[Newsbot]

<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=33152" target="_blank">Dion touts carbon tax on fuels, billions in tax cuts</a> (click to view)

<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/1-political" target="_blank">Political</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=Canadaka" target="_blank">Canadaka</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2008-05-08 06:43:47
<strong>Canadian</strong>

[mtbr]

all this and at the same time Mr McTeague complains about high gas prices...lol

[ridenrain]

So very similar to the carbon tax in BC, this would take existing tax on gasoline and give it back to Canadians in the form of a bribe.
It could be called a Carbon Copy Tax.

A better move would be to use that tax money on failing inferstructure or better yet, remove the tax and let Canadians have the extra money to buy those more efficient cars and electric scooters.

Another cry for help from the tax & spend party.

[DerbyX]

Tax and spend is the philosophy of the conservative party. Under Harper taxes went up along with spending.

Returning the taxes to their previous level doesn't count as a tax cut.

Under Chretein and Martin taxes and spending went down.

Nice try.

[Wally_Sconce]

Thats not true. The conservative favor less government, and less government spendig. Where as the Liberals like big taxes and big spending.

[Canadaka]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

Thats not true. The conservative favor less government, and less government spendig. Where as the Liberals like big taxes and big spending.

There is a difference between preconsieved reputation and reality. The records of the last 20 years speak to the opposite of what you stated. Many conservatives are upset with the Harper government for this.

[ridenrain]

The Liberals were all bitching for months that the huge surplus they relied upon for funding their party was going to disappear.
Most Canadians saw it as proof of over taxation however.

A politician who promised huge tax cuts while crying about smaller budget surpluses is a two faced liar.

[DerbyX]

Canadaka Canadaka:

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

Thats not true. The conservative favor less government, and less government spendig. Where as the Liberals like big taxes and big spending.

There is a difference between preconsieved reputation and reality. The records of the last 20 years speak to the opposite of what you stated. Many conservatives are upset with the Harper government for this.

The truth is like kryptonite to him.

In addition, since the military is by definition gov't (and pure socalism) then spending money there is just as much big gov't as anything else. Cops, judges, jailers, educators, , firemen, healthcare workers, and direct gov't employees are all part and parcel to a tax and spend gov't (all gov'ts tax and spend). All the cons do is set different priorities but they certainly have been shown to spend as much if not more then the other parties.

[amabaie]

What we really need is an income tax system that can fit on a post card. All income above a certain amount, from whatever source, taxed at the same amount. No exceptions. No exemptions. No rebates. No complicated forms and accountants and lawyers.

So will Dion's proposal simplify or further complicate our Monty Python tax forms?

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

The Liberals were all bitching for months that the huge surplus they relied upon for funding their party was going to disappear.
Most Canadians saw it as proof of over taxation however.

A politician who promised huge tax cuts while crying about smaller budget surpluses is a two faced liar.

Did they also view a deficit budget as proof of under taxation?

I doubt it.

The fact is it wasn't "surplus" perse anymore then a person can count the money he was going to spend towards their mortgage or student loan.

The Liberals always intended to budget with the production of an amount they could use to pay down the debt. All they did was just set a budget and simply stated that any money in excess was already earmarked for debt reduction.

The only way we can actually lower the debt is by actually taxing the people more then the costs to run things. A zero sum budget simply pays off the interest with none of the principle.

You could argue that they should state up front a specific amount to be earmarked for debt reduction with the surplus used for tax refunds (or whatever) but you can't say that they are overtaxing the people.

[ridenrain]

You can call it what you want but that's the past and it's gone.

Right now the leader of you're party if offering huge tax benefits for Canadians while they were attacking this governments budget over a smaller projected surplus.
If their giving so much money back to Canadians, where's the money going to come from for their huge surplus?

.. please say carbon trading

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

You can call it what you want but that's the past and it's gone.

Right now the leader of you're party if offering huge tax benefits for Canadians while they were attacking this governments budget over a smaller projected surplus.
If their giving so much money back to Canadians, where's the money going to come from for their huge surplus?

.. please say carbon trading

Didn't read the article?

$1:

The plan, according to sources, would shift the 10-cent federal excise tax on a litre of fuel at the pumps into a broad-based carbon tax that would also apply to other fuels, such as for home heating. Sources say that the plan would not add more taxes to gasoline.

But the key is that the money raised – estimated as much as $17-billion – would be returned to middle-class and working Canadians in personal income tax cuts, making it revenue neutral. There could be corporate tax cuts as well.

[sasquatch2]

Revenue neutral???......Fantasy economics. Government itself eats up revenue. Only a small portion of tax revenue is returned to the population as services---the rest is absorbed by the bloated bureaucracy which collects and administers it.

