Laugh. Out. Freaking. Loud.
$60 in inflation? That's it? Come on Jennifer, you know you are too intelligent to buy that. Can you see a massive carbon tax contributing a mere $5 extra per month to your spending? $5 a day more like.
I may have been a little... short with him in response. But at least he has an excuse - he doesn't actually believe in all this global warming crap anyway.
The LOL thing seems to be a common theme, BTW. Even the Conservative radio ads (which, of course, were written before any of them actually read the plan) are just two people laughing at Dion and his crazy 'Tax On Everything'. As my husband put it so well, their entire argument amounts to nothing more than, "Yeah? Well, you smell!"
There have been a couple of exceptions, mostly from the Progressive end of the pool. JimBobby will be happy to tell you exactly why the Liberal plan is ok but the Green plan is WAY better. And John Murney is very concerned about how this will affect Saskatchewan - it's people, its energy industry, and its hopes of ever electing another Liberal. Ever.
Even in that case, there are assumptions being made that are either a) patently incorrect, or b) unclear from the text posted on the website. Most of the obvious fallacies have to do with the notion that gasoline will be taxed under this scheme, so I'll say it slowly for the hard of hearing: NO. NEW. TAXES. ON. GASOLINE.
As for the rest, yes, there are questions. Questions I'd like the answer to. Here are a few:
1) At what point in the chain will the carbon tax be charged? It sounds like it is going to be charged to the end user of the oil, gas, coal, etc., but it isn't entirely clear. Murney quotes an editorial that claims the refineries are going to have to pay for the gasoline they produce, but I don't believe that's true. Is it?
2) There is a mention of a Carbon Tariff on imports in the plan, but it's all a little vague. One would think that adding a carbon tax to domestic products would only make cheap imports shipped from thousands of miles away that much more attractive - unless the carbon emitted through their shipping and manufacture was also taxed or tariffed. Will this be done, or is it just a suggestion?
3) What about Dion's 'Carbon Budget', unveiled over a year ago in this very town? Does the Green Shift replace that plan or complement it? If the latter, would the $20-$30 levy on the excess CO2 from large emitters be instead of, or in addition to, the carbon tax?
4) How exactly did they arrive at the estimate of $60 - $240 per year per household in increased consumer costs? (excluding home heating, propane and other direct fossil fuel purchases) In my brief debate/cat fight with Raph, I made some attempt to figure out exactly what those added costs might be based on the fact that the average Canadian has a carbon footprint of about 20 tonnes/person/year and stripping out gasoline and home heating. Even for me with my tiny impoverished footprint it still worked out to more, although still much less than the tax savings. What formula are they using?
Happily, I ran into Garth Turner at the Milton Strawberry Festival yesterday and managed to get a couple of answers before we were so rudely interrupted by the bagpipes. I should have the video up sometime Monday.
My complaint is that it's not costing us enough.
ReplyDeleteThe Liberal's goal is to make saving the environment as painless as possible. I assume this is going to be done by cutting back on other things in order not to raise taxes.
That's called "wishful thinking" and it's not only stupid but probably political disaster as well. Dion will never be able to explain his numbers to anyone's satisfaction.
I, for one, am willing to make sacrifices and that includes paying more taxes. I don't think I'm alone. In my opinion, the Liberals would have been better off selling their plan as painful but necessary instead of pretending that we can get something for nothing.
Dion probably lost my vote over this. The NDP is looking much better.
In that case Larry, you should be supporting the Greens, because their carbon tax plan is even tougher then the Liberals.
ReplyDeleteBut at least he has an excuse - he doesn't actually believe in all this global warming crap anyway.
ReplyDeleteWell, I wouldn't go that far. What I said was that we don't actually know the truth. The irrefutable and irrepressible truth of what is happening to our planet. Nobody does. What we have is our best people guessing on climate change based on the best available data. Most people are willing to make large sacrifices in order to accommodate the possibility we can mitigate anthropogenic global warming. I'm just not one of those people.
Even the Conservative radio ads (which, of course, were written before any of them actually read the plan) are just two people laughing at Dion and his crazy 'Tax On Everything'.
