ownership can.

For what you're saying to be true that would mean that the Green Shift is ultimately a 10% tax on consumption. It's a 10% consumption tax where the ONLY people who get their money back are the poor.

No, what I am saying is that some income get hit with higher costs than others as a percentage of their income.

Under this scenario, providing you can prove to me that's what the experts were saying will happen, Harper is right and this is going to have an ENORMOUS negative effect on the economy. If people are being over taxed and the over taxed portion goes to the poor so that they can continue to live inefficiently (their fault or not), it stands to reason that the economic effect of this plan would be billions of dollars taken out of the economy. That's JUST what we need right now....right????

Don Drummond who we have already quoted here has dismissed the disaster for the economy scenario. Believe him or not.

Harper estimates that with his plan that costs will be energy up 3 or 4%. He doesn't cost it beyond that.

"Many of them (Canadians) think that the propaganda of the Conservatives is right, and that their taxes will go up because of the Liberals. No! It will be good for your wallet and good for the planet," Dion said in the community east of Ottawa.

According to you, it's not good for the poor's wallet, which is the group standing to get the biggest tax cuts from the plan. If we go back to the math....assuming energy or transportation costs or whatever else we're talking about go up 10%, if the poor aren't coming out on top, who is? If not the poor, then nobody. Who's wallet IS it good for? My math is suggesting the poor, but according to you not even them.

Without the tax cuts, it would be bad for the wallet.

Just explain specifically how the carbon tax is going to cost the poor an extra $2200/year. We'll go from there.

Rent and utility prices could easily make up a large portion of that. Transportation costs another large chunk. Over four years, a rent increase of $25 a month per year, ditto utilities. Gets up there pretty fast, no?

[Jobu]

I have reported the namecalling as a violation of the rules.

It is just another indication of the lack of courtesy we have come to expect from some in these forums.

[Jobu]

Rent and utility prices could easily make up a large portion of that. Transportation costs another large chunk. Over four years, a rent increase of $25 a month per year, ditto utilities. Gets up there pretty fast, no?

Source?

[jdobbin]

He has consistently suggested it.

Sorry. Never heard that ever.

Poorly written? Hehehe.

I don't think these is any consensus on this. I am not a scientist.

So I have heard from some on the right. No such thing as global warming. No need to do anything about it.

I know that the right tend to think that there is no consensus and we have gone over this many times here.

Suffice it to say that Conservatives at their heart don't believe anything needs to be done and are just mouthing the words. If they do end up going ahead with their program, they will let others pass on the enormous costs.

So you agree, the answer is never. Given that there's about a $24b hole in the Green Shift, I don't imagine it being the first. Thanks.

I'd love to see Harper make the same vow to have the Auditor examine programs so that they don't take in more than they send out. Guess we can say that will never happen.

[jdobbin]

Source?

Given that this is my own speculation on increase, why do I need a source?

Do you think that carbon tax won't be very high in terms of costs on the poor?

[Jobu]

So I have heard from some on the right. No such thing as global warming. No need to do anything about it.

I know that the right tend to think that there is no consensus and we have gone over this many times here.

Suffice it to say that Conservatives at their heart don't believe anything needs to be done and are just mouthing the words. If they do end up going ahead with their program, they will let others pass on the enormous costs.

This Conservative doesn't believe anything needs to be done.

I'd love to see Harper make the same vow to have the Auditor examine programs so that they don't take in more than they send out. Guess we can say that will never happen.

And, sadly, Stephane will be out of a job by this time tomorrow night, so I guess we won't see his plan in action, either.

[Jobu]

Given that this is my own speculation on increase, why do I need a source?

Do you think that carbon tax won't be very high in terms of costs on the poor?

Seems to be a whole lotta speculation goin' on in that Green Shift, eh?

The carbon tax will be debilitating for everyone and be about as revenue neutral as one recent liberal stroke of genius, the gun registry.

[jdobbin]

As I have reported your post from earlier. But please test that theory that you can keep doing it over and over.

[Jobu]

As I have reported your post from earlier. But please test that theory that you can keep doing it over and over.

Did you tell your mommy too?

[jdobbin]

The carbon tax will be debilitating for everyone and be about as revenue neutral as one recent liberal stroke of genius, the gun registry.

If that is true, you must be furious about Harper's plan on which he won't even cost out. But wait, it is just a lie anyways, right?

[Jobu]

If that is true, you must be furious about Harper's plan on which he won't even cost out. But wait, it is just a lie anyways, right?

I don't anticipate this being very high on the priority list. It's certainly not on mine.

[jdobbin]

Did you tell your mommy too?

I have seen a few posters implode on these boards before. Looks like you might be headed that way. I asked for a little civility and you can't seem to follow a few rules as plainly listed in the guide to these forums.

[Jobu]

I have seen a few posters implode on these boards before. Looks like you might be headed that way. I asked for a little civility and you can't seem to follow a few rules as plainly listed in the guide to these forums.

Thanks for the tip, dobby. Good luck tomorrow, eh?

[jdobbin]

This Conservative doesn't believe anything needs to be done.

Didn't think so. I'm sure you will be upset if the Tories ever do put their plan through. You might want a few of those Liberal tax cuts then.

And, sadly, Stephane will be out of a job by this time tomorrow night, so I guess we won't see his plan in action, either.

Wonder how many times Harper will be allowed to lead with just a minority by his own party. He already says his government won't last. Do we say less than three months? I am doubtful on a coalition of the Opposition but does the Governor General go to an election through Christmas again?

[jdobbin]

Thanks for the tip, dobby. Good luck tomorrow, eh?

Just another example of you flouting the rules of the board. Thanks. It is obvious that I have made you angry and as the rules say:

Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them

[Jobu]

Didn't think so. I'm sure you will be upset if the Tories ever do put their plan through. You might want a few of those Liberal tax cuts then.

I trust Stevie & Co. when it comes to putting cash back in my pocket without taking it out with the other hand. Oops, did I just violate forum rules again?

Wonder how many times Harper will be allowed to lead with just a minority by his own party. He already says his government won't last. Do we say less than three months? I am doubtful on a coalition of the Opposition but does the Governor General go to an election through Christmas again?

Hard to say. But I still think there's a very good shot at a majority here. If there isn't, I suspect the CPC will govern as if there was a majority. The LPC is bankrupt and in shambles, and there is no other alternative. A coalition is not possible, and even it if it were, it wouldn't last. People will come to their senes.

[Jobu]

Just another example of you flouting the rules of the board. Thanks. It is obvious that I have made you angry and as the rules say:

Teehee. All in good fun my good friend. Kick ff your shoes, pull the stick out, and have a gay old time.

As for the forum rules, yes, definitely the gospel.

[Charles Anthony]

Everybody,

Keep the discussion courteous and civilized. Play the ball and not the person.

Ch. A.