Should BC Axe the Carbon Tax

[msj]

Whoa - the Canadian tax me some more mentality. It isn't an impossibility for government to exist without income taxes. there were none before WW I. If government were limited in it's mandate to what it is originally contracted to do - justice, defense and foriegn affairs it's prime directives, it could do quite well without taxing income.

No - it is about understanding reality. Canadians want government provided services and transfer therefore there must be a way to pay for them.

They should be illegal especially if there is a consumption tax. The graduated tax system we have adopted is basically the Marxist concept of "from those according to their ability and to those according to their need" Funny but "abilities" seem to disappear and "needs" seem to increase under that idea. Ever notice that?

It's perfectly reasonable for the government to have a diverse tax base.

Sure, vertical equity goes back at least to Marx. It's not much of a bogeyman anymore so you can stop the red scare tactical BS.

Many people agree with it to some degree - even those of us who pay tax at top tax rates agree with progressive taxation to keep us civilized.

At least I know how to spel.

Huh? Sure I make spelling mistakes but which word am I missing here?

I do consider taxes on carbon emissions a tax grab and it is my opinion that people can better resolve social issues or at least contain them better than a centralist government. I would challenge you to mention what social ills have disappeared as a result of direct government intervention. Poverty? Illegal Drugs? Illiteracy? Government has waged war on all of them. They are still with us and we are financing vast bureaucratic empires that seem to be more costly and less effective over time.

Given that, so far, we have received great tax reductions than the carbon tax has collected I don't see it as a tax grab yet.

I can see it becoming one but I'm willing to wait and see how things unfold.

As for government solving problems - sure we still have social ills. Many of which are alleviated and mitigated with government programs for which I'm grateful (and for which I gladly pay taxes).

It is true I do not do much "cutting and pasting". I like to argue my points based upon my own view or understanding of things not on someone else's view. I don't use statistics much because statistics are often based in bias and correct interpretation involves factors not often included in an argument. Besides I hold the same view of statistics as Mark Twain. They are a much more complicated thing than simply quoting numbers.

So you like to just make up any old argument and not reference or link to facts and expect to have credibility?

Oh, and you can claim that stats are bogus and biased (as compared to your opinion which, of course, is never bogus or biased) so they don't count for much.

Nice way to have a discussion - lets just blow hard and ignore any facts that may get in the way of blowing.

I don't find Machjo's posts to be blatantly ignorant. Ignorance is a lack of information or education.

His post #15 was blatantly ignorant in that he was unaware of the climate dividend which takes care of those people who don't get income tax cuts because they don't pay income tax since they are poor.

[benny]

The graduated tax system we have adopted is basically the Marxist concept of "from those according to their ability and to those according to their need" Funny but "abilities" seem to disappear and "needs" seem to increase under that idea. Ever notice that?

If abilities seem to disappear when taxed, taxing greenhouse gases is a good idea.

[stranger little]

We simply have to develop ways and means to deal with environmental negatives generated by our activities and a tax grab in the name of the environment is simply opportunism by government.

The environmental lobby is the biggest proponent of cap and trade or a carbon tax. I think that government is jumping on the bandwagon and trying to acquiesce these eco-guilt superstars. In Ontario we just passed legislation (Green Energy Act) that ignored a pragmatic suggestions from people that worked on the grid (Power Workers) and exclusively paid heed to Environmental groups and the wind industry, both of which don't understand the need for a well balanced energy mix. Now are taxes, and energy prices are going to skyrocket. Its a tax grab but its being influenced by people who know nothing about tax policy, energy markets and the electricity mix.

[benny]

The environmental lobby is the biggest proponent of cap and trade or a carbon tax. I think that government is jumping on the bandwagon and trying to acquiesce these eco-guilt superstars. In Ontario we just passed legislation (Green Energy Act) that ignored a pragmatic suggestions from people that worked on the grid (Power Workers) and exclusively paid heed to Environmental groups and the wind industry, both of which don't understand the need for a well balanced energy mix. Now are taxes, and energy prices are going to skyrocket. Its a tax grab but its being influenced by people who know nothing about tax policy, energy markets and the electricity mix.

To me it is a matter of Canada acting responsibly at international forums.

[Pliny]

No - it is about understanding reality. Canadians want government provided services and transfer therefore there must be a way to pay for them.

I'm Canadian but I want as little in the way of government services and transfer as possible. Not all Canadians are socialist oriented regarding politics.

It's perfectly reasonable for the government to have a diverse tax base.

More of the same, "Tax me! I'm Canadian!" mentality; I think.

Sure, vertical equity goes back at least to Marx. It's not much of a bogeyman anymore so you can stop the red scare tactical BS.

Don't let your guard down. Guys like benny have a soft spot for Marx. Marxists for the most part like to hide under the label "socialist" or "progressive social democracy" or "secular humanist" but the big grouping these days is under "Environmentalism".

Many people agree with it to some degree - even those of us who pay tax at top tax rates agree with progressive taxation to keep us civilized.

