Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax

[montgomery]

On 1/5/2019 at 3:25 AM, Dougie93 said:

Nah, I'll pay, I can afford $3 a liter, bring it on, side benefit; runaway socialist intervention to drive the prices of everything through the roof in the name of Cultural Marxist Malthusian Doomsday is an excellent way of bringing Confederation down to break up the country. Then you would be free of me, and I would be free of you. 

You could move to the  Peoples Republic of British Columbia and I would be free to take a giant dump on the environment back here in the east.

Compromise!

It's all about social responsibility in government Dougie. It's nothing even close to US style greedy capitalism, but it's definitely capitalism. You may not understand that the happiest countries in the world, or which Canada is one of the top ten, practice socially responsible capitalism.

We must not allow the Cons to interfere with that social status, even though their ambitions are to cause inc ome inequality that would rival the cluster.... that is the US currently under Trump.

There is no such thing as pure capitalism or even pure socialism in the world today. All successful governments are a workable mix of the two. That's the message we must get across to Scheer and his band of fascit accomplices. 

Let's get the conversation around to that basic principle Dougie. By doing that we will begin to dispense with the extreme rightist hating that is so evident on this forum. 

[cannuck]

12 minutes ago, montgomery said:

You may not understand that the happiest countries in the world, or which Canada is one of the top ten, practice socially responsible capitalism.

There is no such thing as pure capitalism or even pure socialism in the world today. All successful governments are a workable mix of the two. . 

I sort of agree with you, but please let me ask what you think "socially responsible capitalism" is?    I have my own very rigid definition, but I suspect since it is based in reality, it will differ greatly from yours.

[montgomery]

3 minutes ago, cannuck said:

I sort of agree with you, but please let me ask what you think "socially responsible capitalism" is?    I have my own very rigid definition, but I suspect since it is based in reality, it will differ greatly from yours.

Perhaps it will differ from mine. It's a huge topic that can be explained in a few words. My best advice I can give to you is to examine the capitalist systems of the happiest countries of the world, then compare that with the mess that is the US now. Then get back to me.

You seem to believe we differ on what makes 'socially responsible capitalism'. If that's your belief then why not point out some of the points on which you think we may differ?

Universal Health Care? Social Welfare? Unemployment insurance? Condemnation of racism?

Lowing taxes on only the wealthy? Racism? Fascism?, or other priorities of the Conservative mind?

I've done my best to prompt you and other Conservatives. 

[cannuck]

Universal sick care, welfare, unemployment enjoyment - those are - or SHOULD be social services.  Has nothing to do with capitalism per se.

Lowering taxes only on the "wealthy"?  Well, here is where I don't think you can understand what uses of capital and distribution of wealth really are.  You can do many things with money, but the big split is are you going to use it to create wealth (IMHO, what defines "socially responsible capitalism" or are you going to use it strictly to redistribute wealth (which is what social services do).  HERE is where it comes down:  redistributing wealth should be used ONLY for social services, NOT for use of capital.   

Let me try to make it simple:  you can only create wealth by doing two things - add value to a resource or deliver a service in support of adding value to resources.  Doing so creates wealth that is required to run an economy and pay for social services (by redistributing some of that wealth through taxation).  Best to think of this as the business of "Main Street" - you know, where you and I live.   What we have in pretty much the whole world now is Casino Capitalism, not capitalism per se.   The difference is that when money is used for speculative gain, no wealth is created, but vast quantities can be re-distributed.  Essentially, what happens with 99% of the activities of Wall Street, Bay Street, LSE, Dax, etc.   When you give a free ride on the tax system to speculative gain, and remove regulations that were written to prevent a repeat of 1929, this is what you get.

The solution is indeed taxation.  But, the issue is not to tax the success or reward the failure of the person, but to tax the ACTIVITY through which wealth is being redistributed.   IMHO, there are numbers for that.   For a speculative gain, I want to see 99% taxation on day one, 95% by year one, and reducing 5% per annum until the capital gain matches the nominal tax rate.  In that way, money moves over to actual capitalistic use to create wealth, instead of feeding the greed and gouge world of speculation (which, BTW is the very basis of inflation).

