Jump to content

Why not Michael Chong?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, segnosaur said:

It solves the problem in proportion to the amount of problems we are causing in the first place.

 

 

Depends on how carbon taxes are implemented. Chong's plan is to offset carbon taxes with reductions in other taxes, which would offset much of the negative economic impact of the taxes.

 

 

.

 

I paid $2100 in direct carbon taxes in the last eight years in B.C. but I know there are many of you who like Chong and are dying to pay carbon taxes but haven't had the chance yet.  I have a suggestion for you.

If you and others would prefer Chong because you believe in your heart that man-made climage change is not a fraud, why don't you open your wallet and send the B.C. government (who charges carbon taxes) $2000 and mark it carbon tax gift.    I am sure they will love you for it and maybe even send you an official certificate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, segnosaur said:

Keep in mind that Chong's policies involve more than just carbon taxes. He wants to offset it by (for example) reductions in income taxes. The end result is that the average Canadian will end up with about the same level of taxation. However, those who choose to use more fossil fuels (e.g. by driving a hummer to work every day) will end up paying more, and those that use less fossil fuels (e.g. by driving a civic) will pay less.

From a purely libertarian/economic point of view, that's actually the fairest thing to do.

If you accept the science (which is neither conservative nor liberal, but, well, science), global warming will have an effect that will impact people in different ways. Either way, the government (and ultimately the taxpayer) will end up paying for it somehow, whether its immediately (carbYou on taxes, cap and trade, subsidized green energy) or in the future (higher food prices, loss of property in coastal areas through rising sea levels). The idea that people's contribution to the solution to the problem should be proportional to how much they caused the problem in the first place actually seems like a pretty good idea to me.

 

 

Leitch is too close to being a Donald Trump-lite for my liking.

 

Trump is elected President.  Why keep on harping about him?  Accept he won and democrats lost.  It's over.  Give the man a chance.   Isn't that how democracy works?

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, capricorn said:

But Trudeau is a native son and most of all is not a C-O-N-S-E-R-V-A-T-I-V-E.

In 2019 it'll be 13 years since Chong quit Harper's cabinet - which considering Harper's unpopularity in Quebec will probably be a positive - do you really think it'll be an issue? I'd say it'll be as much of an issue as Bernier having been a separatist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

I paid $2100 in direct carbon taxes in the last eight years in B.C. but I know there are many of you who like Chong and are dying to pay carbon taxes but haven't had the chance yet.  I have a suggestion for you.

If you and others would prefer Chong because you believe in your heart that man-made climage change is not a fraud, why don't you open your wallet and send the B.C. government (who charges carbon taxes) $2000 and mark it carbon tax gift.    I am sure they will love you for it and maybe even send you an official certificate.

 

So should the Conservatives campaign on climate change being a hoax?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Chong was one of two Conservatives who voted yea on M103. Add carbon taxes for man made hoax and this Liberal wanna be is dead to me. As a card carrying conservative I'll be voting Maxine.

I like your choice, as it will help move the Conservatives out of the mainstream even more.  Climate Change conspiracy theorists are not really a sought-after demographic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

I paid $2100 in direct carbon taxes in the last eight years in B.C. but I know there are many of you who like Chong and are dying to pay carbon taxes but haven't had the chance yet.  I have a suggestion for you.

If you and others would prefer Chong because you believe in your heart that man-made climage change is not a fraud, why don't you open your wallet and send the B.C. government (who charges carbon taxes) $2000 and mark it carbon tax gift.    I am sure they will love you for it and maybe even send you an official certificate.

I cannot speak to your exact situation, since I obviously don't have access to your Tax returns. But, from what I understand, while B.C. has introduced a carbon tax, they have also cut income taxes and corporate taxes to compensate. (By law everything must be revenue neutral.)

From: http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/07/british-columbias-carbon-tax

Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too.

If you are really paying more in carbon taxes, then one of 2 things probably applies:

- You are either ignoring a reduction in taxes that benefit you

or:

- You are paying more because you actually burn more fossil fuel than the average person (maybe you drive a Hummer, or leave all your doors open in the winter time to drive up your heating bill.) In which case while it may seem unfair to you, if you weren't paying more it would be unfair to people who are negatively affected more by global warming than you are.

As for me paying the B.C. government for the carbon tax... fine. Only if they can have my income taxes cut to the level they are in B.C. I'd probably make out fairly well in such a scheme... I drive a relatively small car, live close to work, and live in a townhome (minimizing my heating requirements.)

 

Edited by segnosaur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, bcsapper said:

As soon as Trump is impeached, things will return to normal down there.  They'll put an educated person back in charge of the EPA, and they'll start making pointless gestures again.

Tax personal gasoline use.  Especially tax recreational use.  I'd charge five bucks a litre for snowmobile, jetski and ATV use.

And how many tourist businesses, chalets, cottage rental places, ski runs and the like would you put out of business by doing that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Newfoundlander said:

How is it going to be more expensive to operate a business under Chong's proposal? He will not tax trade-dependent industries or the oil and gas industry. He plans to cut taxes by $18 billion while phasing in the carbon tax over a decade. Nobody else is proposing to cut taxes that fast.

What is a trade defendant industry when we have a free trade agreement with the US? Whatever is made here for use here can be imported from there. If you're going to make it significantly more expensive to manufacture things here than down south then there's no reason businesses shouldn't relocate to the US and just ship their goods here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Newfoundlander said:

Why would Conservatives want a non-racist who believes in climate change?

There'a a presumption there which says conservatives are racist. This simply reinforces my earlier post that the people who like Chong are people who would cut their own throat rather than vote for the conservative party anyway.

This is why these public polls are useless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I like your choice, as it will help move the Conservatives out of the mainstream even more.  Climate Change conspiracy theorists are not really a sought-after demographic.