Sigh. True.

Huh? Sure I make spelling mistakes but which word am I missing here?

I was making some humour. I spelled "spel" wrong.

As for government solving problems - sure we still have social ills. Many of which are alleviated and mitigated with government programs for which I'm grateful (and for which I gladly pay taxes).

Which ones are alleviated and mitigated. Maybe we can check some stats?

So you like to just make up any old argument and not reference or link to facts and expect to have credibility?

No. I expect people to understand it is an opinion and make the differentiation. In a serious discussion I do provide links that are in agreement with my point of view. Which may be just another opinion and still doesn't make it a fact. A lot of people will present a cut and paste opinion piece as fact. Some facts are also suspect depending on the source.

Oh, and you can claim that stats are bogus and biased (as compared to your opinion which, of course, is never bogus or biased) so they don't count for much.

I can generally look at stats and find holes in the conclusions made from them. As I said the interpretation of statistics is more than just quoting numbers. There is a whole technology to it.

Nice way to have a discussion - lets just blow hard and ignore any facts that may get in the way of blowing.

I can also choose to ignore facts if I think the source has a vested interest or for some other reason. Generally, a person views the world through their education and experience, they will interpret data and fit it in with other things they have already agreed with. If somebody is posting cut and paste articles from democracynow.com or thedrudgereport or the CBC, the mainstream media

I can get a general idea from that on where a person sits on issues as I think most people can. Me, Most of what I post comes form mises.org. An economics based website.

His post #15 was blatantly ignorant in that he was unaware of the climate dividend which takes care of those people who don't get income tax cuts because they don't pay income tax since they are poor.

Well, I think I prefer to be back in the ignorant class. I have opinions about things from information but I don't have all the information. Pretending to know it all is worse. I can explain why I am of the opinion I am because of related and general concepts I have of human behavior which is what I generally do here; try and explain my point of view.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Pliny

[msj]

Well, I think I prefer to be back in the ignorant class. I have opinions about things from information but I don't have all the information. Pretending to know it all is worse. I can explain why I am of the opinion I am because of related and general concepts I have of human behavior which is what I generally do here; try and explain my point of view.

The point of my earlier post was simple: far too many people here prefer the lazy and ordinary way - spout off with opinions without even looking up some basic facts.

Machjo did this and at least admitted it.

You come up with lame excuses for your own opinions.

It would have helped your cause if you shaped your OP with some basic facts.

That is not knowing it all - it is simply trying to establish a discussion based on commonly acknowledged facts.

Instead people on these forums present their opinions that are so poorly informed that the discussion descends into complete BS.

I wanted to end the BS with some facts. Wilbur added some good discussion points as well as others based on those facts for which I am thankful.

[benny]

The point of my earlier post was simple: far too many people here prefer the lazy and ordinary way - spout off with opinions without even looking up some basic facts.

Machjo did this and at least admitted it.

You come up with lame excuses for your own opinions.

It would have helped your cause if you shaped your OP with some basic facts.

That is not knowing it all - it is simply trying to establish a discussion based on commonly acknowledged facts.

Instead people on these forums present their opinions that are so poorly informed that the discussion descends into complete BS.

I wanted to end the BS with some facts. Wilbur added some good discussion points as well as others based on those facts for which I am thankful.

In the case of global warming, the principle of precaution comes at the rescue of missing facts.

[Pliny]

The point of my earlier post was simple: far too many people here prefer the lazy and ordinary way - spout off with opinions without even looking up some basic facts.

Machjo did this and at least admitted it.

You come up with lame excuses for your own opinions.

It would have helped your cause if you shaped your OP with some basic facts.

That is not knowing it all - it is simply trying to establish a discussion based on commonly acknowledged facts.

Instead people on these forums present their opinions that are so poorly informed that the discussion descends into complete BS.

I wanted to end the BS with some facts. Wilbur added some good discussion points as well as others based on those facts for which I am thankful.

I would llike to know what good it is to be informed with politically or otherwise motivated facts.

The ice age was coming in the late sixties and early seventies. Thank goodness Governments didn't mobilize then. They were all ready to dump black ash on the poles so that the ash would absorb heat and melt the poles so they didn't start a glacial floe towards the Equator.

Environmentalism was at that time an emerging movement. The coming ice age turned into "acid rain" and it was all backed by "science". Now we have the more generic term global climate change. Well, I don't know if there is sufficient evidence to prove it is a human induced climate change or if it is just a natural progression. I am not against cleaning up the environment but it seems absurd to me that the way to achieve it is to through a tax scheme devised by politicians.

A lot of things have to be considered. One is that there is always a scramble from scientists for government grants to do studies. The environment is the urgency of the day and many studies are being done. I remember the first study of methane emissions from cows in the seventies. It was for $70,000 and there was a lot of smirking from the public and derision for government waste.

There always is climate change. the one fact we know is that over the last century the average temperature has risen 1 degree.

