Finance Minister Jim Flaherty Resigns

[Accountability Now]

I do see a tiny dip in economic activity in late 07 after large increases, however the federal government did not experience a loss of tax revenue until 2009.

That tiny dip started the recession. Taxes are based on the previous years earnings.

You do realize that the 2009 number they use actually means fiscal year end 2009 which covers April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009. The 5.8B deficit happend in this same time frame (ie when the tax revenues dropped). So we didn't hit deficit until tax revenues started to drop. Up to March 31, 2008 Harper had a surplus. Not sure why you are making claims otherwise.

Also...this is just a decrease in the revenues. As I stated from the 2008-2009 Financial report:

"The recession resulted in more support being provided to Canadians in 200809 through higher Employment Insurance (EI) benefits and over $1 billion in personal income tax reductions as part of Canada's Economic Action Plan. As well, the recession has resulted in a weakening in tax collections."

Less revenue, more expenses....5.8B deficit. All due to the recession.

[eyeball]

Correlation does not imply causation.

Evidence does...

BC’s GDP growth actually outpaced the rest of Canada’s after the tax was imposed. This is in line with evidence from seven other countries with similar policies that have had neutral or slightly positive effects on GDP.

[TimG]

Evidence does...

That is not evidence. That is correlation which does not prove causation. GDP rises for many reasons - it could have risen in spite of the carbon tax - not because of it. Nothing in the data establishes this one way or another.

The one attempt was to compare BC to other jurisdictions in Canada that do not have a carbon tax but that is misleading because BC's economy is different so the changes in emissions could be unrelated to the carbon tax. It would take a lot more data to establish a relationship.

Edited March 27, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Well he's wrong.

I know he's wrong. And the decisions his government made about how to handle their finances was wrong.

[eyeball]

That is not evidence. That is correlation which does not prove causation. GDP rises for many reasons - it could have risen in spite of the carbon tax - not because of it. Nothing in the data establishes this one way or another.

The one attempt was to compare BC to other jurisdictions in Canada that do not have a carbon tax but that is misleading because BC's economy is different so the changes in emissions could be unrelated to the carbon tax. It would take a lot more data to establish a relationship.

Okay, so 7 other countries aren't enough for you yet. How many will you need to conclude you're looking at evidence?

Do you have any evidence of a country that has destroyed it's economy with a carbon tax?

[Smallc]

That's one opinion. On the other hand, in a G7 and western context we seem to be doing rather well. I'd say, their decisions weren't so wrong after all.

[cybercoma]

That's one opinion. On the other hand, in a G7 and western context we seem to be doing rather well. I'd say, their decisions weren't so wrong after all.

The things that THEY did had no bearing on it. They continued Liberal policies. Their decisions were the ones that were damaging, such as reducing the GST (effectively destroying government revenues).

[TimG]

Okay, so 7 other countries aren't enough for you yet. How many will you need to conclude you're looking at evidence?

It is not the number of countries that is at issue - it is evidence that other things cannot explain the observation that is missing. You seem to awfully quick to blindly accept psuedo-scientific claims just because they tell you what they want to say?

Do you have any evidence of a country that has destroyed it's economy with a carbon tax?

I never claimed it would. In fact, I claimed that a carbon tax could be good for an economy because it is a consumption tax and consumption taxes can be better than other types of taxes. What I did say is at politically acceptable levels a carbon tax will make no difference to emissions. Nothing in your data refutes that claim.

[Accountability Now]

The things that THEY did had no bearing on it. They continued Liberal policies. Their decisions were the ones that were damaging, such as reducing the GST (effectively destroying government revenues).

Ya...I guess its much better to get into office saying that you are completely against the GST and will remove once in it but then ride its coat tails all the way to the bank. Thank you very much Mr. Chretien.

[Smallc]

The things that THEY did had no bearing on it. They continued Liberal policies. Their decisions were the ones that were damaging, such as reducing the GST (effectively destroying government revenues).

As much as I don't like the GST cut, it would actually provide a stimulative effect in terms of increased consumer spending power...and yes, they continued Liberal economic policy for the most part, a very good thing.

[cybercoma]

There was no "stimulative effect" that I saw from that cut. Every article I've read from economists says otherwise. That cutting the GST made them unable to respond to the economic crisis in an effective way that would alleviate the shock for the middle class and demand creators.

[Smallc]

With the cut, the consumer has the ability to buy slightly more, increasing the potential for the consumer to purchase more....and Canada had no trouble responding. Canada could have safely spent much more money and run a much larger deficit and no economist would have batted an eye.