As far as RATE of taxation goes, you can bet your commie ass that I want to see flat tax.   Why the hell would you penalize someone for success?  What I would give you, though, as a genuine nod to "progressive" taxation is a significant basic personal exemption.  BUT, once you cross the threshold into earnings, everyone should pay the same rate on their income - regardless of how much it is (remember, I/we have effectively removed speculative activity from the economy by taxing capital gains appropriately.

BTW:  where I really have fun with this discussion is opening it up when I am in MENA.  Islam forbids interest, and when I ask why, it always comes back to taking a benefit without earning it.   Pretty much anyone I engage in this discussion has a fair whack of speculative investment, and it is SO much fun to watch them squirm when I point out that a speculative gain is absolutely no different from interest.

[montgomery]

Canuck says:

Universal sick care, welfare, unemployment enjoyment - those are - or SHOULD be social services.  Has nothing to do with capitalism per se.

Per se, they all are fundamental prerequistes of capitalism that includes social responsibility. I've just finished telling you that no pure capitalism or socialism exists in any modern successful country of the world.

Otherwise, your lengthy harangue on your understanding of capitalism vs. mine, makes no points worth acknowledging. Aside from you bad behaviour when you told me I can get my commie ass, which of course has been reported.

If you wish to make a point in a polite way then please do.

I will tell you though that I'm a ten year veteran of the now defunct SupplySide Forum and I've heard it all. You may want to address me with that degree of sophistication on economics in mind. Or in other words, What's your point?

[GostHacked]

On 12/17/2018 at 1:34 PM, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

 

We have the technology, instead of shipping raw materials and goods around the planet several times in the process of manufacturing we can do the whole process locally. I learned a couple years back that even a simple $4 ball bearing assembly has components made in four different countries all over the world. Although there might be a slight economic advantage to this it's an environmental disaster (not to mention there is around two ships lost at sea every week). Same goes for producing food, diversify and bring locally grown back home.

True, but globalization has purposefully crippled manufacturing in North America where if you were to do things locally again, you are going to pay a lot more. Decades of outsourcing to other nations for cheap labour is not something that can be easily reversed without having a huge economic impact on people. The only way this is going to return for manufacturing is total automation that will eliminate jobs for people.

[cannuck]

56 minutes ago, montgomery said:

Canuck says:

 

Per se, they all are fundamental prerequistes of capitalism that includes social responsibility. I've just finished telling you that no pure capitalism or socialism exists in any modern successful country of the world.

Otherwise, your lengthy harangue on your understanding of capitalism vs. mine, makes no points worth acknowledging. Aside from you bad behaviour when you told me I can get my commie ass, which of course has been reported.

If you wish to make a point in a polite way then please do.

I will tell you though that I'm a ten year veteran of the now defunct SupplySide Forum and I've heard it all. You may want to address me with that degree of sophistication on economics in mind. Or in other words, What's your point?

You need to lighten up - a lot.  

[Dougie93]

Socialism is the opposite of social responsibility, social responsibility is an individual trait, as in; you feel responsible for your immediate land owning neighbors for example, whereas within the collectivist paradigm of socialism, nobody is responsible for anything, as in; you live in a public housing project where nobody does anything about anything because nobody owns it so nobody cares.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

 The only way this is going to return for manufacturing is total automation that will eliminate jobs for people.

Industrial manufacturing and associated jobs is a product of the now defunct 19th century industrial revolution, that going away is a feature not a bug, civilization actually did just fine for 10,000 years without anybody ever having an industrial manufacturing job, jobs are a relatively recent and rather fleeting in the grand scheme of things invention.

