[CanadianJeff]

um. common you mentioned that the covservatives are somehow not supporting better public transit.

Where are you coming from with that? Do you have a link or anything?

I tend to try and play centre line with this kind of stuff but this isn't a policy I'd really heard anyone even mention until now.

That and I kind look at Harper's first nations policy in a different light. He doesn't beleive in throwing money at the problem to solve it. He's more of an interactive work directly with the community type. Thus the apology. At least that's how he comes off to me.

It doens't make much sense that he would slash all the money programs for first nations people and then turn around and make a huge apology about things and invite them into the house. I think he's just using a different approach to the problem for better or worse. We'll have to see just what he has planned in that regard.

[dino_bobba_renno]

commonsense wrote:

I also support the Liberals Green Shift because (Shock, Awe!) it is good policy!

Good policy eh? Let’s go though this one item at a time. First and foremost the plan has absolutely no set targets for emissions reductions or even a pie in the sky guesstimate as to the reductions we can expect from its implementation. It will raise the price of everything, the milk you buy at the store, the clothing you put on your kids backs, the amount you pay for vacations, the amount it costs to heat and cool your home, the amount you pay to turn a light on (I could go on forever), but yet the mastermind of this plan has no idea by how much.

Please save you’re "oh the conservatives cut the gst and gave to the rich". They also gave to the poor and while it may have been less of a tax break for people in lower income brackets for every cent the conservative did manage to give them the Liberals want to take it all back.

The plan does not in any way encourage corporations to invest and research and development of other alternate means of energy nor does it offer any funding what so ever to do so. If anything it discourages it by adding yet another operating expense which means there will be less money available. "But they will have to look for alternate energy and efficiencies to be competitive", please, any short falls in revenue for these corporations will simply be passed down to the consumer. It's not hard to be competitive when everyone is raising prices for the same reason.

If anything this bill would do more to maintain the status qou than doing nothing at all.

Of the tax breaks that are going out a good chunk is being ear marked for corporate tax breaks. The other personal tax breaks are being disproportionately distributed to lower income brackets. So for the average middle class Canadian this pretty much quashes the revenue neutral argument.

If this is the model you want to use for emission reductions you'd be better off voting for the Greens (heaven forbid). At least their plan addresses some of these issues and they at least are honest about the fact that it will be at the expense of consumers.

This is not an environmental plan, it is a tax shift plain and simple.

[fire_i]

HaRdLy wrote:

WTF is with all the noobies all of a sudden? The liberals figured they would plant some of there greenshit supporters here to try and pull the wool over everyones eyes?

Hm. New Filibuster readers who feel concerned, maybe? Just saying...

Quote:

If Mr Dion's "TAX" helped me become more environmentally friendly, I'd be all for it.

It could help the most reluctant "citizens" become more environmentally friendly - namely, large companies. Likewise, while the tax in itself will most likely not tempt most people into living a "greener" life (except possibly those who heat with fossile fuels, in a slight way), the rest of the Libs' Green Plan attempts to palliate to that flaw.

You're right in that the tax won't change the life of your average person. In extension however, the whole plan could.

I'm personally rather intrigued. It's the best thing the Libs have proposed in a while, IMHO. Won't make me vote for them, but they raise some interesting points. My true hope is that in the future, the plan will be tweaked further, even if a "stolen" version by another party, to further restrict irritants. One thing is sure, this kind of large-scale plan cannot go without stepping on some people's toes.

[Quantum_Wizard]

commonsense wrote:

GST, VAT's, Manufacturing Taxes, etc., they are by very definition progressive, equitable taxes. If you buy more, you're taxed more. Those that have more, can buy more. Those that have less, buy less, and are therefore taxed less.

This is not so. If everyone spent 100% of their income, then everyone would have roughly the same percentage of their income go to consumption taxes. So then consumption taxes would be flat, not progressive. In practice, since rich people can save a larger percentage of their income, consumption taxes can be somewhat regressive.

[Jabrwock]

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Look, what do think is going to happen when you hit big oil with a carbon tax on their emissions when extracting, and then refining and then to top it off delivering that very fuel the Liberals have said they won't tax?

Well it will encourage them to figure out how to do all the above more efficiently, won't it?

Company A spends X amount of carbon extracting/refining/delivering fuel. Company B figures out how to do it with less emissions, say by sequestering CO2 in order to pump out new oil (for example). So B ends up getting taxed less than A. Seeing how the market usually works, B will just pocket the money and charge the consumer the same as A, because they can, but in the end, it benefits the companies that use more efficient methods. B has a competitive advantage in the marketplace, and if A wants a piece of that, they're going to need to develop more efficient methods too.

So yes, it is a tax on gas, in the same way that a fine for oil spills is a tax on oil companies, only it just applies to the ones who spill oil... Fewer spills, fewer fines. All of a sudden, it pays to not spill, and as a consumer, it pays to pick a company that doesn't spill as much, because now YOUR costs are down too...

[dino_bobba_renno]

Jabrwock wrote:

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Look, what do think is going to happen when you hit big oil with a carbon tax on their emissions when extracting, and then refining and then to top it off delivering that very fuel the Liberals have said they won't tax?

Well it will encourage them to figure out how to do all the above more efficiently, won't it?

Company A spends X amount of carbon extracting/refining/delivering fuel. Company B figures out how to do it with less emissions, say by sequestering CO2 in order to pump out new oil (for example). So B ends up getting taxed less than A. Seeing how the market usually works, B will just pocket the money and charge the consumer the same as A, because they can, but in the end, it benefits the companies that use more efficient methods. B has a competitive advantage in the marketplace, and if A wants a piece of that, they're going to need to develop more efficient methods too.