[cybercoma]

With the cut, the consumer has the ability to buy slightly more, increasing the potential for the consumer to purchase more....and Canada had no trouble responding. Canada could have safely spent much more money and run a much larger deficit and no economist would have batted an eye.

Show me. I want to see evidence that the GST cut created a net benefit for consumer demand.

[Mighty AC]

I never claimed it would. In fact, I claimed that a carbon tax could be good for an economy because it is a consumption tax and consumption taxes can be better than other types of taxes. What I did say is at politically acceptable levels a carbon tax will make no difference to emissions. Nothing in your data refutes that claim.

So you think that cutting GHG emissions by twice the national rate since the inception of the tax is just a coincidence? Another interesting point about the BC carbon tax is that the revenue it has generated has allowed for a 5 billion dollar reduction in income and corporate taxes. Those earning up to $122,000 now pay the lowest income tax rates in the country. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/british-columbia-carbon-tax-sanity

[hitops]

Then we should get rid of the tax deduction for childcare. If they really wanted to be fair allowing income splitting for parents with kids up to the maximum allowed childcare deduction would make the tax system neutral.

Correct. The UCCB should be abolished. It force the childless to subsidize those with children. The childless did not force anyone to have children, that was their choice.

Full disclosure: I would benefit a lot from income splitting and I currently collect UCCB.

[hitops]

There was no "stimulative effect" that I saw from that cut. Every article I've read from economists says otherwise. That cutting the GST made them unable to respond to the economic crisis in an effective way that would alleviate the shock for the middle class and demand creators.

I'm with you there. GST should be 20%, and income tax cut in half.

[cybercoma]

Correct. The UCCB should be abolished. It force the childless to subsidize those with children. The childless did not force anyone to have children, that was their choice.

Full disclosure: I would benefit a lot from income splitting and I currently collect UCCB.

The UCCB is a way of helping ensure that children in Canada do not live in poverty. But hey, if you're cool with children eating cat food, maybe you should petition your MP.

[jbg]

Because when Martin got done he had a surplus.

2004 was before the 2008 meltdown.

The '08 budget already had a 5.8 billion deficit built in. Just to remeing you, the budgets are rolled out more or less at the first of the year, not the end.

The problem is that the real start date for the 2008 meltdown was 2007. Edited April 7, 2014 by jbg

[Boges]

There's reports out there on the web that's he's died.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/04/20140410-135021.html

Edited April 10, 2014 by Boges

[Keepitsimple]

There's reports out there on the web that's he's died.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/04/20140410-135021.html

That is absolutely horrible. Very sad. Very sad.

[guyser]

Sad to hear, perhaps he knew something and didnt tell the public?

[Moonlight Graham]

Wow that's horrible. Thanks for serving Jim!

[Moonlight Graham]

Sad to hear, perhaps he knew something and didnt tell the public?

Reports were he seemed ill while still in office, coughing, shaking hands etc. in the last few months.

[jbg]

There's reports out there on the web that's he's died.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/04/20140410-135021.html

The news is quite true (link).

Police and paramedics were gathered Thursday around a downtown Ottawa condominium.

The House of Commons immediately suspended business.

Flaherty, 64, had been battling a rare skin condition, but insisted upon his surprise resignation last month that his health was not a contributing factor in his decision to step down. He had stayed on as the MP for Whitby-Oshawa, but was not planning to seek re-election. The former minister was discovered with no vital signs.

CBC was reporting Thursday afternoon that he might have died of a heart attack.

(snip)

I know nothing about Canadian politics but he sounds like he was a dedicated public servant.

[waldo]

Since introducing a carbon tax BC has lowered greenhouse gas emissions 2x faster than the rest of the country while also outpacing the Canadian average in GDP growth.

Correlation does not imply causation. Also - the carbon tax specifically exempted large industrial emitters and public institutions which makes a causal relationship with the emission drop even less plausible.

waldo mythbusting TimG... you're welcome!

Myth: Industry/business are exempt from the carbon tax.

Fact: Industry is not exempt from the carbon tax. Industry is required to pay the carbon tax on the purchase and use of fuels the same as everyone else and they also pay tax at the same rate. For example, the oil and gas industry will pay the carbon tax on all combustion of fuels, estimated at 85 per cent of their total emissions, including flaring, and the cement industry will pay the tax based on the coal and tires they burn in the production of cement.