As opposed to people who are desperate for their taxes to go up? Support for carbon taxes is a mile wide and a tenth of an inch deep. It's mostly people who believe someone else will pay it. Once it starts hitting them watch that support melt away until nothing is left but the radical left.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Newfoundlander said:

So should the Conservatives campaign on climate change being a hoax?

I don't think it's a hoax. I just think the propose solution is complete and utter nonsense. 

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Argus said:

There'a a presumption there which says conservatives are racist. This simply reinforces my earlier post that the people who like Chong are people who would cut their own throat rather than vote for the conservative party anyway.

This is why these public polls are useless. 

 

I've been involved with conservative parties for years. I'm supporting him as are a number of people I know who have been involved in conservative politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

Trump is elected President.  Why keep on harping about him?  Accept he won and democrats lost.  It's over.  Give the man a chance.   Isn't that how democracy works?

 

They can't help it....Donald Trump is just the latest American bogeyman to help define such political things in Canada.

Democracy is only working when the outcome favours the alt-left in Canada.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, segnosaur said:

.

Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too.

 

 

"Revenue-neutral" is political bafflegab.  There may have been a small general tax reduction sometime in the past eight years, but that doesn't mean the carbon tax is revenue neutral to those who paid it.  The fact is most of the carbon tax is paid by a relatively small segment of taxpayers.  I paid about $2100 in the past seven years on natural gas home heating and auto gas.  People who live in apartments and do little or no driving or ride rapid transit pay little carbon taxes.  People who heat their homes with electricity or wood stoves pay no carbon taxes on that.  People who live in rural areas and must drive great distances pay more carbon taxes than people who don't need to drive much.   It is a discriminatory tax and hits certain people.  The minor tax cut would have been general and everyone is the province would have received it, including those who pay little or no carbon taxes.  So is that 'revenue-neutral"?  Of course not.  I would have received very little if anything back from the $2100 I paid.  Most of it went to everyone else in the province who didn't deserve it.  That's how politicians think.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Newfoundlander said:

I've been involved with conservative parties for years. I'm supporting him as are a number of people I know who have been involved in conservative politics.

Why would you be 'involved' with conservative parties if you believe conservatives only support racists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, blackbird said:

"Revenue-neutral" is political bafflegab.  There may have been a small general tax reduction sometime in the past eight years, but that doesn't mean the carbon tax is revenue neutral to those who paid it. 

I didn't claim it would be revenue-neutral for everyone. The idea is that it would be revenue neutral for the government. People who burn lots of fossil fuel pay more in taxes, those that burn less fossil fuel pay less.

The fact is most of the carbon tax is paid by a relatively small segment of taxpayers.

And if they are paying "most of the carbon tax", a good question that they should ask themselves is "why"?

People who live in rural areas and must drive great distances pay more carbon taxes than people who don't need to drive much.

Very true. But then you have to ask yourself... why exactly are those people living in rural areas? Many people like to live out in the country because they like the quiet, and then commute to the city. For those people they don't NEED to drive as much, they've just made a decision to pattern their lifestyle around it.

It is a discriminatory tax and hits certain people.

Actually its not discriminatory. It hits certain people who use more fossil fuels. Most people have ways they can cut down the amount of carbon output, whether its something small (replacing your lightbulbs with CFL or LEDs) or something major (buy a smaller car, or move closer to the city to reduce the commute.)

Without carbon taxes, people who burn more fossil fuels end up causing environmental harm than people who use less. Do you think its fair for someone to have to pay to fix the environment just because someone wants to commute 100km each day in a Hummer?

So, if you're paying >$2000, what exactly are you doing to generate that much carbon dioxide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

So, if you're paying >$2000, what exactly are you doing to generate that much carbon dioxide?

When I was living up in northwest B.C. I had a log house that took a lot of natural gas to heat.   Carbon tax on natural gas was about $200 a year

Carbon tax on auto gas was about $100 a year.   So both those things were about $300 a year in carbon taxes.

I don't agree with your premise that because I had a log house and had to pay more to heat, I should pay more carbon taxes.  I am a senior and already paid too much for heating.  The government doesn't care.  It's a show.

I don't agree with the reasoning that people who drive more should pay more carbon taxes either.  Lots of people live in northern parts of B.C. and must drive hundreds of kilometres for various reasons.  Some people have pickup trucks and work in the logging or mining and must drive great distances.  People owned their homes and lived where they lived long before the carbon tax was brought in.  They had no choice.   I had my log house long before the carbon tax was brought in.   Sold it and moved down south.  The person that bought it must now pay the high carbon taxes.   People that need to see specialists often have to travel to another town hundreds of kilomtres away. 

I don't agree with the premise that we are causing global warming anyway and I don't agree that some people in B.C. should have had to pay several thousand dollars in carbon taxes while the rest of the world pays nothing.  It's not fair and it's a scam.  It won't make one iota of difference to climate change.  One big volcanic eruption or one big forest fire would probably emit more CO2 than all the cars in B.C.  for a year.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Argus said:

And how many tourist businesses, chalets, cottage rental places, ski runs and the like would you put out of business by doing that?

It'd be quieter, less smelly, and a lot less selfish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Newfoundlander said:

I never said Conservatives only support racists.

Yes, in fact you did. Just not in so many exact words.

"Why would Conservatives want a non-racist who believes in climate change? "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I like your choice, as it will help move the Conservatives out of the mainstream even more.  Climate Change conspiracy theorists are not really a sought-after demographic.

Yes, so many Canadians are breathlessly dreaming if paying taxes more taxes on literally everything over a non proven scientific theory. Even if proven, trashing the economy by taxing it onto oblivion helps no one.

And more Canadians are opposed to M103 than support it.

 Your assertion of moving them towards the fringe is laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...