[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Not as significant as you make out since the plan is to return much of that money to the economy.  Its not like one percent of the economy will be removed.

Ah yes - good old tax-and-spend our way to prosperity.  I'm sure this time it'll actually work!

Not sure what that ideological argument has to do with this.  Your comment was that the money was leaving the economy.  It isn't.  But what this tax is designed to do is modify behavior.  The experience in BC is that is largely what a carbon tax does do.

But BC's carbon tax was revenue-neutral.

Sure, but your argument is that the extra taxed money will leave the economy.  It won't if the NDP follow their plan.  Your main objection appears to be ideological - ie that people can make spending decisions better than governments.  That is a different issue from the money leaving the economy. But more to the point individual's are not making the best decisions in relation to fossil fuel consumption and regulation is required.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

No commentary on Alberta's new carbon tax?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-climate-change-newser-1.3330153

Here's one of the biggest political fibs I've seen for awhile.  The NDP are saying this $3-$6 billion dollar tax will be "revenue neutral", because the proceeds will be re-invested in Alberta.  Uh, no.  That's not what "revenue neutral" means.  Revenue neutral means that while you increase taxes in one area, you reduce them in another so that the government takes in the same amount of tax.

I'd be cool with a truly revenue neutral carbon tax.  But no what we have is yet another tax increase, coming on the heels of a provincial income tax increase, provincial business tax increase, the increased uncertainty of an ongoing "royalty review", and of course the promise of higher federal income taxes...

taxes are never neutral, they're only designed to go up up and up.

[Barrister]

No commentary on Alberta's new carbon tax?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-climate-change-newser-1.3330153

Here's one of the biggest political fibs I've seen for awhile.  The NDP are saying this $3-$6 billion dollar tax will be "revenue neutral", because the proceeds will be re-invested in Alberta.  Uh, no.  That's not what "revenue neutral" means.  Revenue neutral means that while you increase taxes in one area, you reduce them in another so that the government takes in the same amount of tax.

I'd be cool with a truly revenue neutral carbon tax.  But no what we have is yet another tax increase, coming on the heels of a provincial income tax increase, provincial business tax increase, the increased uncertainty of an ongoing "royalty review", and of course the promise of higher federal income taxes...

taxes are never neutral, they're only designed to go up up and up.

That's not true.  Under Harper, and under our old Premier Ralph Klein, taxes went down quite nicely.

[PRC]

Doesn't the NDP's tax plan largely match or are less than what Klein set them at?  Just correcting the last decade plus of disastrous PC rule.

[Barrister]

Doesn't the NDP's tax plan largely match or are less than what Klein set them at?  Just correcting the last decade plus of disastrous PC rule.

Uh, no?

The centre piece of Klein's plan was a flat tax.  Which was promptly destroyed by the NDP.

[PRC]

Doesn't the NDP's tax plan largely match or are less than what Klein set them at?  Just correcting the last decade plus of disastrous PC rule.

Uh, no?

The centre piece of Klein's plan was a flat tax.  Which was promptly destroyed by the NDP.

Very poor choice of words on my part.  The plan is wholly different.  Flat tax is gone, but the PC's were promising to remove it in the last election too.  The stat I was incorrectly recalling was the corporate tax rate under the NDP being set at 12% while Klein set the corporate tax rate at 13.5% in 2001.  Stelmach brought it to 10% in 2006.

[viper37]

Industry seems to be on board with the carbon tax.  Suncor, Cenovus and Shell all support it.  I think the key is it puts a cap on emissions, and there is no cap on production.  Hopefully that leads to some innovation.

Yeah, about that.  While there is going to be a carbon tax, there are also going to be "subsidies to large emitters" like Suncor, Cenovus and Shell...

That helps them stay competitive which would be their biggest challenge with the price of oil where it is, on top of the carbon tax.  Their costs don't rise too much while they still have to work on limiting their emissions.

Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense.  Given the new cap on emissions the companies need to have the ability to spend money on finding ways to limit emissions.  That kind of innovation is unlikely to occur if at the same time the costs are increased by the tax.  I think the plan of increasing energy costs through a carbon tax with revenue returned to targeted areas makes sense - especially in a Province that has taken relatively cheap access to energy produced by fossil fuels for granted. 

they already receive a lot of subsidies.  they still pollute, we pay.  when finally they come around to stop it, we pay again.

[viper37]

No commentary on Alberta's new carbon tax?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-climate-change-newser-1.3330153

Here's one of the biggest political fibs I've seen for awhile.  The NDP are saying this $3-$6 billion dollar tax will be "revenue neutral", because the proceeds will be re-invested in Alberta.  Uh, no.  That's not what "revenue neutral" means.  Revenue neutral means that while you increase taxes in one area, you reduce them in another so that the government takes in the same amount of tax.

I'd be cool with a truly revenue neutral carbon tax.  But no what we have is yet another tax increase, coming on the heels of a provincial income tax increase, provincial business tax increase, the increased uncertainty of an ongoing "royalty review", and of course the promise of higher federal income taxes...

taxes are never neutral, they're only designed to go up up and up.

That's not true.  Under Harper, and under our old Premier Ralph Klein, taxes went down quite nicely.

On Klein's part, his mistake was to go for flat tax rate and return money to the tax payers by a direct subsidy.  He should have done what Norway had done, that way, even though Alberta would be in deficit, it would have a nice cushion to spend instead of going into debt, until oil prices rise again to a point where it's profitable to exploit tar sands.

[crazy canuck]

So, the (female) Canadian foreign trade minister was on Bill Maher yesterday and now I gotta say that quotas in government are stupid. Because she was dumb as shit.

It did seem like the only reason she got her job was because they needed enough ministers with a clitoris...

I watched the show.  The only thing she did was disagree with your hero a couple of times.  I guess that is what you are reacting to?

My favourite part of the show is when she explained that her Government was elected on a platform which included bringing in the Syrian refugees.  The rest of the panel wasn't quite sure what to make of that.  It was foreign (forgive the pun) to their experience that bringing in the refugees could be politically popular.  The best one of them could do was make an awkward joke about the definition of a Canadian - "An unarmed North American with health insurance". 

[Valmy]

It would be politically popular with me

[crazy canuck]

It would be politically popular with me

Yeah, a few American Languishites have made that point.  And yet you have Govenors stating they will refuse what few the Americans are actually letting in.  One more issue of divide in the US I guess.

[Valmy]

Yeah, a few American Languishites have made that point.  And yet you have Govenors stating they will refuse what few the Americans are actually letting in.  One more issue of divide in the US I guess.

It just shows how out of step I am with the current political shitshow. I was all upset and embarrassed at the low number Obama was allowing in. Now he looks like a hero. God damn America!

[Barrister]

So this is what I mean by there being a Liberal bias in the media (CBC in particular):

Justin Trudeau's delay in resettling 25,000 Syrian refugees may be a smart political move
'We want these families arriving to be welcomed, not feared,' prime minister says
By Chris Hall, CBC News Posted: Nov 25, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 25, 2015 5:00 AM ET

Justin Trudeau broke a campaign promise on Tuesday. And it might be the smartest decision his fledgling government makes in the next four years.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-syrian-refugees-canada-1.3335517

[crazy canuck]

Where is the bias?  Who is saying delaying the target amount by a couple months is a bad idea?  Even the Conservatives say it is a good idea.

[Barrister]

Where is the bias?  Who is saying delaying the target amount by a couple months is a bad idea?  Even the Conservatives say it is a good idea.

Which is why it was a dumb promise to make in the first place.  Everyone said so during the campaign.  It was patently obvious you couldn't relocate 25,000 people in two and a half months.

So why does the CBC give him praise, instead of criticizing what was an unrealistic promise in the first place?