[montgomery]

3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Industrial manufacturing and associated jobs is a product of the now defunct 19th century industrial revolution, that going away is a feature not a bug, civilization actually did just fine for 10,000 years without anybody ever having an industrial manufacturing jobUniversal sick care, welfare, unemployment enjoyment - those are - or SHOULD be social services.  Has nothing to do with capitalism per se.

What on earth are you trying to say Dougie? Jobs are defunct? They're a product of the 18th. century?

Slow down and follow along with your finger, you seem to be terribly confused. Maybe a crash course on learning what socialism means would help. You could come to an understanding on how it differs from Capatalism. And how neither are practiced anywhere in the world in their true sense. How about this Dougie: The country that is trying to pracitce 19th. century greedy capitalism is the US. They don't seem to understand even the simple concept of universal health care for all the people, as opposed to for-profit health care that costs nearly twice as much per capita as Canada's. And it rated as not being as good!

[Dougie93]

The industrial manufacturing jobs are all about to go away anyways,  clinging to your archaic 19th c. industrial paradigm is a fool's errand, you are in the throws of an 21st information revolution right now, which is in progress of rendering mass human manufacturing into buggy whips, and its happening fast and its picking up speed as it goes.  If socialists try to go against the grain they will render themselves politically irrelevant, which is fine by me, but I think they will actually be forced to get with the program at some point, by default, AI 3D printing is not a person, so it doesn't feel sorry for you nor your buggy whips neither..

 

Don't shoot the messenger,  I didn't invent the computer, that was Alan Turing.

Edited January 7, 2019 by Dougie93

[cannuck]

16 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Industrial manufacturing and associated jobs is a product of the now defunct 19th century industrial revolution, that going away is a feature not a bug, civilization actually did just fine for 10,000 years without anybody ever having an industrial manufacturing job, jobs are a relatively recent and rather fleeting in the grand scheme of things invention.

Did just fine by what standard of measurement?  How effective was air travel and space exploration 10,000 happy years ago?  I see the fantastic job that we did of treating the plague due to the fantastic understanding and manufacture of medicine.  You can go out and capture a new mate by clubbing her over the head and dragging her back to your cave, but I think I will be much happier luring her with my Beechcraft and taking her back to my manufactured home with all of the sad central heating, air, plumbing and lighting.  It was the industrial revolution and working wages that took the vast majority of the people out of being enslaved to landowners and trapped in their situation.   All started with watches and the sewing machine.

We may not live in a perfect word (far from it, IMHO) but I think almost everyone can agree we live in a far better one than milleniae past.

Sad part is: the liberal/Liberal ideas of political correctness, open borders, anti-technology, etc. are trying to drag us back there.  Globalism destroying the wide distribution of enterprise will essentially be a return to tennant farmer/landLORD relation between those with the privilege to exploit and those without the means to be independent.

Edited January 7, 2019 by cannuck

[August1991]

Bump.

If I had a correction, I would refer to a CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) tax, rather than a Carbon tax.

====

The fact remains: the federal excise tax of 10 cents per litre amounts to a price of $20 per tonne of CO2.

Canada already has now a federal carbon, carbon dioxide, CO2 tax.

 

Edited April 12, 2019 by August1991

[August1991]

Bump.

=====

The advantage of a CO2 tax is that, contrary to regulation, it can easily, clearly be rescinded - Harper cut the GST from 7% to 5%.

Moreover, unlike regulations that are subject to lobbying, a CO2 tax is the same for all.

======

We don't yet know whether CO2 levels are truly rising (despite measures in Mauna Loa) and we don't yet know whether, if they're rising, this matters - given sea absorption. 

Nevertheless, I can see the logic of human CO2 emissions. So, I view CO2 reduction as an insurance policy. And I want to pay the premium, buy insurance, at the smallest price.

Hence, I favour a CO2 tax over regulation. I also like the idea of refunding tax revenue equally to everyone.