So yes, it is a tax on gas, in the same way that a fine for oil spills is a tax on oil companies, only it just applies to the ones who spill oil... Fewer spills, fewer fines. All of a sudden, it pays to not spill, and as a consumer, it pays to pick a company that doesn't spill as much, because now YOUR costs are down too...

Well that's a great arguement and all but if we start to charge these oil companies more to continue doing business as ussual why should they turn around and invest millions in carbon emissions reduction? It's all ready going to cost them more if this tax is implemented, add to that the fact that the royalty rates just went up, add to that they have just been slapped with a load of new environmental regulations, add to that the NEB is now playing big shot and calling for a ton of new quality control measures and safety measures, add to that the fact that land has gone through the roof and dealing with land owners is almost comparable to being extorted. The price of doing business here in Canada is going through the roof.

Considering most of the big players are global corporations why should they continue to invest capital here when they can easily go and spend it in another field in a different country with out all of these conditions and taxes?

Or let’s look at this from another perspective. Let’s take Ontario, their big supporter of Dion's plan so far, right? The pick up truck manufacturing plant just finished closing down there if I'm not mistaken but the one thing that we don't hear a lot about is the fact that pick ups won't stop being made it's just that GM will now scale back their production and the continuing manufacturing will be moved down to Mexico. Yes pick truck sales are in the dumps but part of the decision to close the plant also had to with the price of manufacturing vehicles here in Canada. Like I mentioned, it's not like GM isn't going to build trucks any more.

That being said, do you think the additional costs of doing business added on by this new carbon tax is going to help Ontario's ailing manufacturing sector? Yes I know GM has said that thy may start building "green" cars here but don't you think adding on more and more to the price it costs to build them might be a bit of a hazardous thing to do at this point considering GM can easily change their mind and switch to producing them down south where thee are no unions and a more favourable tax regime?

Dion has rolled his little mini budget out as a way to help save the environment and a way to fight poverty. I maybe old fashioned but to me the best way to fight poverty is by encouraging investment by business and creating jobs, not by taxing the sh#@ out of the working class and paying poggy to those sitting at home on their asses.

[commonsense]

CanadianJeff wrote:

um. common you mentioned that the covservatives are somehow not supporting better public transit.

Where are you coming from with that? Do you have a link or anything?

That's the problem Jeff, I don't have a link. Despite the Ontario governments calls for the federal government to share with 1/3 of the cost of new transit projects, they remain silent. Not promising any money (okay, they've promised to build a VIA line to Peterborough, going through Jim Flaherty's own riding), but not saying no either.

CanadianJeff wrote:

That and I kind look at Harper's first nations policy in a different light. He doesn't beleive in throwing money at the problem to solve it. He's more of an interactive work directly with the community type. Thus the apology. At least that's how he comes off to me.

Don't get me wrong, I think the apology was a good first start. It didn't help things that Poilievre made the stupid comments that he did. Knowing how tightly Harper controls his message, for something like this to slip through seems odd at best, a revealing of his true feelings on the matter at worst. Where you fall on that spectrum is up to you, but I tend to lean more towards the latter than the former.

CanadianJeff wrote:

It doens't make much sense that he would slash all the money programs for first nations people and then turn around and make a huge apology about things and invite them into the house. I think he's just using a different approach to the problem for better or worse. We'll have to see just what he has planned in that regard.

That's the thing, he very selectively slashed. The budget for the Ministry of Indian Affairs has not decreased, (I believe it's actually increased, but people can call me on that one) but selective programs which First nations (and other disadvantaged groups) used to counter the government, a fundamental right if you ask me, have been slashed. To generalize, any program that could be used to transparently analyze the government (eg. the access to information databases) or actively counter the government (eg. the court challenges program) has been cut!

Not really transparent and accountable if you ask me, and I think those where the two of the main promises of this government during the last campaign.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Good policy eh? Let’s go though this one item at a time. First and foremost the plan has absolutely no set targets for emissions reductions or even a pie in the sky guesstimate as to the reductions we can expect from its implementation. It will raise the price of everything, the milk you buy at the store, the clothing you put on your kids backs, the amount you pay for vacations, the amount it costs to heat and cool your home, the amount you pay to turn a light on (I could go on forever), but yet the mastermind of this plan has no idea by how much.

True. And that is a fault. I think that the Liberal party is going to need to come out with some, even rough, estimates if they want to be taken seriously, but let us also analyze the political climate that this plan was introduced under. Harper, without even seeing the plan, was putting out ad's claiming this plan will be a "tax on everything". I think the Liberals were scrambling to get their plan out ASAP in order to counter that, and having less money than the Conservatives, they were relying on free media, IE. a glitzy launch party. I am pretty sure that given some time, they will release those figures.

As for it raising the price of "everything", well, let us analyze it in terms of the self-correcting mechanism of the market. Faced with higher transportation costs, industry will react by changing their shipping and handling patterns. Mark my words, now is a good time to invest in CP, CN, and water based transportation firms. Why, because while they too are affected by higher fuel prices, they are substantially more efficient at transporting goods than the trucking industry.

As well, society is going to have to learn to change its habits as well. No more 5,000 mile ceasar salads (Lettuce grown and processed in California, then trucked to your local Wendy's, McDonalds, or "ready made" kits at your grocery stores). Buy local, it's supporting your neighbours AND will evidently be cheaper to transport.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Please save you’re "oh the conservatives cut the gst and gave to the rich". They also gave to the poor and while it may have been less of a tax break for people in lower income brackets for every cent the conservative did manage to give them the Liberals want to take it all back.

