See, you're obviously intelligent. Why do you always play dumb on this point? The carbon dioxide to be taxed is only that which has been removed from the carbon cycle and is being reintroduced through human activity. This is why breathing is not taxable. No one is suggesting that we should try to eliminate carbon dioxide, but rather the release of fossilized carbon.
Maybe you should consider taxing extra human beings? At the start of the twentieth century there were just over a billion of us, now there are over six-and-a-half.
The carbon dioxide removed eventually ends up back in the carbon cycle anyway, always has and always will. The actual issue is whether the tiny human addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere actually makes any difference, as virtually all carbon dioxide in released naturally.
I didn't know you had inside info either. The only reason it might be 'at best' is because Harper/Flaherty have put the country into a perilous fiscal position. Don't try to pretend that the Liberals have not been a party of major tax cuts, when prudent.
The present government is revenue neutral in that they are still bringing more revenue in than expenditures. If they find that they are sliding into deficit, they will first cut programs in an effort to balance the books. If Dion is elected, he will have to either raise revenues to fund his platform promises, or make no such promises. Deficits were tolerable in the past; these days it is bad politics to go into debt. The Liberals understand this (now).
Now you're catching on. Sales taxes reduce consumption and increase savings, which in Canada (for instance) are at catastrophically low levels. You think this is a bad thing?
You are not catching on. I have my suspicions that you were not around when the entire GST debate was taking place. I was. Needless to say, reduction in consumption was hardly one of the aims of the Mulroney government. The purpose of the GST is, as with all taxes, to raise government revenues. By your logic, the purpose of the income tax is to the reduce the desire for a high paying jobs.
Even so.... what's the big deal? We'd have to raise fuel taxes by tens of billions to approach having the highest level of fuel taxation in the world, and you can bet this isn't what Dion has in mind. And giving a price signal is usually very effective. Again, ask an economist--don't go by truthiness and what your gut tells you makes sense.
Just so you know, economists don't all think in lock-step. Your post appears to suggest this is so. The point I was making - and you appeared to miss - is that there will be no huge commensurate drop in other forms of taxation if a so-called carbon tax is added onto hydrocarbon products. The purpose of this tax is to generate revenues for government in a politically palatable manner. This is being done so by taking advantage of contemporary worries over carbon dioxide.
The taxes added don't indicate the actual price signal of the product at hand as all governments set their own levels of taxation.
Like plummeting cigarette taxes?
You appear to forget about the smuggling from lower tax zones.
Consumption of hydrocarbons will not be dropping off to nothing any time soon, which is why they are being targeted for revenue generation. As they are a necessity to the functioning of the entire economy, hydrocarbons can never be taxed in a such a significant manner so as to reduce other forms of taxation. Calling an addition to the fuel tax a "carbon tax" is politics, and is a means to making the government
look like they are doing something about carbon dioxide emissions when all they are doing is cashing in on them.
