Personally, I'd like to see a Hong Kong type system....one tax rate for VAT, corporate, personal, etc. 10% on everything. Exempt low income and some household products, food, etc.
I think that is rather simplistic. Corporate rates should be lower than personal rates, for instance, since it is much harder to attract and retain capital investment than labour.
Personally, I think cap and trade is more effective, because there would be major issues in administering a carbon tax.
That's interesting, because cap and trade would require a large bureaucracy to prevent fraud. How else will we monitor how much a firm is emitting? They would have strong incentive to falsify data to allow the sale of their credits or reduce their need to purchase additional credits. A carbon tax would be far more difficult to cheat.
For example, how do you work out how much to tax the refinery and how much to tax the driver burning the fuel.
It's quite simple. When the refinery sells fuel, they are charged tax equivalent to the resultant CO2 emissions assuming the fuel is burned. The Liberal plan calls for it to be applied at the wholesale level.
Plus, I think cap and trade would create a carbon futures market, that would benefit TO's financial district. And cap and trade would also address non-carbon contributors to global warming.
Europe has had very mixed results with their carbon market. The problem is that prices are too volatile for firms to budget to with any degree of certainty. Initially the prices rose quite substantially, triggering the sale of additional credits to the point that the price is now quite low. It also leaves it susceptible to political interference. Even the intense call for a gasoline tax holiday was shrugged off this summer in both Canada and the US.
There is also no reason why a carbon tax would be any better or worse than cap-and-trade at addressing non-fossil fuel factors to climate change. I'm assuming you're primarily referring to agricutural/forestry practices, right?
I am waiting to see how the Liberals tweak the policy. What I do not like is the idea that they are going to solve Canada's Kyoto gap on the back of the oil sands. To me that's a recipe for national discord in the vein of the NEP. And this time it might be worse with half a dozen provinces sucking in oil revenue.
At present, the developments in the oilsands are lucrative enough that they will hardly be slowed (as it is, the main constraint is the province's infrastructure and ability to support the development, not any shortage of economically recoverable supply). It will, however, incent technologies that can extract the resource while burning less fossil fuel. There have been some very innovative techniques studied, and this trend will explode once there is the potential to save tens, if not hundreds of millions using emission reducing technologies.
If anything, the carbon tax would hit energy-intensive manufacturing industries such as steel, cement, forestry, etc. more than the oilsands. However, if the concern is great enough, I'd be satisfied in some compensating transfer to the respective provincial governments.
I agree that Harper is delaying. And I don't like that. However, the public never held the Liberals feet to the fire on Kyoto, and things aren't really all that different now. Canadians talk about climate change, but we'll see how much the environment matters when the next recession hits. That being said, if the public was actually firm on this issue, then whoever the next government is, might actually do something.
I'm not convinced that the carbon tax would be all that burdensome on average. Some sectors will be winners and others losers, but on average, I'd expect Canadians to be about even or perhaps slightly wealthier. Lower corporate tax rates will attract investment in industries that are not as carbon intensive. These firms will get the added bonus of increased after-tax incomes for many employees, likely lessening wage demands. They will use less energy, and more capital/labour. Sounds good to me!
I always vote after reading all the platforms and considering what is best for T.O. and Canada both in terms of platforms and governance. So far, I am not liking what I see from the Green Shift. And I still feel like the Liberals haven't checked their arrogance. They act as though they deserve to govern, not that they should earn my vote through sound policies.
I get that feeling, as well. However, I find Harper's arrogance palpable, as well as his contempt for many Canadian institutions. I supported Martin in the last campaign (largely because I was staunchly opposed to the GST cut), but when Harper won I was willing to give him a chance to earn my support. When one of his first acts as Prime Minister was to bribe a opposition MP to cross the floor with a cabinet post just hours after he was elected after railing so self-righteously against Martin's 'bribing' of Belinda Stronach. At least she could make the reasonable argument that she had been abandoned ideologically by her party by a move toward more socially conservative policies. David Emerson was only elected because he was a Liberal, and it was galling for his constituents to see him swear himself into Harper's cabinet. Their knives have been sharped for 30 months now, and he is wisely not seeked re-election.
To me, this act represented Harper's cynicism which was so dispiriting after he promised openness and accountability. I find it hard to much evidence of either in how he has governed.
Stephane Dion, for all his difficulties with the English language, I think has the potential to be a good Prime Minister. He seems more likely to deliver on what Harper promised in 2006.
