[Newsbot]

Title: Dion challenges Harper to 'adult' carbon tax debate
Category: Political
Posted By: WDHIII
Date: 2008-06-21 19:14:45
Canadian

[saturn_656]

Income Redistribution??? I thought this was a Carbon Tax not a welfare program. I don't know about the rest of you but I really don't feel like having MY income redistributed.

Screw you Dion!

[hwacker]

"income redistribution"

Is that when you get a job, work your ass of and the boss gives you a raise ?

[saturn_656]

hwacker hwacker:

"income redistribution"

Is that when you get a job, work your ass of and the boss gives you a raise ?

More like taxing the shit of those who work and make a decent living and giving the proceeds to those who don't.

I didn't need Dion to state that income redistribution was part of this plan to figure it out. Numerous people right on this forum have pointed out that it would happen. It's just nice to hear the village idiot say it himself.

[mtbr]

Suzuki likes the plan...partisan piece of shit. Dion doesn't have to worry about going to jail anymore.

[warwickgreen]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Income Redistribution??? I thought this was a Carbon Tax not a welfare program. I don't know about the rest of you but I really don't feel like having MY income redistributed.

Screw you Dion!

That's the way the Liberals operate. Take money from those that earned it and give it to others. I'll have to pay more money for home heating fuel. You'd think with their tax windfall they might have included an incentive for me to switch to other heating sources. But no, they'd rather increase the child care allowance.

[mtbr]

The Libs are trying to cut into the NDP supporters by introducing another social plan .

[dino_bobba_renno]

Dion wants to have a head to head debate with Harper on this issue? Is he nuts?

While Harper may have the charisma of a fruit fly one thing he can do and does exceptionally well at is debating. Compared to Mr. Dion's stumbling and fumbling broken grasp of the english vernacular? Dion must have rocks in his head.

I hope Harper accepts the challenge. I'd love to see Dion's response when all the things his green plan intentionally forgot to mention start coming up such as increased fuel costs. You'll notice in the "thegreenshift.ca" document it intentionally emphasizes the fact that consumers won't be subject to this tax at the pump but conveniently forgets to mention how extraction, refining and delivery of fuel will be targeted.

There is a lot of information on how much consumers will see in the form of income tax credits as compared to how much more they will pay on home heating which makes this plan seem like a hell of deal but again it fails to mention that everything you touch will go up in price.

Nor does it inform readers how much they can expect to see consumer goods to rise in price. Why? Because it can't. Fact is that it is imposable to predict the impact of this policy on the price of consumer goods because each of those goods will be hit multiple times. It will tax the resources need to make them, the manufacturing which produces them (or the multiple phase of manufacturing necessary to produce individual parts and components which is even worse), the packaging of those goods, the delivery of those goods and even the stores that sell them will need to increase their prices due to the increased energy costs.

This is the tax that keeps on giving. If Dion wants to go on the air and debate Harper over this issue I sure hopes he has a response to the fact that we could easily see consumer goods sky rocket uncontrollably in price at a time when most Canadians are simply trying to make ends meet. All of this conveniently packaged with the fact that Dion has no idea if this policy will even be effective in combating emissions because there are no set targets in the plan or even predictions on the amount of reductions we can expect to see as a result of its implementation.

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

I hope Harper accepts the challenge.

Me too. I'd put an hour aside from my day to watch that one. Is Dione nuts though? He can't possibly hope to win.

[hurley_108]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Nor does it inform readers how much they can expect to see consumer goods to rise in price. Why? Because it can't. Fact is that it is imposable to predict the impact of this policy on the price of consumer goods because each of those goods will be hit multiple times. It will tax the resources need to make them, the manufacturing which produces them (or the multiple phase of manufacturing necessary to produce individual parts and components which is even worse), the packaging of those goods, the delivery of those goods and even the stores that sell them will need to increase their prices due to the increased energy costs.

We can make some guesses though. In 2006, Canada's total GHG emissions were 721MT. Multiply this by $40/tonne, the 4th year tax, and you get $28.84 billion. Dion's estimate is half this, and there's no reason to doubt that it will be as not every tonne will be taxed.

Now, divide that by the approximate population of 30 million and you get a per-person tax of $961.33.