I say that all the chicken littles are scaremongering. Let's just work on improving our environment - there is nothing more we can do. But cap and trade is an international wealth redistribution scheme and revenue neutral carbon taxes are simply a tax grab because government is overtaxing us directly so has to tax us indirectly, it being less noticeable to the all important voter yet serves as a demonstration of looking after the common good. Now that I feel is disingenuous.

The drive for this is international. China and India are not on board but the western powers all are.

It must be coming form the UN. Environmentalism gives more credence to the existence of the UN as it is an international concern. Funny that one of the biggest socialist countries - China, won't get on the bandwagon. Because it is an international concern global agreements are agreed to, such as the failed Kyoto Accord, and those agreements must override national interests. I think it is pretty easy to see that Environmentalism is an excuse for a blatant centralization of power. All for the common good, of course.

AS Wilber says, "Just my opinion". Why I say what I say and the opinions I hold must originate somewhere but most people will just prefer to call me ignorant or maybe ask what planet I am from. They already have their minds made up and I suppose I do too.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Pliny

[Pliny]

In the case of global warming, the principle of precaution comes at the rescue of missing facts.

English must be your second language. I think the small words are messing you up.

What does it mean, "the principle of precaution comes at the rescue of missing facts"?

[benny]

English must be your second language. I think the small words are messing you up.

What does it mean, "the principle of precaution comes at the rescue of missing facts"?

That means don't wait for a catastrophe.

[Pliny]

That means don't wait for a catastrophe.

I see. So it should read, "the principle of precaution comes to the rescue of missing facts". Correct?

[benny]

I see. So it should read, "the principle of precaution comes to the rescue of missing facts". Correct?

fine print vs foot print

[msj]

[snip a bunch of unrelated opinion]

AS Wilber says, "Just my opinion". Why I say what I say and the opinions I hold must originate somewhere but most people will just prefer to call me ignorant or maybe ask what planet I am from. They already have their minds made up and I suppose I do too.

I have never claimed the carbon tax would be effective at reducing pollution.

My claim has always been related to understanding the neutrality of the carbon tax and the extent of the tax cuts that we BCer's have already enjoyed (which has been extremely underestimated by too many people unable to do simple math).

The reason I don't particular like people like you is because you have the need to go on unrelated and irrelevant from the discussion rants that signify nothing.

Disingenuous is no doubt the appropriate word for such purposeful changing of the topic.

[benny]

To "axe a tax" may be poetic but "carbon tax" is meaningless. Carbon is a natural element therefore the meaningful expression is "carbon fee".

Edited July 18, 2009 by benny

[Bonam]

English must be your second language. I think the small words are messing you up.

What does it mean, "the principle of precaution comes at the rescue of missing facts"?

He's probably referring to the precautionary principle.

[madmax]

Scrap the tax and just put in huge ass fines for not going greener. Make the fines huge and make them stick. This carbon tax will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions, for the simple fact that all animal life on this planet are carbon emitters.

What types of carbon emissions are they wanting to reduce? Carbon Dioxide, or monoxide? CO2 is something we all breath out, CO is something cars spit out the tailpipe. But yet all we hear is about reducing the CO2 emmissions. PLANT MORE TREES !!!!

[benny]

He's probably referring to the precautionary principle.

Read the thread: at/to the rescue.

[Wilber]

Well, isn't it? On both counts.

No it's not.

[benny]

Also, concerning natural resources, an honest government will not speak of revenue neutrality but of maximizing royalties.

[Pliny]

Also, concerning natural resources, an honest government will not speak of revenue neutrality but of maximizing royalties.

"Revenue neutral" is quite a slimy term, isn't it?

[Pliny]

I have never claimed the carbon tax would be effective at reducing pollution.

According to proponents that is apparently it's entire purpose. Are you suggesting it is unnecessary then?

My claim has always been related to understanding the neutrality of the carbon tax and the extent of the tax cuts that we BCer's have already enjoyed (which has been extremely underestimated by too many people unable to do simple math).

Well, golly-gosh. I'll be enjoying those tax cuts for the rest of my life I guess.

The reason I...

[snip - A bunch of unrelated opinion.}

[benny]

"Revenue neutral" is quite a slimy term, isn't it?

We are speaking of your government therefore, of your revenue.

[Wilber]

"Revenue neutral" is quite a slimy term, isn't it?

Something can only be revenue neutral as long as the total amount of tax you pay never increases. As soon as it does, there goes revenue neutrality. There is no such thing as revenue neutrality, only balanced budgets. Slimy, maybe. BS, absolutely.

[benny]

Something can only be revenue neutral as long as the total amount of tax you pay never increases. As soon as it does, there goes revenue neutrality. There is no such thing as revenue neutrality, only balanced budgets. Slimy, maybe. BS, absolutely.

As soon as something looks like (net) revenue, it should be maximized period.

[msj]

Just because one cannot comprehend what is meant by "revenue neutral" does not mean it is a slimy term.

I can only recommend people to read up on the FAQ's to get a sense of what is meant.