Show me where they say they will undo the Conservative tax breaks!

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

The plan does not in any way encourage corporations to invest and research and development of other alternate means of energy nor does it offer any funding what so ever to do so. If anything it discourages it by adding yet another operating expense which means there will be less money available. "But they will have to look for alternate energy and efficiencies to be competitive", please, any short falls in revenue for these corporations will simply be passed down to the consumer. It's not hard to be competitive when everyone is raising prices for the same reason.

Part of the tax cuts they are proposing is for corporations. As well, the "tax and spend" Liberals have a proven track record of creating grant and subsidy programs for R&D. As a matter of fact, that is one of the fundamental ideological differences between the Liberals and the Conservatives, the former actively supporting strategic investments, the latter actively cutting them. Aside from all of that, the market is a self correcting mechanism, and those that already have an advantage (and to assume that all companies are at an exactly equal footing would be naive) would therefore have a further advantage and would therefore be more successful. Those that are less efficient would have to shape up, or become bankrupt.

Ultimately, yes, companies will pass on the costs, but those that pass on greater costs, would get less business and have to face the consequences.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Of the tax breaks that are going out a good chunk is being ear marked for corporate tax breaks. The other personal tax breaks are being disproportionately distributed to lower income brackets. So for the average middle class Canadian this pretty much quashes the revenue neutral argument.

Canada has 4 tax brackets.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/individuals/faq/taxrates-e.html wrote:

15% on the first $37,885 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $37,884 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $37,885 and $75,769), +
26% on the next $47,415 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $75,769 and $123,184), +
29% of taxable income over $123,184.

If we use the Globe and Mail's definition of the middle class (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070724.wmiddleclassside0724/BNStory/International) of 75% - 150% of GDP Per capita, and use the CIA World Factbook GDP Per Capita for Canada ($38,400 (2007 est.)) that would mean the middle class is defined as a family earning $28,800 - $57,600.

Now, the Liberals are proposing 1.5% decrease for bracket 1 ($0 - $37,885) and 1% decrease from bracket 2 (37,885 - $75,769) So already we've encompassed the full "middle class". Despite this, the Upper class is also getting tax breaks of 1% up to $75,769 and 0.5% up to $123,184. If you're making more than that, then I'm sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for you getting tax breaks. Aside from that, if you're making more than that, you can also afford to hire an accountant and a tax lawyer, and you're likely to pay less of a percentage of tax than the former income brackets anyways (I recall Warren Buffet once commenting that he paid less tax as a percentage of his income than his secretary).

As for the "disproportionately distributed to lower income brackets" comment, I refer to my previous comment about the poor being a net burden on society where as those that are not being a net benefit to society. Overall, it's cheaper to have a country where people don't NEED to use welfare and social programs, and it behooves us all to make that happen.

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

This is not so. If everyone spent 100% of their income, then everyone would have roughly the same percentage of their income go to consumption taxes. So then consumption taxes would be flat, not progressive. In practice, since rich people can save a larger percentage of their income, consumption taxes can be somewhat regressive.

Aside from the fact that I fail to understand your logic,
1. Everyone does not spend 100% of their income
2. Even if they did, because people spend their money on different things they would be taxed differently. By definition, a Value Added Tax means that a product that has gone through more processing would be (transparently) taxed at a higher rate. If person A spent all their money on fruits and vegetables and person B spent all their money on canned fruits and canned vegetables, then only person B would be taxed because only person B has purchased processed goods.
3. Extending my previous point, typically only the rich can afford to buy processed goods, and typically the richer, the more processed. A Chevy Cobalt has basic, and therefore relatively un-processed components. A Cadillac, on the other hand, has a. more processed components, and b. those that are common to both vehicles are typically more refined. You don't find many Cobalts with naturally aspirated, supercharged engines.
4. You have a point with the saving, which admittedly VAT's would not address, BUT no one has discussed removing taxes on investments, or interest.

Another + in the Conservative column, the tax free savings accounts, very good idea. It is vital that all people, regardless of income, save at least a little. That's part of the whole "cheaper that people are able to stand on their own two feet" mentality.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Well that's a great arguement and all but if we start to charge these oil companies more to continue doing business as ussual why should they turn around and invest millions in carbon emissions reduction? It's all ready going to cost them more if this tax is implemented, add to that the fact that the royalty rates just went up, add to that they have just been slapped with a load of new environmental regulations, add to that the NEB is now playing big shot and calling for a ton of new quality control measures and safety measures, add to that the fact that land has gone through the roof and dealing with land owners is almost comparable to being extorted. The price of doing business here in Canada is going through the roof.

The price of oil also hit $140 a barrel today too. It'd be great if in life revenue could go up and costs could go down, but *knock knock* reality's a knocking!

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Considering most of the big players are global corporations why should they continue to invest capital here when they can easily go and spend it in another field in a different country with out all of these conditions and taxes?

Peak oil. And if you deny this, then there's not point of discussing, 'cause clearly you've got your head in the sand. There is less oil on earth, and those deposits that exists will be harder and more expensive to get at. Canada has the second largest proven oil reserves on earth, and as compared to many of the rest of the reserves, and with advances in technology, our oil is becoming comparatively easy to get at. If companies want a piece of our action, then they're going to need to follow our rules. Otherwise, they can go and get their oil at double the cost from somewhere else.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Or let’s look at this from another perspective. Let’s take Ontario, their big supporter of Dion's plan so far, right? The pick up truck manufacturing plant just finished closing down there if I'm not mistaken but the one thing that we don't hear a lot about is the fact that pick ups won't stop being made it's just that GM will now scale back their production and the continuing manufacturing will be moved down to Mexico. Yes pick truck sales are in the dumps but part of the decision to close the plant also had to with the price of manufacturing vehicles here in Canada. Like I mentioned, it's not like GM isn't going to build trucks any more.

