Should BC Axe the Carbon Tax

[madmax]

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.

Sure, governments need money without responsibility.

There is a sucker born every minute.

Look at Plineys example... What a sham.

[Pliny]

Bottom line: since the carbon tax is a product of some democratic process, it cannot be axed by someone indifferent to this process.

I agree it cannot be axed by someone indifferent to the democratic process. At the same time, it isn't a product of the democratic process. It is a product of the political process. A spin to sell the public that politics/government through wealth redistribution will solve technological problems all by themselves. It can all be done with "money" acting as the incentive and the punishment. But in their folly, they are debasing money so quickly that it will be entirely ineffective in the long run.

Of course, the failure will be a failure of capitalism.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Pliny

[benny]

I agree it cannot be axed by someone indifferent to the democratic process. At the same time, it isn't a product of the democratic process. It is a product of the political process. A spin to sell the public that politics/government through wealth redistribution will solve technological problems all by themselves.

A democratic political process requires from politicians that they sell their projects to the public.

[Pliny]

A democratic political process requires from politicians that they sell their projects to the public.

The Constitution of a country outlines it's projects. Politicians reinterpret them to mean they should protect all citizens from what they perceive to be their own stupidity. Make no mistake government, despite it's contrary proclamation, has no sense of humanitarianism. How can it when it legally extorts property from it's most productive citizens? You can say they are justified because they distribute some of that to the country's least productive, but not after they feed themselves and their bureaucratic empires.

Socialists believe that government has reached some sort of self-actualization and sacrifices everything for it's citizens. Not true - in times when it's citizens are sacrificing, government does no such thing.

[Pliny]

One comment on my request to explain the government's simple arithmetic.

Maybe the BC government doesn't understand what "revenue neutral" is? I think they invented the term because it sounds so passive and would be an easy sell to the public. It sort of gives you the idea that they aren't collecting anything and then giving it all back to you. It's simply what they do all the time, pay themselves and redistribute the remainder - "revenue neutral" - the epitome of wealth redistribution that apparently cuts out the middle man - the government. They have reached self actualization!

Edited July 24, 2009 by Pliny

[benny]

The Constitution of a country outlines it's projects. Politicians reinterpret them to mean they should protect all citizens from what they perceive to be their own stupidity.

Non-sense (first, learn to write "its" correctly).

[Pliny]

Non-sense (first, learn to write "its" correctly).

You'll be happy to know you are not the first person to correct me on "its". I am surprised you know some grammar. But let's get back to the tax grab.

Is it a bit "disingenuous" of msj to not reply to my query about the revenue neutral numbers on this tax grab?

Edited July 25, 2009 by Pliny

[benny]

You'll be happy to know you are not the first person to correct me on "its". I am surprised you know some grammar. But let's get back to the tax grab.

Is it a bit "disingenuous" of msj to not reply to my query about the revenue neutral numbers on this tax grab?

About you not replying seriously to my posts!?

[Pliny]

About you not replying seriously to my posts!?

What about the carbon tax?

[benny]

What about the carbon tax?

I wrote it was a good idea.

[Pliny]

I wrote it was a good idea.

And I am rebutting it's not a good idea.

[benny]

And I am rebutting it's not a good idea.

First, you must try to!

[Pliny]

First, you must try to!

An obvious impossibility in your case.

[benny]

An obvious impossibility in your case.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=14436

[madmax]

First, you must try to!

An obvious impossibility in your case.

You guys are cracking me up

Edited July 26, 2009 by madmax

[benny]

You guys are cracking me up

What else?

[Pliny]

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=14436

What's this, benny? A dissertation on the complexities of taxing income. I can make it simple. Income tax should be illegal.

[benny]

Income tax should be illegal.

Here where you have to begin for everything linked to legal matters:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=14590

[msj]

You'll be happy to know you are not the first person to correct me on "its". I am surprised you know some grammar. But let's get back to the tax grab.

Is it a bit "disingenuous" of msj to not reply to my query about the revenue neutral numbers on this tax grab?

My disingenerous comment is with respect to you OP which still is disingenuous.

Gee, go away for a while and I'm sure missed....

Anyway, as for your math above, and your "logic," yes, the government clearly did cut taxes/increased transfers to offset the carbon tax.

