Erin O'Toole is the Conservative Leader

[wxman52]

18 hours ago, taxme said:

Alberta separatist movements have come and gone. This Wexit separatist movement will go nowhere either. Albertan's are just like every other Canadian in Canada. All talk with no walk. No time to talk or walk. Too busy for that stuff. The only ones that are having a good laugh at Alberta and the rest of English Canada are the french leftist liberals from Quebec. The french leftists own Ottawa and can do whatever they dam well please to the rest of the country. O'Toole will never be able to change that. O'Toole will go along to get along with french Quebec. Believe it or not. 

We have such a dictating bozo already from french Quebec running and ruining and ruling over this country, and nobody does anything about this Teflon Don guy called Trudeau. This guy can do whatever he wants to bloody well do to this country. And this crime mistake of Canada has three more years to finish off this once great British/European country pretty much for good. O'toole will be too late to try and save the old Canada. O'Toole is just another puppet on a globalist string. He will do whatever the globalists tell him must be done just like Teflon Don has been doing under Soros's globalist and communist tutoring. If they the sheeple think that they are the boss in this country well I have news for you all. It's too late. The globalists already own you and you are their property now.  The majority of Canadians are just followers and that will never change. And pro globalist O'Toole will be leading the way. 

And now Teflon Don has now prorogued the government to avoid any further actions being taken against him for now with all of his crimes that have been committed against they the stunned sheeple. Teflon Don is not the crazy in the head. It is they the people who are crazy in the head. But hey, what more can be said except to carry on Canada to your demise. Bye-bye. 

I have to admit a lot of what you say is true and I agree. Its apathetic Canadians who put up with all the charades in Ottawa. Quebec has been wagging the dog far too long and yet most Canadians just shrug. O Toole likely isnt a saviour..I have maybe only see a few politicians in my lifetime that were capable of serious change for the better. I would say Margaret Thatcher and Ralph Klein stand out in my mind as two who made hard but the right decisions which ultimately proved quite positive for their jurisdictions. Paul Martin did an admirable job as finance minister finally cutting the deficit..perhaps on the back of the provinces and EI but he did make some serious cuts to government. 

 Now we literally have the howdy doody show running the country and most Canadians seem ok with that. The corporate elites are more or less running the world now hence this so called democracy is pretty much a farce. We have two choices which often arent that different..same in the USA. People just oscillate back and forth from one to the other. Our first past the post system is a total joke..nothing democratic about it..some ridings have twice the population as others but count the same..I live in a riding that votes massively Liberal hence my vote is completely meaningless in this system. 

[Argus]

18 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Taxes on CO2 emissions are the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions.

Only if all other nations used them. Since most don't, carbon taxes are a complete waste of time and money. They accomplish nothing but sending Canadian jobs overseas.

18 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Alternatively, if the goal is to reduce global emissions rather than meet Stephen Harper's goal of 30% emission reductions by 2030, then beyond a minimal level of taxation of CO2 emissions in Canada, it could be more economically efficient to buy emission credits from other countries and pay other countries to reduce emissions.

That's not how it works. We buy emission credits and the money goes into the pockets of the dictators selling them.

18 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

It's almost like the CPC doesn't actually care about climate change, but they will say whatever to be elected.

Oh give us all a break. As if the Liberals aren't the style over substance government. As pointed out, their carbon taxes will do absolutely NOTHING to reduce global emissions. Nor have they offered up anything else. Although I'm sure Gerald Butts is hard at work coming up with new ways to waste billions of dollars and drive us into near bankruptcy as he did in Ontario.

 

 

[-1=e^ipi]

18 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Lets also remember this is the direction the liberals are going to go....they will announce a major green program, plus shit tones of social programs in an attempt to buy votes....IS the Dairy Cartel a CPC thing or just a Scheer thing ? ...

It's a Canadian political establishment thing. All the parties in the house of commons are economically illiterate and worship the Dairy Cartel.

[-1=e^ipi]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Oh give us all a break. As if the Liberals aren't the style over substance government.

Can't both parties be bad?

2 hours ago, Argus said:

As pointed out, their carbon taxes will do absolutely NOTHING to reduce global emissions.

This was not pointed out, nor is it true. There are many empirical econometric studies that find that taxes on CO2 emissions do in fact reduce emissions.

It's almost like people and corporations have a tendency to want to avoid paying taxes.... *sarcasm*

Edited August 25, 2020 by -1=e^ipi

[Argus]

27 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

This was not pointed out, nor is it true. There are many empirical econometric studies that find that taxes on CO2 emissions do in fact reduce emissions.

They reduce emissions within a set of borders. Big deal. They don't reduce overall emissions as the companies just relocate to China or Mexico.