  

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, August1991 said:

1. Bump.

=====

2. We don't yet know whether CO2 levels are truly rising (despite measures in Mauna Loa) and we don't yet know whether, if they're rising, this matters - given sea absorption. 

3. Nevertheless, I can see the logic of human CO2 emissions. So, I view CO2 reduction as an insurance policy. And I want to pay the premium, buy insurance, at the smallest price. Hence, I favour a CO2 tax over regulation. I also like the idea of refunding tax revenue equally to everyone.

  

1. An 8.5 year 'bump' at that.

2. Yes we do.  It's measured, easily.

3. I would say we can try it, since it can be withdrawn as you say.

 

[farrightnonsense]

this tax does nothing to help our climate and I can't believe we are now paying tax on top of another tax.

[Michael Hardner]

33 minutes ago, farrightnonsense said:

this tax does nothing to help our climate and I can't believe we are now paying tax on top of another tax.

Why do you say that without any explanation?

[farrightnonsense]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why do you say that without any explanation?

Because a dollar bill cannot change the climate? There is no evidence put forth by our own government that shows this. The climate is changing because that is what it does...change...it has been changing the last 4 billions years.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, farrightnonsense said:

1. Because a dollar bill cannot change the climate?

2. The climate is changing because that is what it does...change...it has been changing the last 4 billions years.

1. Utterly meaningless.  Resources can be applied to change the environment either way.

2. This is cut and paste denier nonsense that only works on people who don't understand the issue.  

[PIK]

On 4/10/2019 at 11:18 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. Utterly meaningless.  Resources can be applied to change the environment either way.

2. This is cut and paste denier nonsense that only works on people who don't understand the issue.  

Taxing people does not work michael. And being a net carbon country,why are we cutting our throats while the big boys get away with it. Why do you think  loblaws got 12 m. Nothing to do with refrigerators. They are getting thier carbon rebate.

[marcus]

26 minutes ago, PIK said:

Taxing people does not work michael. And being a net carbon country,why are we cutting our throats while the big boys get away with it. Why do you think  loblaws got 12 m. Nothing to do with refrigerators. They are getting thier carbon rebate.

Did you know that Carbon Tax originates from Conservative politicians and was championed by Canadian Conservatives until recently? But who cares. This is the Conservatives simply wanting to ride an angry anti-tax wave in hopes of defeating the Trudeau Liberals. I understand.

[August1991]

On 4/10/2019 at 6:22 AM, Michael Hardner said:

......

2. Yes we do.  It's measured, easily.

......

 

No, atmospheric CO2 measures are not easy.

Mauna Lau is only one measure.

====

I view a CO2 tax as a premium on an insurance policy.

-And it's easier to lower the premium - than change the rules of the insurance policy. 

Edited April 12, 2019 by August1991

[August1991]

On 4/10/2019 at 10:35 AM, farrightnonsense said:

this tax does nothing to help our climate and I can't believe we are now paying tax on top of another tax.

And a single Canadian soldier did nothing to defeat Nazi Germany.

====

farrightnonsense,

Please read Tolstoi.

Edited April 12, 2019 by August1991

[August1991]

On 4/10/2019 at 11:15 AM, farrightnonsense said:

Because a dollar bill cannot change the climate?....

What is the price of gasoline in Norway? Heck, what is the domestic price of a kwh in Quebec? (I pay around 7 cents per kwh.)

=====

But you raise a good point, farrightnonsense: if Justin Trudeau (and his PMO) were serious about CO2 emissions, he (they) would not be flying around the world in jets emitting CO2.

In 1940-1941, Churchill (and his staff) were not learning German.

Edited April 12, 2019 by August1991

[August1991]

On 10/3/2010 at 9:38 AM, Saipan said:

I say use coal more - just like China. It's WAY cheaper. And everyone is supporting it by buying Made in China.

.....

I wonder what Lee Kuan Yew would say.

=====

Sadly, the guys in Beijing are only imitating Singapore - copy, copy, copy.