Now let's see what income tax cuts he's promised. Taking the size of the cut to the bottom bracket (1.5%), and multiplying that by the size of the bracket (about 35000) gives $525 in tax cuts. So now your monthly tax increase if you're in the second bracket is roughly $36. And that doesn't factor in the other tax cuts or the increases to things like the child care Harperbucks.

Of course, now, you can pay less tax by buying less stuff. Buy a used car instead of a new one, and you'll not pay any more tax. Buy local and you'll save. Save your money and you'll save. Reduce and reuse and you'll save. Repair rather than replace and you'll save.

It's not the dumbest idea in the world, it's just a shame it's so wrapped up in all this AGW rhetoric.

[hwacker]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Of course, now, you can pay less tax by buying less stuff. Buy a used car instead of a new one, and you'll not pay any more tax. Buy local and you'll save. Save your money and you'll save. Reduce and reuse and you'll save. Repair rather than replace and you'll save.

It's not the dumbest idea in the world, it's just a shame it's so wrapped up in all this AGW rhetoric.

You want to live at the Salvation Army knock yourself out.

Yeah it is.

[ryan29]

an intelligent debate ? well maybe if dion was proposing something half intelligent it would be worthly of debate . but this plan is just so stuiped its hard to believe its being proposed by a major political party.
if dion wanted to have a quality debate he should of proposed something worth while .

and no one is buying his claim that this plan would be revenue neutral and he wouldn't have to hire a single extra government employee to carry it out.

[dino_bobba_renno]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Nor does it inform readers how much they can expect to see consumer goods to rise in price. Why? Because it can't. Fact is that it is imposable to predict the impact of this policy on the price of consumer goods because each of those goods will be hit multiple times. It will tax the resources need to make them, the manufacturing which produces them (or the multiple phase of manufacturing necessary to produce individual parts and components which is even worse), the packaging of those goods, the delivery of those goods and even the stores that sell them will need to increase their prices due to the increased energy costs.

We can make some guesses though. In 2006, Canada's total GHG emissions were 721MT. Multiply this by $40/tonne, the 4th year tax, and you get $28.84 billion. Dion's estimate is half this, and there's no reason to doubt that it will be as not every tonne will be taxed.

Now, divide that by the approximate population of 30 million and you get a per-person tax of $961.33.

I'm not trying to be overly critical here or anything because your post does make sense but I think it's a bit overly simplified and doesn't take into account .. well a lot of factors. One being the fact that out of the 30 million you've using to base your calculation doesn't account for those under the age of 18. Nor does it account for numerous business factors as those found in the trucking industry and lastly it doesn't account for any unforeseen factors which with plan like this there will be many.

Besides, even if you numbers are correct that isn't what I'm getting at. What I'm saying is there is no way to predict how much the cost of consumer goods will go up as a result of this. You can tell me how much I will pay per tonne but what I (and many Canadians) want to know is how much more will it cost to buy a 4 liter of milk if this plan is implemented? That you can not predict and nor can Dion.

If anyone on this forum truly believes that if they just become more environmentally friendly this carbon tax won't affect them very much, boy have I got some great ocean front property right in the middle of Saskatchewan for you.

[ridenrain]

Harper would wipe the floor with Dion, even on his own topic. Dions going to lapse into wrapping himself in the flag and acting altruistic but his terroble language skills will make it a voice clip feeding frenzy...

well, it would be with an un biased media but the CBC would take a 2 hour debate and chop it into the the worst of Harpers 5 minuets.

[dino_bobba_renno]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Harper would wipe the floor with Dion, even on his own topic. Dions going to lapse into wrapping himself in the flag and acting altruistic but his terroble language skills will make it a voice clip feeding frenzy...

well, it would be with an un biased media but the CBC would take a 2 hour debate and chop it into the the worst of Harpers 5 minuets.

Harper is an extraordinary debater. Even if Dion spoke perfectly clear English he wouldn't stand a chance.

We've all (well most of us anyways) have seen Dion debate. He does well at times but he gets too flustered when cornered or caught off guard.

If I had to place bets on any national debate I would go first go with Duceppe, Harper, Layton then lastly Dion. Not because of the issue or their party allegiance but simply based on their debating skills.