[Moonlight Graham]

O'Toole would have to start raping babies for me not to vote for him.

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

O'Toole would have to start raping babies for me not to vote for him.

What about if he only continued ?

[Moonlight Graham]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

What about if he only continued ?

I'd have to see the details of his baby rape policy.

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

It's a Canadian political establishment thing. All the parties in the house of commons are economically illiterate and worship the Dairy Cartel.

not all parties...

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Can't both parties be bad?

This was not pointed out, nor is it true. There are many empirical econometric studies that find that taxes on CO2 emissions do in fact reduce emissions.

It's almost like people and corporations have a tendency to want to avoid paying taxes.... *sarcasm*

Yes, carbon taxes do work , IF they are set high enough to make a difference... Liberals have already said they would have to increase the Carbo tax "a lot'' to start making a difference... SO the answer would be no here in Canada they are not making a difference.... 

and while most people like to avoid taxes, a lot of Canadians depend on operating a fossil fuel veh to get around and are going to drive it until taxes on fuel are so high it cripples our economy ....For a lot of people it is a need not a luxury item.

The Carbon tax will also increase the price of everything delivered by plane , train, or truck.... that pretty much includes everything...

[Argus]

44 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

The Carbon tax will also increase the price of everything delivered by plane , train, or truck.... that pretty much includes everything...

And meanwhile the rest of the world is frantically building coal fired power plants - hundreds and hundreds every year.

[-1=e^ipi]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

They reduce emissions within a set of borders. Big deal. They don't reduce overall emissions as the companies just relocate to China or Mexico.

1. Not all goods and services are easily tradable. A good example of an untradable service would be getting a haircut.

2. Production located in one country is not a perfect substitute for production located in another country. Multinational enterprises might have a variety of reasons to locate production in a particular country, including access to the domestic workers, distance to customers, access to trade, political stability, taxes, etc. If a multinational enterprise decides to locate in a particular country, it's probably because it is more profitable for them than the next best choice. In some cases, the multinational enterprise might prefer to pay the CO2 emission tax and find ways to reduce emissions rather than relocate production. You don't get a perfect and costless relocation of production to other countries.

 

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

not all parties...

Which is why I added "in the house of commons."

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Yes, carbon taxes do work , IF they are set high enough to make a difference...

No, they always work. You just get more mitigation the higher the level of tax. There is no magic threshold where the taxes suddenly go from no effect to a super large effect.

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

The Carbon tax will also increase the price of everything delivered by plane , train, or truck.... that pretty much includes everything...

Here is a fun economic fact. "Taxes on everything" are generally more economically efficient because you can have a large base and a lower tax rate, thereby reducing economic deadweight loss. See the concept of Harberger's Triangle. Unfortunately, the economically illiterate Harperites never understood this. Which is why they lowered instead of raised the GST, one of the most economically efficient sources of federal tax revenue.

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by -1=e^ipi

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

12 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

GST, one of the most economically efficient sources of federal tax revenue.

Now that is funny, I bet it costs more to implement then revenue it generates. It does employ alot of people though. 

[Argus]

51 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Now that is funny, I bet it costs more to implement then revenue it generates. It does employ alot of people though. 

No, this is actually true. The Europeans collect much more of their tax through a VAT than income tax. The VAT over there runs up around 25%, though. I don't know that Canadians would tolerate that, even with lower income taxes.

[-1=e^ipi]

3 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Now that is funny, I bet it costs more to implement then revenue it generates. It does employ alot of people though. 

The GST/HST/PST/QST is arguably Canada's most efficient source of tax revenue. Far better than the personal income tax or the corporate income tax at the margin. Here is a link to open-access research by Canadian economists at the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy, where they estimate the marginal cost of public funds of various taxes in Canada and find that the GST/HST/PST/QST has a much lower marginal cost of public funds.

[-1=e^ipi]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

No, this is actually true. The Europeans collect much more of their tax through a VAT than income tax. The VAT over there runs up around 25%, though. I don't know that Canadians would tolerate that, even with lower income taxes.

If the Europeans tolerate it, I don't see why Canadians would not. You just need to articulate why it is a good idea to shift to proportionately more tax revenue coming from the VAT.

[-1=e^ipi]

With respect to Erin O'Toole's desire for an "industry pricing policy" to reduce CO2 emissions, according to research by the Ecofiscal Commission, this is far less efficient than having a broad based "tax-on-everything" CO2 emission tax. In fact, their research predicts that, in order to meet the Paris targets, that an Erin O'Toole approach would result in a decline in GDP per capita over the next decade, whereas a broad based tax would still allow for an increase in GDP per capita.

