Dion proposes Carbon Tax

[afransen]

Who cares what the polls say?

Canada's New Government, for one. Harper has commissioned twice as many as governments in recent memory.

 

[Hydrogen]

Bah... things are a bit more complicated. Without the GST, consumption would have been even higher, most likely. I think the change in values hasn't helped. We've been raised on a steady diet of 'borrow-to-consume-without-a-plan-to-repay'.

Really? You know this for a fact? You're only recourse in arguing your position is that "things are more complicated." That's not an argument, but an uninformed excuse. Don't go by the assumed truthiness of what your gut tells you makes sense.

In the end, consumer debt is higher today than when the GST was introduced. The GST is a successful generator of revenue only because people spend money on goods and services. In no way was the tax introduced to lower consumer spending. The Conservative government of the time had every interest in growing the economy; why you would believe they were interested in curbing spending and economic growth is left unexplained.

Where you even born when the GST was introduced?

 

[adma]

Where you even born when the GST was introduced?

Well, as of next New Year's, a person born after the GST was introduced is "legal"...

 

[afransen]

Really? You know this for a fact? You're only recourse in arguing your position is that "things are more complicated." That's not an argument, but an uninformed excuse. Don't go by the assumed truthiness of what your gut tells you makes sense.

In the end, consumer debt is higher today than when the GST was introduced. The GST is a successful generator of revenue only because people spend money on goods and services. In no way was the tax introduced to lower consumer spending. The Conservative government of the time had every interest in growing the economy; why you would believe they were interested in curbing spending and economic growth is left unexplained.

Where you even born when the GST was introduced?

Economic theory dictates that that is true. I haven't the expertise or the resources to attempt to verify that hypothesis. Ask an economist.

I never claimed the tax was introduced to decrease consumer spending. I know that is a matter of pragmatic politics. You continue to confuse the motive and the effect of the GST. Like I said, don't take my word for it! Ask an expert.

 

[afransen]

"Really? You know this for a fact?"

I've clearly stated that the quoted passage was opinion, not fact.

 

[Hydrogen]

Economic theory dictates that that is true. I haven't the expertise or the resources to attempt to verify that hypothesis. Ask an economist.

I never claimed the tax was introduced to decrease consumer spending. I know that is a matter of pragmatic politics. You continue to confuse the motive and the effect of the GST. Like I said, don't take my word for it! Ask an expert.

You are the one who is confused - but you are gradually changing your tune. Here is what you stated:

Now you're catching on. Sales taxes reduce consumption and increase savings, which in Canada (for instance) are at catastrophically low levels.

You make it sound factual, but it ain't, is it? Sales tax didn't reduce the consumption of goods or services. They were never intended to. You should be clear on understanding that point. The GST was a new tax with greater revenue generation possibility, and it was a tax that was used to replace the Manufacturers Tax. The purpose of the GST was to increase government revenues. It is no coincidence that it was introduced during a time of severe government deficits. In no way did it provide an incentive to save money. That's just you fantasizing.

Economic theory dictates that that is true. I haven't the expertise or the resources to attempt to verify that hypothesis. Ask an economist.

You cite a notion of yours that economic theory dictates something as if it were a natural law, but then go on to add that you don't have the expertise or the resources to actually explain the the theory you expound as being true. Maybe you should take an economics class or two.

 

[afransen]

"Sales tax didn't reduce the consumption of goods or services."

You haven't proven that consumption is no higher than it would have been, sans GST. Consumption is a function of many variables, not just sales tax. Take the partial derivative with respect to sales tax rates, and economic theory suggests that increases in taxes decreases consumption rates. Like I said... ask an economist. This effect is ceterus peribus--all other factors held constant. Lots of things have changed other than the introduction of the GST. I know that you're intelligent, and that none of these points are lost on you.

"They were never intended to. You should be clear on understanding that point."

I understand it quite well. It certainly wasn't the primary motive. The fact that the GST is a 'good' tax was certainly part of the MoF's internal discussion on the matter.

"In no way did it provide an incentive to save money."

Evidence please. Preferably from an economist... I think you might have a hard time finding a credible source.

"That's just you fantasizing."

I don't make this shit up! Read a book sometime.

"You cite a notion of yours that economic theory dictates something as if it were a natural law, but then go on to add that you don't have the expertise or the resources to actually explain the the theory you expound as being true. Maybe you should take an economics class or two."

I don't feel like explaining it to you when an economics text can do as much, more effectively and without wasting my time. I encourage you to look into it, rather than just slagging me. A quick primer, if it helps: wikipedia.

 

[Hydrogen]

You are the one who asserted that the GST was brought in as a means to reduce consumer spending. It is your responsibility to prove this assertion. Of course consumption is a function of many variables - which was the point you completely missed in your original facile assertion.

Evidence please. Preferably from an economist... I think you might have a hard time finding a credible source.

This was your assertion. You prove it.

I'm not slagging you. I'm pointing out to you that your assertion is incorrect. As I mentioned, in Canada the GST replaced another tax and added to revenue collection. Even you would have to admit that it would be counterproductive tax policy to reduce revenues in a time of increasing national deficits. In no way was the government looking to curb consumer activity in a manner that actually would further harm the economy or meeting its own budgetary requirements.

 

[afransen]

You are the one who asserted that the GST was brought in as a means to reduce consumer spending.

Well, if you got that impression, I guess I should have been clearer.

At any rate, I get the impression that you've agreed that VATs decrease the incentive to consume. Either way, I really doubt this is going anywhere, but in circles. Maybe we should un-hijack the thread.