The logic is about this being "revenue neutral" from the governments' point of view.

On a net basis it was revenue neutral.

Understanding transfers (i.e a return of tax dollars) as a "contra" revenue amount is the source of the problem here.

Draw it out on paper - on a net basis the carbon tax was certainly neutral.

With the new harmonization of the PST, however, things will get so complicated so fast that I don't know how (other than to compare tax revenues against GDP, ex post facto) the BC Liberals will be able to sustain any detailed argument as to its neutrality.

Of course, I like both the carbon tax and the harmonziation of tax and will gladly look forward to better times after the economy recovers and we start seeing new income tax cuts.

[benny]

Understanding transfers (i.e a return of tax dollars) as a "contra" revenue amount is the source of the problem here.

The deeper source of the problem is that the provincial public purse pays for the formation of accountants without insisting on ethics.

[msj]

The deeper source of the problem is that the provincial public purse pays for the formation of accountants without insisting on ethics.

Sure, to the extent that CGA's, CMA's and CA's belong to not-for-profit society's and to the extent that they get tax savings from the deduction of their dues then, yes, the provincial purse is "paying."

The accountant's, however, are certainly paying more than the typical taxpayer.

As for ethics - all three bodies have codes of ethics so it is hard to imagine the government actually improving on these by mandating them. The government seems to have their own problems in this area.

Fortunately, governments know that teeth are needed beyond words which is why we have a criminal code for Canada as well as penalties and interest (and even third party penalties) when it comes to filing taxes properly and correctly.

[benny]

Sure, to the extent that CGA's, CMA's and CA's belong to not-for-profit society's and to the extent that they get tax savings from the deduction of their dues then, yes, the provincial purse is "paying."

The accountant's, however, are certainly paying more than the typical taxpayer.

As for ethics - all three bodies have codes of ethics so it is hard to imagine the government actually improving on these by mandating them. The government seems to have their own problems in this area.

Fortunately, governments know that teeth are needed beyond words which is why we have a criminal code for Canada as well as penalties and interest (and even third party penalties) when it comes to filing taxes properly and correctly.

Look at KPMG for instance, the richest accountants are those "producing" loopholes.

[msj]

Look at KPMG for instance, the richest accountants are those "producing" loopholes.

How is that unethical?

GAAR is there to curb any excesses.

So, once again, law trumps any kind of ethical principles anyway.

[benny]

How is that unethical?

GAAR is there to curb any excesses.

So, once again, law trumps any kind of ethical principles anyway.

"Paul Martin, closed access to all tax havens for Canadian tax-dodgers save one: the Barbados. The following year, his own Canada Steamship Lines (CSL) promptly moved their operations to the Barbados: CSL has nine shell companies in the Barbados, all sharing one mailbox. Bypassing Canadian taxes, about 1700 Canadian companies have set up affiliates to take advantage of the Barbados’ 2.5% tax rate. In 2000 alone, these companies, which bring their profits into Canada without paying Canadian tax, imported $1.5 billion dollars into Canada, resulting in a tax revenue loss of $345 million (based on 2003 corporate tax rate of 23%)."

http://paulmartintime.ca/mediacoverage/000023.html

[msj]

"Paul Martin, closed access to all tax havens for Canadian tax-dodgers save one: the Barbados. The following year, his own Canada Steamship Lines (CSL) promptly moved their operations to the Barbados: CSL has nine shell companies in the Barbados, all sharing one mailbox. Bypassing Canadian taxes, about 1700 Canadian companies have set up affiliates to take advantage of the Barbados’ 2.5% tax rate. In 2000 alone, these companies, which bring their profits into Canada without paying Canadian tax, imported $1.5 billion dollars into Canada, resulting in a tax revenue loss of $345 million (based on 2003 corporate tax rate of 23%)."

http://paulmartintime.ca/mediacoverage/000023.html

There's also another one - a small island off of Spain (I can't remember its name).

I note that the CPC has not tried to close either loophole.

Sure, this is a question of ethics given the conflict of interest for Paul Martin.

It is not for, say, a partner at KPMG who advises Joe Blow to take advantage of the same laws for the same effect.

Change the law if it is so "unethical."