 

These economically illiterate conservatives don't care if your life is more expensive. They only care if your life is more expensive and you know about it. If your life is more expensive due to regulation or through taxes that indirectly affect you then they are fine with that.

[Argus]

30 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

With respect to Erin O'Toole's desire for an "industry pricing policy" to reduce CO2 emissions, according to research by the Ecofiscal Commission, this is far less efficient than having a broad based "tax-on-everything" CO2 emission tax. In fact, their research predicts that, in order to meet the Paris targets, that an Erin O'Toole approach would result in a decline in GDP per capita over the next decade, whereas a broad based tax would still allow for an increase in GDP per capita.

In order to meet the artificial goals of the Paris Accords any carbon tax would have to increase multiple times over what it is today, which would also result in a decline in GDP.

30 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

These economically illiterate conservatives don't care if your life is more expensive. They only care if your life is more expensive and you know about it. If your life is more expensive due to regulation or through taxes that indirectly affect you then they are fine with that.

Right, which is why they brought out the GST.

[taxme]

On 8/25/2020 at 7:28 AM, wxman52 said:

I have to admit a lot of what you say is true and I agree. Its apathetic Canadians who put up with all the charades in Ottawa. Quebec has been wagging the dog far too long and yet most Canadians just shrug. O Toole likely isnt a saviour..I have maybe only see a few politicians in my lifetime that were capable of serious change for the better. I would say Margaret Thatcher and Ralph Klein stand out in my mind as two who made hard but the right decisions which ultimately proved quite positive for their jurisdictions. Paul Martin did an admirable job as finance minister finally cutting the deficit..perhaps on the back of the provinces and EI but he did make some serious cuts to government. 

 Now we literally have the howdy doody show running the country and most Canadians seem ok with that. The corporate elites are more or less running the world now hence this so called democracy is pretty much a farce. We have two choices which often arent that different..same in the USA. People just oscillate back and forth from one to the other. Our first past the post system is a total joke..nothing democratic about it..some ridings have twice the population as others but count the same..I live in a riding that votes massively Liberal hence my vote is completely meaningless in this system. 

As I have already said previous. It's not O'Toole that will be running this country. It is the deep state globalist elite that will still be running this country. Things will never change as long as the globalists are allowed to keep controlling our lives. They the people need to understand this that they are not the boss. The politicians and the globalists are. We have no choices right now other than for Canadians to vote for and give conservative Maxine Bernier and the PPC party an opportunity and a chance to try and straighten out this f'd up country. As long as they are willing to keep giving their votes to liberals and the liberal conservative party they will never see any changes. O'Tool is just a tool for the globalists. Just my opinion of course. 

[wxman52]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

As I have already said previous. It's not O'Toole that will be running this country. It is the deep state globalist elite that will still be running this country. Things will never change as long as the globalists are allowed to keep controlling our lives. They the people need to understand this that they are not the boss. The politicians and the globalists are. We have no choices right now other than for Canadians to vote for and give conservative Maxine Bernier and the PPC party an opportunity and a chance to try and straighten out this f'd up country. As long as they are willing to keep giving their votes to liberals and the liberal conservative party they will never see any changes. O'Tool is just a tool for the globalists. Just my opinion of course. 

Well Bernier will never win yet even get 5 seats so nothing will change. Canadians are way way too leftist socialist to evern consider the PPC. Which means that we keep doing the same until the whole system explodes..whenever that is..this year or in 5-10 years..no idea anymore. 

[-1=e^ipi]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

In order to meet the artificial goals of the Paris Accords any carbon tax would have to increase multiple times over what it is today, which would also result in a decline in GDP.

Yes, there is an economic cost to a tax on CO2 emissions. But the cost to meet the 2030 targets wouldn't be enough to offset expected increases in GDP per capita due to increases in technology, education, the physical capital stock, etc. In the case of an "industry pricing", which O'Toole wants, the results of the Ecofiscal Commission suggest that the costs would be more than enough to offset increases in GDP per capita.

[Army Guy]

21 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Which is why I added "in the house of commons."

No, they always work. You just get more mitigation the higher the level of tax. There is no magic threshold where the taxes suddenly go from no effect to a super large effect.

Here is a fun economic fact. "Taxes on everything" are generally more economically efficient because you can have a large base and a lower tax rate, thereby reducing economic deadweight loss. See the concept of Harberger's Triangle. Unfortunately, the economically illiterate Harperites never understood this. Which is why they lowered instead of raised the GST, one of the most economically efficient sources of federal tax revenue.