Comparing manufacturing and resource extraction is like comparing apples to bricks. You can build something anywhere, you can only extract things where they already exist. Aside from that, GM is paying a price by building in Mexico too. Yes, labour is cheaper in Mexico, but transporting the parts, and then the finished product is going to become increasingly expensive. Just as China's competitive advantage is also waning in the new reality of higher fuel prices. Despite the decreased per-unit cost of transporting goods by water vs. by truck, its still getting more expensive to move that stuff across the Pacific, and very soon their competitive advantage will disappear.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

That being said, do you think the additional costs of doing business added on by this new carbon tax is going to help Ontario's ailing manufacturing sector? Yes I know GM has said that thy may start building "green" cars here but don't you think adding on more and more to the price it costs to build them might be a bit of a hazardous thing to do at this point considering GM can easily change their mind and switch to producing them down south where thee are no unions and a more favourable tax regime?

GM already has infrastructure here in the form of a soon to be mothballed factory (it hasn't closed yet, it'll be closing in Q3 2009), already trained people, and existing equipment. Yes, the equipment can be moved, but the former 2 cannot. If you look into the startup costs for a new factory, it'd make more economic sense to build them here despite slightly increased costs, then to build a brand new factory, train 2,000 workers, and buy (or move) equipment.

Now, having said that, I would even have to admit that there is a huge asterisk attached to that, as that competitive advantage would only be for a relatively short period of time, however in that time I'm sure that people would be able to figure out other ways to maintain that competitive advantage.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Dion has rolled his little mini budget out as a way to help save the environment and a way to fight poverty. I maybe old fashioned but to me the best way to fight poverty is by encouraging investment by business and creating jobs, not by taxing the sh#@ out of the working class and paying poggy to those sitting at home on their asses.

I'm sorry, but do you think people WANT to be poor? Do you think there is some kind of conspiracy out there of a cabal of people saying "you know, lets all just sit at home and let the cheques roll in"? Yes, there are a few who operate like that, but to think that there is a sizable group of people out there actively engaging in "sitting at home on their asses" is to believe that all things on TV are reality. By that logic, there is a 5"10 yellow, 240 pound man out there exactly 4 piece of hair (three on top and shaped like an arc, the fourth a jaggy line that goes around his head) who screams "DOH" when he's hurt, and has gone to space, recorded several hit records, and lead "the stone cutters"

Puh-lease

[dino_bobba_renno]

commonsense wrote:

As for it raising the price of "everything", well, let us analyze it in terms of the self-correcting mechanism of the market. Faced with higher transportation costs, industry will react by changing their shipping and handling patterns. Mark my words, now is a good time to invest in CP, CN, and water based transportation firms. Why, because while they too are affected by higher fuel prices, they are substantially more efficient at transporting goods than the trucking industry.

Well, according to that thinking I should actually be investing in the companies who construct tracks because under your plan we’ll have to lay them right up to the shipping and receiving door of every Safeway in the country. Don’t you think that these multinational corporations who employ hundreds of people who’s jobs it is to find efficiencies and cut costs aren’t all ready doing this? How do you get the products from the ports and rail yards out to market? By magic fairy? Or maybe the market will “self correct” and all the grocery stores will suddenly be located directly next to port or rail yard.

commonsense wrote:

As well, society is going to have to learn to change its habits as well. No more 5,000 mile ceasar salads (Lettuce grown and processed in California, then trucked to your local Wendy's, McDonalds, or "ready made" kits at your grocery stores). Buy local, it's supporting your neighbours AND will evidently be cheaper to transport.

And in the middle of Canada’s frozen winter I guess we can dig through the snow searching for our locally grown produce.

commonsense wrote:

Show me where they say they will undo the Conservative tax breaks!

Are you not paying attention? This is a tax. Not all the money it generates will come directly back to the consumer. Conservatives = lowered a tax, Liberals = want to create a new tax. Oh, but it’s “revenue neutral”, right? But wait a minute, Dion himself said that of the 15 billion collected only 11 billion will go back to consumers in the form of tax cuts. And then the consumers are left to deal with increased costs for everything they buy. Sounds to me like I will be paying more tax in one form or another.

commonsense wrote:

Now, the Liberals are proposing 1.5% decrease for bracket 1 ($0 - $37,885) and 1% decrease from bracket 2 (37,885 - $75,769) So already we've encompassed the full "middle class". Despite this, the Upper class is also getting tax breaks of 1% up to $75,769 and 0.5% up to $123,184.

But by your own admission Dion can’t tell us what it will cost the average middle class consumer. Details, details, eh? The simple fact that not all the revenue generated will be returned to the middle class consumers means that you may get a 1% tax cut but there is a good chance that your cost of living will go up more than the tax relief delivered if you maintain your current lifestyle. If it doesn’t then what’s the point of doing this?

commonsense wrote:

The price of oil also hit $140 a barrel today too. It'd be great if in life revenue could go up and costs could go down, but *knock knock* reality's a knocking!

Where do you work or are you a professional student? I work in the oilfield. I’m in the offices of all most every major oil company in Canada here in Calgary on a weekly basis. Trust me, there are plenty of other opportunities else where and these guys aren’t kidding when they say that they don’t have to do business here. Here in Alberta we are all ready seeing the effect of the soon to be higher royalty rates as we are now bleeding investment into Saskatchewan.