It may have been a little rude to laugh at you, but it's because sometimes things like this beggar belief. The Liberals are proposing a massive change to our economy that would have far reaching implications for every man, woman and child, and we're expected to see a mere cost of living increase of a few pennies a day? Wow, that almost sounds... affordable.
Unfortunately I don't buy that argument.
NO. NEW. TAXES. ON. GASOLINE.
Whatever added costs of a carbon tax are incurred by oil companies will be reflected in the retail price, which means your above comment is misleading.
As for what costs we can expect from this new tax, I don't suppose we'll know until we're actually experiencing it. So it's a wait and see proposal, and hopefully we'll have to wait many, many years for that.
The Green Party plan is definitely tougher, starting with a higher price for carbon. However, unlike Larry, I doubt any party could win even 60 seats, never mind 120 seats on it. These plans involve a substantial change in our tax structure and I think people will need to understand this change to feel comfortable.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I have with the NDP on the environment is that they seem to be opposed to carbon taxes as a matter of principle and think Canada should wait until it can implement a cap and trade. Every single environmental group I know of supports both carbon tax and cap and trade and argues that they achieve the same goals, ultimately cost the consumer the same, and it is really the details that matter. Cap and trade takes longer to set up. Ontario and Quebec are hoping to implement theirs in 2 years.
My read of all this is that the Green Party has the strongest environmental plan, but they aren't going to form a government. The Liberal plan moves in exactly the right direction and if we want Canada to do anything, we will need to elect a Liberal government.
I think the NDP is not being constructive with their blanket opposition to any carbon tax. It seems to be vote pandering as if they could save the environment and not have anyone feel a thing. Cap and trade will hit consumers, just like a carbon tax will.
Whooee! Thanks for the link, Jennifer. I agree with Scott. Larry sounds like a good match with our merry band of treeuggin' Greens. If you're not already familiar with GPC policy, Larry, have a look.
ReplyDeleteRaph, even if you're an AGW skeptic, there are many advantages to the tax shift. GHG's are closely related to other pollutants. When we reduce GHG's we reduce many conventional pollutants at the same time. While you may doubt AGW, I suspect you accept the fact that pollution kills. "Bad air days" in the Great Lakes basin are killing people. The latest estimate of premature deaths due to poor air quality is 9,000+/year. The most conservative estimates put the figure at 3,000. Take your pick. Neither is acceptable.
Regarding the shift away from income tax, this is something most people should welcome. We should try not to penalize success and the less we tax income and profits, the more we encourage entrepreneurship and productivity.
With or without a carbon tax, energy costs are rapidly rising. This trend isn't going to reverse itself. Energy costs will rise and our dependence upon fossil fuels will further hurt our economy. Anything we can do to reduce our dependence on expensive fossil fuels will make us more competitive. A carbon tax is specifically aimed at reducing fossil fuel use. Whether that reduction is for the sake of the planet or for the sake of competitiveness and financial efficiency doesn't matter. Reduction of dependence is a worthwhile goal in and of itself.
I don't take much issue with the "tax on everything" characterization. So what? If you can get an offsetting reduced tax on income and the average Canadian is not clobbered with thousands of dollars in new taxes, it really doesn't matter if it is on everything. What matters is how many dollars you pay and how many dollars you get back via reduced income taxes or, in the case of low income Canadians, refundable tax credits.
The per capita average carbon footprint for Canadians is between 15-18 tonnes per year. If we are to pay $10/tonne, the average Canadian's net share would be about $200-$250 after some administrative and overhead costs are added.
Almost everyone can reduce their carbon footprint and, by doing so, reduce both their taxes and their outlay on fossil fuels. In a relatively fair system, those who use more than average fossil fuel will pay more tax. Those who use less than average, will pay less. Everyone will pay, though. Nobody denies that.
AGW aside, the planet's in trouble and our taxation system is designed to stifle income. We allow industry to use the shared atmosphere as a dump without any charge to them at all. Oil industry insiders refer to the practice of burning off waste gas at refineries as "sky dumping." Saves money. So what if it pollutes and kills.
Economist after economist is lining up behind a carbon tax. If you believed King Steve on income trusts, believe he won't do exactly as Dion and most economists are suggesting... years from now. It's already too little, too late.
