CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 11051
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:47 am
 


Wullu Wullu:
And lastly........ ;)

For the record, the last time I cast my ballot with an X in the spot next to the L was in the early 80's. Young, idealistic. Now older and realisitic ;)
you could if ya really really wanted to :wink:


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4229
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:36 am
 


Wullu Wullu:
Labour productivity? Let's look at the annual growth in productivity from 1997 to 2005 shall we?


Image

Hey look at that. Right there at the national average. Imagine that!


If your growth stays at the national average then you are still at the bottom overall. This is elementary math that shouldn't escape you.

I did some further research to be sure and am confident that in almost all economic indicators NS is one or two provinces removed from the bottom. Don't mistake truth for vindictiveness, I want NS to succeed!


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1550
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:41 am
 


I can understand the desire to reap public benefit for the use of water. I can also understand wanting to regulate it. There are aquafirs in the US that have been significantly impacted by water and drink distributors. Unfortunately, applying this to other uses of water could put water into play as far as NAFTA goes opening the possibility of legal retaliation from the States and even forced export. This would be devastatingly dangerous.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 New York Rangers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1625
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:26 am
 


$1:
Ms. Griswold said the industry would support royalties if everyone had to pay them and governments used the money to effectively manage water resources.


Except that's not what will happen. "Royalty" why not call a spade a spade? It's quite clearly a tax on the consumers and producers of bottled water. This idea is foolish and short-sighted. The Nova Scotian government should focus on becoming more efficient and lowering taxes to stimulate economic growth, not looking to squeeze an industry of a few bucks that will only result in a deadweight loss for society.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 New York Rangers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1625
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:30 am
 


grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Knoss Knoss:
Water bills are low due to provincial and federal subsidisation of municipal water systems. It would be a lot more expesive to dig a well, as is done in rural Canada.


This subsidisation encourages wasteful consumption habits.


So does power subsidization. An way of achieving lower emission targets would be to charge the real price of electricity, but as soon as people's chequebooks are on the line and the money is coming directly out of their pocket, they scream bloody murder. Removing subsidies for water and power would lead to more efficient uses of these two resources. An added benefit would be that government would no longer have to waste our money paying for something we could pay for ourselves.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22910
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:45 am
 


grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
If you can tax a company for bottling water then you can tax a farmer for irrigating from a dugout or a rural resident for their well. In fact, the next step will be to tax cisterns recharged from rainwater.

If you look at houses built in England several hundred years ago they have very small windows because the King made people pay a sunshine tax, let's not make the same mistake.


Sounds like fear-mongering to me. Are you also expecting taxes for drinking a cup of water from mountain streams too (say when you go hiking)?

Even the Libs couldn't build a big enough bureaucracy to find and tax everyone's cisterns... :wink:

Personally, I think companies selling water for a profit should pay royalties on the natural resources they use. Coca Cola has to pay to use water in its urban bottling factories (in the form of utility charges). Why should the fact that a company gets its water from a well in the hinterland make it able to avoid that surcharge?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21533
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:46 am
 


Frankly, the bottlers should be charged. Anyone using water should be charged, including domestic use. It's a public good; if it is given away it will be overused (which it is).


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 4615
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:47 am
 


Well here we pay for water and it is a monthly fee. I'm not sure why anyone would want a royalty on the bottled kind? All that will happen is they will just pass the money or loss of it onto the people. So I guess the government may get some new revenue while the people have to pay more. The companies that bottle the water might just move a lot of their operation to other provinces that don't do this.


$1:
That being said, the whole concept of buying a litre of water for a buck fifty that you can get out of your tap for about 0.0005 dollars is totally beyond me.


Your taps could be contaminated or have lead or maybe you don’t get a good supply so then you drink bottled water. Also a lot of vending machines have it here just for convenience. Where one of my uncles lives in Alberta they have bottled water because what comes out smells funny like it is from a bog or something. :P Actually even in the flat I live in the water tastes weird like metallic but I use a filtered thing on the end. Also bottled water is good to have for an emergency in your place or even your car. Plus you get a cool plastic bottle you can keep. 8)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21533
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:49 am
 


USCAdad USCAdad:
I can understand the desire to reap public benefit for the use of water. I can also understand wanting to regulate it. There are aquafirs in the US that have been significantly impacted by water and drink distributors. Unfortunately, applying this to other uses of water could put water into play as far as NAFTA goes opening the possibility of legal retaliation from the States and even forced export. This would be devastatingly dangerous.


NAFTA ain't worth squat. It's doesn't have strong enforcement provisions (as the softwood lumber dispute clearly demonstarted). If the US ever runs short of water we have two choices--sell it to them or have them come up and take it.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 4615
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:50 am
 


$1:
If the US ever runs short of water we have two choices--sell it to them or have them come up and take it.

So you came up and are taking it? ;)


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1550
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:54 am
 


bootlegga bootlegga:
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
If you can tax a company for bottling water then you can tax a farmer for irrigating from a dugout or a rural resident for their well. In fact, the next step will be to tax cisterns recharged from rainwater.

If you look at houses built in England several hundred years ago they have very small windows because the King made people pay a sunshine tax, let's not make the same mistake.


Sounds like fear-mongering to me. Are you also expecting taxes for drinking a cup of water from mountain streams too (say when you go hiking)?

Even the Libs couldn't build a big enough bureaucracy to find and tax everyone's cisterns... :wink:

I wouldn't bet on it. I'm out of time this morning but I can find examples of this for you if you'd like.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.