You think in terms of the oilsands, that’s a very narrow view. I think in terms of the patch as a whole which includes conventional drilling for light and heavy crude, SAGD recovery, coal bed methane, conventional gas, deep gas, refining and production of bi-products and on and on. That’s where the bulk of the employment is. That is what will be hurt the most by a tax like this and that’s also why we all stand to lose a great deal if it is implemented.

Now you seem like an expert on this, after all you can quote the current price of oil and all, exactly how much capital spending is invested Alberta yearly, of that how much goes to the sands? Does around 30% sound right to you? But I guess in your books it won’t hurt us if the other 70% of that investment goes down the shitter and looks else where.

That is what reality knocking really sound like.

commonsense wrote:

Canada has the second largest proven oil reserves on earth, and as compared to many of the rest of the reserves, and with advances in technology, our oil is becoming comparatively easy to get at. If companies want a piece of our action, then they're going to need to follow our rules. Otherwise, they can go and get their oil at double the cost from somewhere else.

Wrong, it costs more to develop the reserves we now have than it did 20 years ago. This ties right into your peak oil theory. The oil we are going after now in Alberta is the oil that cost too much to get at 20 years ago, the only reasons we are getting that oil now is because the price per barrel has gone up and has made economically viable to go after it.

At double the cost? Show me where it is more expensive to recover resources than in Canada taking into account the locations of the formations, capital expenditures, labour prices, material prices, regulations and transport. The only reason we are so busy now is that oil is high enough to make development here profitable and also why I was sending my guys over sea’s back in the 90’s to develop Yemen’s and Sudan’s oil and gas fields when oil was around 15 to 20 bucks per barrel and when you couldn’t buy a job in Alberta.

commonsense wrote:

Comparing manufacturing and resource extraction is like comparing apples to bricks. You can build something anywhere, you can only extract things where they already exist. Aside from that, GM is paying a price by building in Mexico too. Yes, labour is cheaper in Mexico, but transporting the parts, and then the finished product is going to become increasingly expensive. Just as China's competitive advantage is also waning in the new reality of higher fuel prices. Despite the decreased per-unit cost of transporting goods by water vs. by truck, its still getting more expensive to move that stuff across the Pacific, and very soon their competitive advantage will disappear.

I would imagine that’s why so many companies are moving their manufacturing from places like India, China, and Mexico to Canada . There was a reason we eliminated the MST in the first place, to make Canadian companies more competitive with those abroad, this tax basically re-instates it.

Oh, and GM must really be paying a high price if they are still moving jobs down there.

If you think Ontario’s manufacturing sector will be immune to this tax you’re in for a wake up call.

commonsense wrote:

I'm sorry, but do you think people WANT to be poor? Do you think there is some kind of conspiracy out there of a cabal of people saying "you know, lets all just sit at home and let the cheques roll in"? Yes, there are a few who operate like that, but to think that there is a sizable group of people out there actively engaging in "sitting at home on their asses" is to believe that all things on TV are reality. By that logic, there is a 5"10 yellow, 240 pound man out there exactly 4 piece of hair (three on top and shaped like an arc, the fourth a jaggy line that goes around his head) who screams "DOH" when he's hurt, and has gone to space, recorded several hit records, and lead "the stone cutters"

Puh-lease

And you think that taxing the ever loving sh@# out of everything and discouraging investment will some how create more jobs?

Puh-lease

[mtbr]

Excellent post DBR.

[CanadianJeff]

"That's the thing, he very selectively slashed. The budget for the Ministry of Indian Affairs has not decreased, (I believe it's actually increased, but people can call me on that one) but selective programs which First nations (and other disadvantaged groups) used to counter the government, a fundamental right if you ask me, have been slashed. To generalize, any program that could be used to transparently analyze the government (eg. the access to information databases) or actively counter the government (eg. the court challenges program) has been cut!"

Again playing the devil's advocate here. If you are going to really work with the native community to better itself then cutting programs that put the first nations people and the government at each other's throats isn't a good one.

Those programs are designed around legal conflict rather then action. Maybe this is just a move to get things out of the courts and more into the open field. But then again maybe not.

It's all going to depend on just where Harper goes from here. If he's going to introduce new programs and such that work more towards integration or if he's going to cut funding in other areas such as social help and First nations celebrations.

[Chumley]

thealmightynarf wrote:

Wait, wait wait... he's proposing to make gas prices higher?!

Is he trying to keep the Conservatives in power?

sometimes I wonder about things like that.

[Quantum_Wizard]

commonsense wrote:

Aside from the fact that I fail to understand your logic,

There's nothing complicated in it. Consumption taxes are a flat tax on the part of your income you spend. Even though richer people spend more, they aren't taxed a higher percentage.

commonsense wrote:

1. Everyone does not spend 100% of their income

That was just a simplification. Actually, it's not even required that everyone would spend 100% of their income. It's enough that everyone would spend a same percentage of their income, so that consumption taxes would be (in theory) completely flat. Real world is not this simple, but since poorer people generally can save a smaller part of their income, consumption taxes tend to be a bit regressive, not progressive.

commonsense wrote:

2. Even if they did, because people spend their money on different things they would be taxed differently. By definition, a Value Added Tax means that a product that has gone through more processing would be (transparently) taxed at a higher rate.

No it wouldn't. At each stage of processing the VAT is charged only on the 'value added'. If a more processed product is more expensive, then the absolute amount of tax is higher, but the percentage is still the same.

If the VAT really were higher for more processed goods, it would be the most idiotic tax ever, since it would discourage making highly processed goods.