JB
Larry -
ReplyDeleteI agree that it's not costing enough, but a) nobody will ever get elected with a carbon reduction plan that does cost enough, and b) peak oil is going to be doing half the job for us anyway.
Raph -
We've never met, but I keep picturing you as the frog sitting happily in the pot of water that is about to come to a boil.
Just out of curiosity, do you put any stock in the notion of peak oil? Or is that just another one of those "unproven theories" that you won't worry about until oil hits $300 a barrel?
If nothing else convinces you, consider this: if we're wrong, you'll be out some money. If we're right, your children will be out a habitable planet.
"Whatever added costs of a carbon tax are incurred by oil companies will be reflected in the retail price."
Now I know you're smarter than that. Whatever added costs of a carbon tax are incurred by oil companies here in Canada will have exactly ZERO effect on the price of gas at the pump because a) most of it is exported, and b) the price of oil is set as an international commodity and is only affected by things like hurricanes, pipeline bombings and investor speculation.
"We should try not to penalize success and the less we tax income and profits, the more we encourage entrepreneurship and productivity."
ReplyDeleteJB, how can we have social justice when the neoliberal policies advanced by Chretien, Martin, and Harper have led to a wider distribution of wealth? What we need is policy to encourage social justice.
"What matters is how many dollars you pay and how many dollars you get back via reduced income taxes or, in the case of low income Canadians, refundable tax credits."
For me, what matters is how much better will Canada's social programs be. Can we have access to see a specialist in time, how effective we are in getting people out of poverty, and how much Canada is contributing to helping the Third World. If that means the government collects more taxes, so be it.
"AGW aside, the planet's in trouble and our taxation system is designed to stifle income."
Our tax system does not stifle income, it does not reward working families at the expense of single individuals. I like the Greens talk of income splitting. Encourage a better quality of life by allowing parents to take time off for their kids, thereby reducing their carbon footprint.
"Economist after economist is lining up behind a carbon tax."
JB, I don't want to hear any arguments from more economists. In fact, I am willing to make the sacrifices Larry has proposed. But when Lizzie May starts to defend the green shift as a free market approach to sustainable growth in the future, I am not that much convinced. The paradox is "sustainable growth". How can this be achieved when the free market forces have been shown to fail big time in recent years.
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteAs a child, I lived through the early 1980s in Saskatchewan, and I remember the NEP. It was devastating to the region's economy, especially Alberta. I can still remember watching CBC-TV in 1983, and seeing the newstory about the rows of houses for sale in Calgary, with no buyers in sight.
My concerns about the "green shift" are legitimate, because my read of the document is that it reads an awful lot like the NEP. Liberals in Saskatchewan have every reason to be worried about the political fallout from the "green shift", even as a proposal. It may now be impossible to elect another Liberal MP in Saskatchewan, and the prospect of rebuilding the Saskatchewan Liberal Party may become a lot tougher.
I haven't talked to one person in Saskatchewan yet who is in favour of the "green shift", not one. That doesn't mean no one here supports the proposal, but just that I haven't encountered that support yet.
John -
ReplyDeleteAgain, you're talking about generalities and impressions. From what I understand, the NEP resulted in western Canada getting lower than world market prices for its oil because they tried to isolate it within the Canadian market, discouraged foreign ownership, and charged the PGRT on all the oil they produced at the wellhead.
Please explain to me EXACTLY what that has to do with a consumer tax that is only charged to the end user of whatever small percentage of oil is processed into diesel fuel and sold domestically. All in a world market that is willing to pay anything for what might be the last drops of oil on the planet.
I'm not being flip here - I only know what I've read about the NEP, so maybe I'm missing something here. If there is anything in this plan that is the same as provisions in the NEP I'd really like to know.
But please - specifics. Not "it sounds like" or vague impressions. Give me the page number.
Sigh... Jennifer... I appreciate your comments on the Carbon Tax at the Saskatchewan Liberty Trail... It seems to me that people there are being willfully obtuse, offering fear and conjecture in place of rational argument.
ReplyDeleteReminds me Stephen Colbert's Truthiness sermon... It's something you find in your gut, and can never be found by reading a book, or knowing the facts
And Larry, you're exactly right. It isn't enough. But given the hue and cry over Dion's modest proposals, I don't see how he could have gone further right now. I like that the NDP has a solid climate change policy, but their cap-and-trade approach doesn't work as well as a carbon tax.