 

[Hydrogen]

What you've read into it, and what I have written, are two different things.

 

[Brandon716]

I agree with the idea of a carbon tax. It is a tax that reduces tax revenues in other areas and places it on behaviors that hurt the environment. The concept is fairly simple.

If you get more income via your work, yet you have to spend a little more via fuel, that at least gives you the choice of purchasing a fuel that is more environmentally friendly. With the income tax, you simply pay the tax no questions. I could care less if the entire revenue ends up funding general services, the concept of the carbon tax is a good one.

The entire idea of a carbon tax is that with the higher price, it will create incentives for people to purchase green technology, hence creating demand for an otherwise more expensive energy service. In terms of the economy, this helps create markets for green energy, and these new industries create tons of new jobs that are better for the environment as we transition from oil and carbon technologies. Great idea, simple concept.

Both Canada and the United States will have been a follower on this issue, but its time at least part of North America embraces the future.

 

[Hydrogen]

I agree with the idea of a carbon tax. It is a tax that reduces tax revenues in other areas and places it on behaviors that hurt the environment. The concept is fairly simple.

If you get more income via your work, yet you have to spend a little more via fuel, that at least gives you the choice of purchasing a fuel that is more environmentally friendly. With the income tax, you simply pay the tax no questions. I could care less if the entire revenue ends up funding general services, the concept of the carbon tax is a good one.

The entire idea of a carbon tax is that with the higher price, it will create incentives for people to purchase green technology, hence creating demand for an otherwise more expensive energy service. In terms of the economy, this helps create markets for green energy, and these new industries create tons of new jobs that are better for the environment as we transition from oil and carbon technologies. Great idea, simple concept.

Both Canada and the United States will have been a follower on this issue, but its time at least part of North America embraces the future.

No, the carbon tax does not reduce revenues in other areas as there are presently no "carbon" taxes in place to show this is actually happening. This line is an assumption, and not a fact.

As noted earlier, if a tax is supposedly put into place in order to reduce consumption of something, it will eventually reduce the taxes being derived from the purchase of that item (less consumption, less taxes). So consequently, you can't reduce other forms of taxation in any significant manner.

Carbon taxes will increase the price of all other goods that require transportation. Any reduction in income taxes for low income earners would be negligible; but an increase in the price of goods due to an increase in the price of fuel and taxes would affect those low income earners.

An income tax reduction for middle income earners and high income earners, coupled with a tax increase on carbon, would do nothing as fuel would still be affordable and thus still consumed at the same rate.

You may not care whether the money ends up in general revenue, but you should. This tax will do nothing to actually reduce any problems or perceived problems with respect to carbon emissions or the future availability of oil. The least one could expect is an investment by government into alternate energy systems or research so as to keep the price of energy low. Like it or not, cheap energy is crucial to our present way of life. General revenue means that the tax money could be used in part to eventually to pay for something like the filling of government fleet vehicle gas tanks. In other words, it just gets used to fund anything and everything happening in government.

The entire idea of a carbon tax is that with the higher price, it will create incentives for people to purchase green technology

Like what?


If you really want to solve a problem, then solve the actual problem.

 

[Brandon716]

^At this point these discussions are just becoming he said-he said stuff. I'll leave it up to Dion's word that the Liberals have a plan to lower income taxes and other taxes and implement a carbon tax.

Again, the idea is a good one. Implement a tax on a general good that is bad for the environment, reduce taxes elsewhere (particularly on productivity in the form of income taxes), this way you pay your tax via carbon based fuels and goods, and the higher price allows the end user to control expenses... You can choose to use less oil or purchase green energy as an alternative. You can't choose to have less income tax, you can choose to take fewer weekend trips and to purchase green alternatives to accomplish the same goals.

Creating that incentive does wonders, because we're in a market economy. People don't easily choose a more expensive item. That's why a carbon tax can be a great thing.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Implement a tax on a general good that is bad for the environment

don't you mean a general bad?

 

[Brandon716]

LOL

Point taken, but I find it highly interesting that Hydrogen doesn't believe that relieving income taxes and implementing a carbon tax doesn't solve anything.

Its like saying that creating huge incentives for an entirely new industry doesn't have any effect... Virtually every economist will agree with the carbon tax idea regardless of nationality.

You may disagree with the concept (government using its power to encourage certain types of energy consumption over others), but it does solve the biggest problem with going green: the power of the pocketbook by creating incentive to purchase green energy and to spend less on oil and other carbon fuels.

If that doesn't solve anything, then someone needs to go back and retake Micro AND Macro econ 101. Creating that kind of incentive in a market economy does more than any government mandate will ever do alone. You can ask a company to do anything, but if there are no buyers in the market the business will always fail. Market incentives are what make everyone go out and buy what they buy. When green energy products are $1, 2, 3 more expensive than the lower carbon based good or fuel, it makes it very hard to accomplish anything, and the green market never gets the demand it needs to grow.

What I do agree with is that when there is political stalemate and parties can't agree to get SOMETHING done, then a great compromise in place of a carbon tax is to at least implement some cap and trade system where industries get incentive to pollute less. Doesn't do much for helping the end user purchase green energy, but it at least is a good concept as well.

BTW, if Liberal leader Stephane Dion gets slaughtered at the voting booth because he supported an environmentally friendly platform, so be it. But considering the Conservatives have such relatively poor poll numbers (for an incumbent party 2 years after they assumed power), I don't see why anyone is complaining. If he so happens to lose, at least Dion stood up for something. He always ran on a very green platform and wanted to environmentalize the Liberal party, and he's doing what he said he would do. You have to at least respect him for that even if you don't support him.