The easiest way to increase the citizens' disposable income is tax cuts.....no administration costs---no bureaucracy.

Estate taxes are revenue negative as the costs of assessing and collection vastly outstip revenue.

[dino_bobba_renno]

K, excuse me if I’m a bit ignorant here but I’m not seeing the point to this proposal. You take the existing gas tax which is currently going into general revenues (so I assume) and rename it the newly dubbed carbon tax. Ok, well now we have a sin tax on gasoline instead of a 10-cent federal excise tax on a litre of fuel at the pumps. So that might be fairly neutral but if the carbon tax in BC shows us anything that’s not entirely true as they have seen increases of about 3 cents.

Now that is just at the pumps. What about natural gas for home heating? How about electricity generated by coal fired plants? What about petro bi-products such as plastics? What about increased shipping costs on all consumer goods and groceries? The price of everything will shoot up will it not?

I know the argument is “well, you will receive personal income tax reduction to off set the increase at the pump" but that’s going to have to be one hell of a sizable tax reduction to off set cost such as those mentioned above.

Now the most important point, were does this money go? Oh and please don’t say that it’s revenue neutral and that we will see it all come back in the form of income tax reductions. My name is Billy Tucker not Silly Fucker. Will any of the proceeds be used to advance research and development of alternative fuel sources or carbon emissions reduction technology? Or will it be pumped into general revenues just like every other sin tax is?

If it does go into general revenues then aren’t we kind of just creating a “feel good” solution here. Sure consumers will be forced to “pay to pollute” which will supposedly deter them from emitting carbon but I can’t see there being any meaningful reductions through this method. If businesses are saddled with this tax you can bet that that too will also be shuffled down to the consumer. So in the end all we’ll be doing is creating a sin tax to discourage carbon emissions which will basically just increase the cost of everything for the consumer with little or no money going towards the real goal of finding alternative energy sources and no meaningful penalties being created for the big polluters such as big businesses. In fact, with the price of everything being higher won’t that discourage research into alternative energies since everyone will be on a much tighter budget? Sounds a little screwy to me, in fact it’s all ready giving me a head ache thinking about it.

I don’t know but I’d have to take a look at the complete proposal before I make a final judgement on it but at first look I’m not to optimistic about this idea. I hope Dion has one hell of a marketing pitch to sell this because he’s going to need it.

[mtbr]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

K, excuse me if I’m a bit ignorant here but I’m not seeing the point to this proposal. You take the existing gas tax which is currently going into general revenues (so I assume) and rename it the newly dubbed carbon tax. Ok, well now we have a sin tax on gasoline instead of a 10-cent federal excise tax on a litre of fuel at the pumps. So that might be fairly neutral but if the carbon tax in BC shows us anything that’s not entirely true as they have seen increases of about 3 cents.

Now that is just at the pumps. What about natural gas for home heating? How about electricity generated by coal fired plants? What about petro bi-products such as plastics? What about increased shipping costs on all consumer goods and groceries? The price of everything will shoot up will it not?

I know the argument is “well, you will receive personal income tax reduction to off set the increase at the pump" but that’s going to have to be one hell of a sizable tax reduction to off set cost such as those mentioned above.

Now the most important point, were does this money go? Oh and please don’t say that it’s revenue neutral and that we will see it all come back in the form of income tax reductions. My name is Billy Tucker not Silly Fucker. Will any of the proceeds be used to advance research and development of alternative fuel sources or carbon emissions reduction technology? Or will it be pumped into general revenues just like every other sin tax is?

If it does go into general revenues then aren’t we kind of just creating a “feel good” solution here. Sure consumers will be forced to “pay to pollute” which will supposedly deter them from emitting carbon but I can’t see there being any meaningful reductions through this method. If businesses are saddled with this tax you can bet that that too will also be shuffled down to the consumer. So in the end all we’ll be doing is creating a sin tax to discourage carbon emissions which will basically just increase the cost of everything for the consumer with little or no money going towards the real goal of finding alternative energy sources and no meaningful penalties being created for the big polluters such as big businesses. In fact, with the price of everything being higher won’t that discourage research into alternative energies since everyone will be on a much tighter budget? Sounds a little screwy to me, in fact it’s all ready giving me a head ache thinking about it.

I don’t know but I’d have to take a look at the complete proposal before I make a final judgement on it but at first look I’m not to optimistic about this idea. I hope Dion has one hell of a marketing pitch to sell this because he’s going to need it.

well said!

According to Harris-Decima (the Liberals fav pollsters) a majority of Canadians are for it.


The majority of Canadians don't know what they're in for...they believe a carbon tax is to be paid by industry Who is going to trust the government to return a carbon tax with personal income tax cuts?

Keep up the good work Dion! you keep diggin yourself a bigger hole.