John... nobody in Saskatchewan is in favor of a carbon tax because so far, they don't seem to understand the concept. If they have to pay for carbon pollution, oil companies won't stop going after oil; they'll just have to sequester their emissions as they do in Norway.
If you think that Saskatchewan is going to become an economic powerhouse without embracing low-carbon principles, you really don't understand what is happening in the rest of the world.
smartlikestreetcar -
ReplyDeleteThanks. I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only small business owner left in this country who actually does their own taxes and therefore understands the difference between refundable and non-refundable tax credits. Or how much of a difference a partially refundable R&D credit and an accelerated CCA depreciation on green tech would mean to startup companies.
But hey, why sweat the details when "a massive tax on everything that will screw everyone" rolls of the tongue so much easier?
It's all starting to remind me of the lies and fear mongering that were heaped upon Hillary Clinton's health care reform plans back in the day. "It'll bankrupt the country!" "You won't be able to choose your own doctor!!" "COMMUNISM!!"
I just hope that 15 years from now we won't be kicking ourselves for dropping the ball this time around.
JimBobby
ReplyDeleteWhy not attack pollution directly instead of going thorough CO2?
Since more people die from cold spells than from warm spells, if you are indeed concerned about peoples' lives, then we should try to warm up this planet. That is why many of the most vulnerable, the aged, move to warmer climates like Florida or Vancouver.
The best way to not penalize those who work hard by taxing their income is to reduce their taxes. Reduce the size of our bloated government. That would save us all tonnes o' cash. All taxes will reduce our competitiveness. Reduce taxes, so we can afford the better alternatives when they become available. The added benefit is that inflation will not be a problem unlike under this tax shift.
The middle and higher income Canadians are not going to be revenue neutral under the Liberal plan.
The per capita average carbon footprint for Canadians is between 15-18 tonnes per year? So that would be between 75 and 90 per year for a family of 5. I pay the bulk of the taxes in my house, so my taxes will go up by 750 to 900 in the first year. By year 4, that will be between 3000 and 3600 at $40 per tonne. I already walk to work and my family has been living at a minimal energy usage as much as possible for many years now. We paid extra for our front loading washing machine, so we would not consume as much water. We had already met the "one tonne challenge" before that program was launched years ago. Any amount that my taxes go up will be more than the 1% tax reduction on my middle class income even in the first year. My CTC amounts may change, but it seems the bulk of my portion of the green tax will go to Liberal social programs.
Rereading your paragraph:
"The per capita average carbon footprint for Canadians is between 15-18 tonnes per year. If we are to pay $10/tonne, the average Canadian's net share would be about $200-$250 after some administrative and overhead costs are added."
That does not add up. If someone has a 15 tonne footprint then their charge is 15 x $10 per tonne = $150. Likewise, if their footprint is 18m, then it becomes 18x10 = 180. How do you bring the net share from $150-$180 to $200-$250? Are you suggesting that the adminstrative fees are $50-$70? If so, then those fees come out of the tax component. That means that in the first year we will be charged $150-$180 of which $50-$70 are administrative fees. That works out to 33% to 38% of the tax will not be included in the revenue neutral portion.
Increasing taxes making it more difficult for people to choose better alternatives does not make sense.
Just out of curiosity, do you put any stock in the notion of peak oil?
ReplyDeleteNot really. I think the Earth has enough reserves to continue for a long time to come. There's also the question of whether oil is biogenic or abiotic. Regardless, it's time to change our ways. Either we kill off billions of humans, or we change our kind of fuel. The peaceful person in me thinks the change in fuel might be a little better. Of course, I don't think Bill Hicks would agree with me.
If nothing else convinces you, consider this: if we're wrong, you'll be out some money. If we're right, your children will be out a habitable planet.
I don't really buy that. I do think it would get more uncomfortable a place to live in. Look at what they managed to do in China.
Whatever added costs of a carbon tax are incurred by oil companies here in Canada will have exactly ZERO effect on the price
When have valid reasons ever stopped retailers from exploiting the enduser?