One point I haven't addressed here is that VAT rate can be different for different kinds of products. E.g. if the VAT on food is lower, then that would shift some of the tax burden away from poorer people since they often have to spend a larger portion of their income of food.

commonsense wrote:

4. You have a point with the saving, which admittedly VAT's would not address, BUT no one has discussed removing taxes on investments, or interest.

Of course not, but the consumption part of taxation would still be regressive.

commonsense wrote:

Another + in the Conservative column, the tax free savings accounts, very good idea. It is vital that all people, regardless of income, save at least a little. That's part of the whole "cheaper that people are able to stand on their own two feet" mentality.

One good thing about consumption taxes is that they can in principle favor saving over spending, when compared to income taxes.

[commonsense]

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Well, according to that thinking I should actually be investing in the companies who construct tracks because under your plan we’ll have to lay them right up to the shipping and receiving door of every Safeway in the country. Don’t you think that these multinational corporations who employ hundreds of people who’s jobs it is to find efficiencies and cut costs aren’t all ready doing this? How do you get the products from the ports and rail yards out to market? By magic fairy? Or maybe the market will “self correct” and all the grocery stores will suddenly be located directly next to port or rail yard.

Obviously there will always be a place for short-haul trucking. If my 5,000 mile Caesar salad comment didn't make it clear, I meant long haul trucking would be the most affected. Aside from all of that, I cannot recall the exact details, but I do know of a town in Europe that only allows electric trucks to operate within the town centre. Large, ie. long-haul, trucks don't fit in the town centre anyways, so transfer stations already existed. A similar process could be used here, and using containerized transportation, an already existing technology, the transfers from train to short-haul truck is relatively painless and quick.

Aside from all of that, look up the VW Transparent Factory. One of the cool things for that factory is that they use existing town tram (AKA streetcar) tracks to move parts from a transfer station outside of the city limits to the factory in downtown. Why must we strive for the mundane? Why can't we think outside the box, just a little?

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/features_classic_cars/virtual_tour_of_vw_s_transparent_factory_feature/(page)/1

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

And in the middle of Canada’s frozen winter I guess we can dig through the snow searching for our locally grown produce.

One word: Greenhouse. Again, thinking outside the box, as of late there have been a number of proposals for vertical farming, buildings that contain either fully artificial greenhouse environments (think hydroponics) or semi-artificial (lots of big windows). In either case, they promise to have food grown locally (you can't get more local than within city limits) and more safely (enclosed environment doesn't need pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc.)

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Are you not paying attention? This is a tax. Not all the money it generates will come directly back to the consumer. Conservatives = lowered a tax, Liberals = want to create a new tax. Oh, but it’s “revenue neutral”, right? But wait a minute, Dion himself said that of the 15 billion collected only 11 billion will go back to consumers in the form of tax cuts. And then the consumers are left to deal with increased costs for everything they buy. Sounds to me like I will be paying more tax in one form or another.

Are YOU not paying attention? This is a shift. Not all the burden will be placed on the consumer either. Companies do have an innate ability to absorb some of the costs, and not all production goes to making consumer goods. That's why all economic indicators include columns for things like business services, or intermediary production. And as I've stated before, not all companies will a. pass on the costs equally, and b. are going to see costs rise equally. And those that perform more efficiently will be rewarded by seeing their business grow. You have a part to play as well. As a consumer, you get to vote with your dollars. If company A needs to pay less tax than company B because company B pollutes more, then company B will either have to increase prices or decrease costs elsewhere. Yes, company A may charge the same price ultimately as company B, but they get rewarded with higher profits which they can roll into R&D, acquisitions , what ever they want. It's called the market economy!

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

But by your own admission Dion can’t tell us what it will cost the average middle class consumer. Details, details, eh? The simple fact that not all the revenue generated will be returned to the middle class consumers means that you may get a 1% tax cut but there is a good chance that your cost of living will go up more than the tax relief delivered if you maintain your current lifestyle. If it doesn’t then what’s the point of doing this?

I did not say that he cannot tell us what it will cos the average middle class consumer. I said he cannot YET tell us the costs. And I also prefaced that comment with an explanation of the political climate in which the plan was unveiled. Selective hearing (or readying in this case) is not an admirable trait. The point with this being a SHIFT is that what they're proposing is not to continue the status quo. Our current lifestyle (5,000 mile Caesar salads and gas guzzling SUV's) is not sustainable or cost effective. Hence SHIFTING behaviour.

History has taught us that in order to shift behaviour on a societal scale, you have to use one of two methods, summed up delightfully by Teddy Roosevelt, either a carrot or a stick. Harper, evidently, likes to use the latter method, by cutting rights, silencing dissent, and marginalizing opposing opinion. The Liberals are proposing the former, where if you don't want to change, you don't have to, BUT there are consequences. Those consequences, using the market economy where which we live, are economic in nature. And it's not like he is the only one. Peak oil, in and of its self, is taking care of that already. Oil is already harder and more expensive to get at, necessitating passing on those increased costs to the consumer. The oil companies, therefore, are saying "if you want to continue to drive around that Hummer H1, you're going to have to pay more because it's getting more expensive for us to get the oil needed to fill your tank".

As an aside, it's pretty... words fail me in describing this, but for lack of a better word... 'bad' to look at this whole debate solely in the realm of the immediate tax implications. There are much wider, greater issues at hand than simply the taxes, and the statistically average Canadian (as described above) would, on the balance of probabilities, be better off.