 

I'm not arguing if they work or not, any tax will create some reduction..... Unfortunately the economical wizards in the liberal government did not do the math correctly, and introduced a tax that will accomplish very little, in regards to lowering green house gases. for several reasons, with very few affordable options to reduce green house gasses on the market today, people will continue to use fossil fuels regardless, due to necessity  until no longer affordable , which is the upper level of proposed tax... They are going to pay your tax until something else comes on the market, or revert to cheaper products like burning wood, or coal to heat homes which produce more green house gasses than fossil fuels such as natural gas or coal.... taxing the shit out of something without other supporting programs at the fed level is not good practice, and while it may work, any party jacking pricing of fuel to the levels needed to make a difference, runs the risk of not getting elected again...which is the main goal of any political party, regardless of what climate change is at the time...That is just a fact of human behavior and politics ...

Now I'm not an expert when it comes to economics, but the tax rates need to be lower so our products stay competitive, if they get to high the demand will drop until that product fades into the sunset, like your trying to do with fossil fuels, only we are putting the cart before the horse, Something the Liberals have not discovered yet, there is NO affordable alternative to fuel right now, nor in the near future...and as the country is in crises throwing a resource away right now seems like a dick move....

As for your theory of Harberger's triangle , well its not as clear cut as you suggest not all economist agree with the theory , infact some say the long term effects are harmful, of course you already knew that , i got that from your source. 

Quote

Some economists like James Tobin have argued that these triangles do not have a huge impact on the economy, whereas others maintain that they can seriously affect long term economic trends by pivoting the trend downwards, thus causing a magnification of losses in the long run.

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

Personally, I prefer the VAT approach where the tax is built into the price; something costs me what the price says it costs. I find the price without GST added particularly irritating with big ticket items. Just tell me the price I have to pay. I’ve no interest in the other figure. 

Edited August 27, 2020 by SpankyMcFarland

[-1=e^ipi]

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Unfortunately the economical wizards in the liberal government

There are no economic wizards in that party. They are economically illiterate too.

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

with very few affordable options to reduce green house gasses on the market today, people will continue to use fossil fuels regardless, due to necessity  until no longer affordable , which is the upper level of proposed tax... They are going to pay your tax until something else comes on the market

Again, there is no magic point where people go from no having no response to CO2 emission taxes to suddenly having a large response to CO2 emission taxes. There are a variety of ways to reduce emissions (using a more fuel efficient vehicle, driving less, using public transport, insulating your home, eating less meat, etc.) and people respond to prices. The fact that taxes on CO2 emissions leads to a reduction in CO2 emissions has been confirmed empirically by various econometric studies.

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

They are going to pay your tax until something else comes on the market, or revert to cheaper products like burning wood, or coal to heat homes which produce more green house gasses than fossil fuels such as natural gas or coal....

They are going to replace the burning of coal with coal? And coal produces more greenhouse gasses than coal? Is this a typo?

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

taxing the shit out of something without other supporting programs at the fed level is not good practice

You can use revenue generated from a tax on CO2 emissions to lower other taxes such as corporate taxes. Alternatively, you could use the revenue from a CO2 emission tax to fund a universal basic income. Take your pick at what you want. Either way, the government needs to generate tax revenue, so there is always the question of how the government should collect tax revenue, since different taxes will have different incentives. A tax on CO2 emissions incentivizes the reduction in CO2 emissions.

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

runs the risk of not getting elected again...which is the main goal of any political party, regardless of what climate change is at the time...That is just a fact of human behavior and politics ...

Political parties have been elected over the past few decades all around the world on platforms on taxing CO2. Europe, Australia, Chile, British Columbia, etc. It is very possible for a party to win elections on a platform of wanting to tax CO2 emissions. It's almost like there was recently a federal election in Canada, where the party that ended up forming government ran on a platform of taxing CO2 emissions...

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

there is NO affordable alternative to fuel right now, nor in the near future...

There are alternative fuels to other types of fuels. But I don't really know what you mean by an alternative to fuel...

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

As for your theory of Harberger's triangle , well its not as clear cut as you suggest not all economist agree with the theory , infact some say the long term effects are harmful, of course you already knew that , i got that from your source.

You don't understand... Harberger's triangle is a triangle of deadweight loss / harm to society. The point is to minimize the area of the triangle, or rather to minimize the sum of the area of multiple triangles such as by having broad based taxes.

[SpankyMcFarland]

O’Toole is a calming figure. In his appearances on the CBC’s Power and Politics, I never saw him lose his cool with his opposite numbers. He’s also got an average guy vibe. After Trudeau, I suspect we’ll be shopping for something less flashy. 

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

O’Toole is a calming figure. In his appearances on the CBC’s Power and Politics, I never saw him lose his cool with his opposite numbers. He’s also got an average guy vibe. After Trudeau, I suspect we’ll be shopping for something less flashy. 

It would be good to have someone work to calm down right-wing hysteria.