benny Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 I can only recommend people to read up on the FAQ's to get a sense of what is meant. Because a tax is not a (net) cost, it should not be minimized period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 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. Any tax is only revenue neutral as long as the total tax you pay never increases. As soon as it does, your so called revenue neutral tax just becomes another part of your total tax bill which has now gone up. I don't dispute that the first year, income taxes went down a proportional amount but they were in surplus last year, this year they are in deficit and I am not holding my breath about future so called neutrality. They will be hanging on to every penny they can get IMO because to do otherwise will result in either program cuts, an even bigger deficit or both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 That is a rather convenient and one sided way to look at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 That is a rather convenient and one sided way to look at it. Cost/benefit analysis is not one-sided analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 That is a rather convenient and one sided way to look at it. Simple arithmetic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Simple arithmetic Yeah, that's exactly why you don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Simple arithmetic Simple transfer rather. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Simple transfer rather. Yes, from citizens to government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Yes, from citizens to government. In democracy, the citizens are the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 In democracy, the citizens are the government. No, Cabinet is the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfd Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Oh come on folks, - this tax is actually working! Since it was implemented last year I've noticed there has been a definite cooling in our local weather here in Vancouver. We had one of the coldest winters that I can remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 No, Cabinet is the government. This cabinet represents the citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted July 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 It's working! It's working! Let's take the simple arithmetic and figure it out. The total revenue of the carbon tax is $300 million. The low income Carbon tax credit paid out $106 million. The reduction on personal income taxes was $114 miilion. The total personal return was 106 + 114 = $220 million. Corporate tax cuts were $76 million Small business corp tax cuts were $42 million Total corporate tax cuts 76 + 42 = $118 million Total revenue cut 220 + 118 = $338 million. Looks like it is doing even better than planned! These figures are form their own frequently asked questions web site. Funny the first question there is - "Is the carbon tax a tax grab?" Oh..no...no nononono. I am trying to understand these figures here and if I look at them I see the low income tax credit as being paid out, so that obviously was collected from other taxes or from the carbon tax credit itself. The rest of the figures were all tax reductions, i.e. taxes that were never collected to make the tax neutral. In any case, the $106 million was not included as a cost to government out of it's revenues. It was added in with revenues not collected. The tax credit is not a neutral entry. It is an actual cost to government and thus comes out of taxes we paid. So it should be removed as a revenue neutral entry. The neutral revenue balance then comes to $232 million and the carbon tax in it's first year is already not revenue neutral but cost us $68 million in higher taxes. Is this flim-flam accounting or public relations or do I have it all wrong? Help me out here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted July 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 This cabinet represents the citizens. More likely it represents the interests of the country and the government and tertially represents the citizens. Today, and perhaps as always in Canada, it informs the citizens what is best for the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 More likely it represents the interests of the country and the government and tertially represents the citizens. Today, and perhaps as always in Canada, it informs the citizens what is best for the country. Like if a country was more united than its citizenry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 This cabinet represents the citizens. Cabinet is chosen by the leader of the party which gets the most seats, not by the citizens. Your representative represents the citizens supposedly by keeping Cabinet accountable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Cabinet is chosen by the leader of the party which gets the most seats, not by the citizens. Your representative represents the citizens supposedly by keeping Cabinet accountable. The PM, ministers and MPs are all elected representatives of citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted July 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 The PM, ministers and MPs are all elected representatives of citizens. Which citizens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Which citizens? Those who forget they can present themselves directly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted July 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Let's take the simple arithmetic and figure it out.The total revenue of the carbon tax is $300 million. The low income Carbon tax credit paid out $106 million. The reduction on personal income taxes was $114 miilion. The total personal return was 106 + 114 = $220 million. Corporate tax cuts were $76 million Small business corp tax cuts were $42 million Total corporate tax cuts 76 + 42 = $118 million Total revenue cut 220 + 118 = $338 million. Looks like it is doing even better than planned! These figures are form their own frequently asked questions web site. Funny the first question there is - "Is the carbon tax a tax grab?" Oh..no...no nononono. I am trying to understand these figures here and if I look at them I see the low income tax credit as being paid out, so that obviously was collected from other taxes or from the carbon tax credit itself. The rest of the figures were all tax reductions, i.e. taxes that were never collected to make the tax neutral. In any case, the $106 million was not included as a cost to government out of it's revenues. It was added in with revenues not collected. The tax credit is not a neutral entry. It is an actual cost to government and thus comes out of taxes we paid. So it should be removed as a revenue neutral entry. The neutral revenue balance then comes to $232 million and the carbon tax in it's first year is already not revenue neutral but cost us $68 million in higher taxes. Is this flim-flam accounting or public relations or do I have it all wrong? Help me out here! Anyone? It's just simple arithmetic. Please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted July 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Those who forget they can present themselves directly. Nonsensical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Nonsensical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted July 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy That was a good read, Thanks benny. So I get your point but who wants to be concerned with government? Not too many. About 50% vote. Only about 25% of the population vote because they want the governmnt to do something for them. The other 25 % just vote because they feel the obligation or their friends or family vote. If federal or national governments had limited mandates. The 25% would not be lobbying government and voting. Perhaps, unless there were some national threat or serious crime wave, hardly anyone would vote. Anyway, we're far from the carbon tax. Is anyone going to take note of the discrepancy I noted regarding the carbon tax? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 That was a good read, Thanks benny. So I get your point but who wants to be concerned with government? Not too many. About 50% vote. Only about 25% of the population vote because they want the governmnt to do something for them. The other 25 % just vote because they feel the obligation or their friends or family vote. If federal or national governments had limited mandates. The 25% would not be lobbying government and voting. Perhaps, unless there were some national threat or serious crime wave, hardly anyone would vote. Anyway, we're far from the carbon tax. Is anyone going to take note of the discrepancy I noted regarding the carbon tax? Bottom line: since the carbon tax is a product of some democratic process, it cannot be axed by someone indifferent to this process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enviralment Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Bottom line: since the carbon tax is a product of some democratic process, it cannot be axed by someone indifferent to this process. A cap and trade or Carbon tax is going to be a part of any future energy, enviro policy in this country. Better get ready for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.