It may sound as though I am weakening my argument by prefacing it with balance of probabilities, but I'm big enough to admit that there will likely be some losers in this equation. I post-face (is that a word?) my argument though with the reality that those losers will likely lose of their own choice rather than it being imposed upon them.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Where do you work or are you a professional student? I work in the oilfield. I’m in the offices of all most every major oil company in Canada here in Calgary on a weekly basis. Trust me, there are plenty of other opportunities else where and these guys aren’t kidding when they say that they don’t have to do business here. Here in Alberta we are all ready seeing the effect of the soon to be higher royalty rates as we are now bleeding investment into Saskatchewan.

Last I heard, Saskatchewan was part of Canada too. That is a moot point. And as history has also taught us (NFLD, ALTA) after the investment, government usually jack up the royalties, therefore Sask's competitive advantage will disappear once they reach a critical mass of investment and their population begins to demand increased royalties as well.

To supplement that, I refer again to Peak Oil. There is only so much of the stuff in the ground, so consider a slowing in development today as an investment in the future when oil prices will be even higher.

To quote Helen Lovejoy "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children"?

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

You think in terms of the oilsands, that’s a very narrow view. I think in terms of the patch as a whole which includes conventional drilling for light and heavy crude, SAGD recovery, coal bed methane, conventional gas, deep gas, refining and production of bi-products and on and on. That’s where the bulk of the employment is. That is what will be hurt the most by a tax like this and that’s also why we all stand to lose a great deal if it is implemented.

There will always be a demand for energy. A shift like this will make a marginal impact at best, on all those sub-industries. As well, all of those sub-industries of the energy sector as a whole require essentially the same inputs (high quantities of energy either for extraction, or processing) and produce essentially the same output (energy, in a different form than used to get the product in the first place, theoretically utilizing less energy to get the stuff than is produced).

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Now you seem like an expert on this, after all you can quote the current price of oil and all, exactly how much capital spending is invested Alberta yearly, of that how much goes to the sands? Does around 30% sound right to you? But I guess in your books it won’t hurt us if the other 70% of that investment goes down the shitter and looks else where.

I am no expert, although I am honoured by the presumption. No, I simply have an extensive knowledge in the use of GOOGLE. Typing in "alberta energy sector investment breakdown" into Google I found the following StatsCan study http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/13-605-XIE/2003001/chronology/2003provincial/energy.htm. You can even hit "I'm feeling lucky" because it's the first result.

There we see that 1. oil and gas investment across the whole country in 2002 (the latest year in the study) is just over $20 billion. I would presume that that has risen since oil prices have skyrocketed. We also see that between 1993 and 2002 the percentage of GDP generated by the oil and gas sector in Alberta has actually dropped. Why, because the government there, as in Dubai, as in Indonesia, as in Norway, has realized that oil will not last for ever, and that using some of that money to invest in more permanent industries (like R&D, Manufacturing, service industry, etc.) is a wise choice. As a result, the amount of money generated by the oil sands, as a ratio of total money generated, is dropping.

As for your latter argument, again, peak oil. As prices go up, the opportunity cost of developing projects in more expensive areas (say Canada with a new Liberal government, and the green shift plan in force) becomes more palatable. Simple supply and demand economics taught in high school, let alone for a Prime Minister who's got a Masters Degree in it.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Wrong, it costs more to develop the reserves we now have than it did 20 years ago. This ties right into your peak oil theory. The oil we are going after now in Alberta is the oil that cost too much to get at 20 years ago, the only reasons we are getting that oil now is because the price per barrel has gone up and has made economically viable to go after it.

True, the absolute cost of recovering the oil today is higher. The relative cost is not. In an era 20 years ago where you could A. drill a hole in the ground and get oil or B. dig down, move it to a processing plant, steam the oil out from the sand, filter out particulate matter, etc. etc. Yes, it was not economical to develop the oil sands. However, in an era where the choices are B. (as above) or C. develop snaking drill bit technology, boring through some of the hardest rock on earth, in the worst sea conditions on earth, all the while having to move your entire operation if a bunch of icebergs are headed your way, then hey, being on dry land, not having to pay a risk premium to your workers, etc. sounds pretty good!

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

At double the cost? Show me where it is more expensive to recover resources than in Canada taking into account the locations of the formations, capital expenditures, labour prices, material prices, regulations and transport. The only reason we are so busy now is that oil is high enough to make development here profitable and also why I was sending my guys over sea’s back in the 90’s to develop Yemen’s and Sudan’s oil and gas fields when oil was around 15 to 20 bucks per barrel and when you couldn’t buy a job in Alberta.

As I said above. Drilling in the north sea, or ANWAR as the US wants to do, or in the arctic ocean, is far riskier and more expensive. The easy to get at oil is all gone. The Persian gulf is cranking it out as fast as they can, and they're running out. We're going to be the only store left open pretty soon... except for that little corner store up the street, on the bad side of the tracks.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

I would imagine that’s why so many companies are moving their manufacturing from places like India, China, and Mexico to Canada . There was a reason we eliminated the MST in the first place, to make Canadian companies more competitive with those abroad, this tax basically re-instates it.

Look at the trends. The number of companies moving their operations is slowing, not speeding up. Higher energy costs are are making the competitive advantage of 'low wages "over there" along with the necessity of then moving the product from there to here' less so. When (and I say when, not if) oil reaches $150, $175, $200 a barrel, you'll begin to see those companies move back. An inherently weak characteristic of companies (especially ones beholden to shareholders) is their shortsighted, 'profit above all' tendencies. Any economists can tell you that as A. energy prices go up and B. the locals in those foreign countries desire to improve their station in life increases, thereby necessitating increased wages, benefits, etc., those countries competitive advantage will diminish.

Now, if we develop Star Trek transporter technology, then we're boned!

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

Oh, and GM must really be paying a high price if they are still moving jobs down there.

If you think Ontario’s manufacturing sector will be immune to this tax you’re in for a wake up call.

My previous point. In the long run, we'll all be better off.

dino_bobba_renno wrote:

And you think that taxing the ever loving sh@# out of everything and discouraging investment will some how create more jobs?

Puh-lease

What they are proposing is not "taxing the ever loving sh@# out of everything", it's shifting the burden of taxes onto those that operate less efficiently. Obviously it doesn't have quote the same ring to it as "Tax Everything", but in my books substance counts over appearance. I ain't going to bring my one night stand home with me to meet my folks, I'm going to bring the smart good looking girl that I want to have a long term relationship with.

CanadianJeff wrote:

Again playing the devil's advocate here. If you are going to really work with the native community to better itself then cutting programs that put the first nations people and the government at each other's throats isn't a good one.

I'm sorry Jeff, but I do not believe that the court system is "putting each other at peoples throat". It is the system by which our society resolves disagreements. And it is inevitable that disagreements (whether it be the interpretation of a treaty, or the definition of a clause, or the effects of a new law) will occur. To cut such a program means to silence someone from being able to express their disagreement with a law, a treaty, a clause, and then be able to make a wrong, right.

CanadianJeff wrote:

Those programs are designed around legal conflict rather then action. Maybe this is just a move to get things out of the courts and more into the open field. But then again maybe not.

It's all going to depend on just where Harper goes from here. If he's going to introduce new programs and such that work more towards integration or if he's going to cut funding in other areas such as social help and First nations celebrations.

While I disagree with your first point in the above quote, I do agree with your second. Past actions, while suggesting possible future actions, cannot be relied upon to predict them. As humans, we have the innate ability to learn from our mistakes and correct them (in theory anyway...).

However, applying to the courts to render a decision on a subject has always been a proven method of resolving conflict. If it's good enough for our criminal legal system and has a proven track record of success (albeit not necessarily timeliness), why fix what ain't broke?

In the case of the Harper administration, I can tell your precisely why. Because they knew that the raft of laws they are proposing (the immigration minister being able to stack the immigration system, the culture minister being able to censor productions for political purposes, etc.) would be unpalatable to certain groups who, because of their already marginalized state, cannot afford to launch legal action, and relied heavily on these programs. The point of this program was to give a voice to the minority, because while the majority sets the agenda, according to our constitution it cannot be at the expense of the minority.

[commonsense]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

There's nothing complicated in it. Consumption taxes are a flat tax on the part of your income you spend. Even though richer people spend more, they aren't taxed a higher percentage.

Why fixate on a percentage. I've never looked at it as being a flat tax, but hey, I may have solved the age old debate. No, they are not taxed a higher percentage, but in absolute amounts they are taxed more because they spend more! Is that not the essence of what out current tiered, percentage based tax system attempts to do?

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

That was just a simplification. Actually, it's not even required that everyone would spend 100% of their income. It's enough that everyone would spend a same percentage of their income, so that consumption taxes would be (in theory) completely flat. Real world is not this simple, but since poorer people generally can save a smaller part of their income, consumption taxes tend to be a bit regressive, not progressive.

However, poorer people tend to spend their money on basic, no processed goods which are not taxed anyways. Presuming that everyone purchases from the same continuum of goods, only limited by your income, then those that traverse further along the continuum would hence pay more.

To define my previous statement, a theoretical model where everyone purchase on the same continuum operates as follows. Everyone spends dollar 1 on an apple. Everyone spends dollar 2 on bread (slightly processed, but not taxes because it is considered a basic food). Most people spend dollar 3 on a McCain deep dish pizza (Taxed because it is processed, not a necessity to life). Lots of people spend dollar 4 on movie tickets (taxed, not necessity) but not all can afford. Some people spend dollar 5 on a Chevy Cobalt (taxed, not necessity (I know I'm going to be called on this, but 1. its a theoretical model, and 2. I'm a big fan of public transit, which would probably fall in the dollar 1.5 range)). A few spend dollar 6 goes towards a BMW (taxed MORE (more processed), not a necessity) and few can afford.

Where you lie on that continuum is dependent on your income, and how you choose to spend your money. If you're a millionaire, but decide you're only going to buy the basics of life (apples, using public transit) then you can successfully cheat the system. BUT, basic human behaviour means that if you have more, you spend more, and you tend to spend on more processed, expensive products, and using a VAT would therefore pay more tax.

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

No it wouldn't. At each stage of processing the VAT is charged only on the 'value added'. If a more processed product is more expensive, then the absolute amount of tax is higher, but the percentage is still the same.

Exactly, hence taxed more!

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

One point I haven't addressed here is that VAT rate can be different for different kinds of products. E.g. if the VAT on food is lower, then that would shift some of the tax burden away from poorer people since they often have to spend a larger portion of their income of food.

Exactly! The GST currently is not charged on items considered to be basic necessities, unprocessed food, hygiene products, and even processed foods who's price is less the either $4 or $5.

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

One good thing about consumption taxes is that they can in principle favor saving over spending, when compared to income taxes.

And that, I believe we can all agree in this time where Canada's debt to disposable income ratio has just topped 100%, is a good thing!

[OntarioJeremy]

For the last time, the carbon dioxide tax (because that's really what it is) does not cover gasoline. Propane, yes. Natural gas, yes. Coal, yes. But since the tax will go to $40 per tonne, and gasoline is taxed already at $42 per tonne, the tax will not be levied on gasoline. The unctuous, sneering men on the Conservative radio ads are wrong.