HawthorneVillager.com

I will admittedly not vote for Garth, not b/c he's a Liberal, but b/c he's Garth. That said, with the race federally now competitive between Liberals and Tories, I do need to ask that if we get a PM Dion, how would implementing a carbon tax impact a sluggish economy?

As I'm not an economist, I don't know how the new tax would work. In response to your point, I changed stimulate to impact in terms of the economy.

That said, perhaps the carbon tax would be offset by the creation of green jobs? I don't know. The word "tax" just deflates me.

I interpret the green-shift as a great way to redistribute the wealth from the provinces that are doing really well right now (ie Alberta) and shifting some of the revenue from the carbon tax, into income tax cuts. I'm not sure if the Liberals are calling it a Carbon Tax or if it's a conservative spin on it, but the fact that it's revenue neutral basically means that if you're not a big polluter, you're going to get money in your pocket. I'm guessing that the big polluters are going to hate this tax, but the people who don't waste energy will love the income tax cuts. Overall, I believe this will benefit our economy, especially on Ontario. Not so sure that the people of Alberta will be too thrilled..

If you think that “revenue neutral” means that people living modestly (ie, “low polluters”) will not have a net tax increase, you’re kidding yourself. The GS plan openly talks about subsidies for farmers and truckers, and credits for low income earners who do not pay taxes, and thus have nothing to ‘shift’. Where do you think the money we will be giving these groups will come from, if not from you?

BTW, It’s nice to hear that you’re OK with screwing your fellow Canadians in Alberta as long as it serves your interest.

Just remember, in BC they have a carbon tax, and the voters HATE it.

I'm not sure what you mean, if I go to www.thegreenshift.ca and plug in my income, province, etc it shows I'll have an annual tax savings each year.

The idea I thought is tax companies or people who create a lot of pollution/carbon and return that tax money to the general population in the form of income tax reductions and the like.

What alternatives are out there being proposed to lower our pollution? I mean you have to think of something to actually cause heavy polluting companies to pollute less...so you either put caps on them, outlaw them to pollute, or try to motivate them with a carrot/stick method...i.e. stick is higher taxes if the pollute, carrot is tax cuts if they reduce.

The conservative party's policy right now on climate change/reducing emissions seems to be mostly wishful thinking on long long term projections. That somehow magically this is all going to work out if we just wish the problem away.

Dion is on the record, as recently as last week, saying the carbon tax would begin to be implemented in 2009 regardless of economic conditions.



Not true. The greens are also offering income tax cuts. The green shift is nearly identical to the green party’s carbon tax platform.



Huh? Neither of these parties is proposing carbon taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Ok... so here's the thing I don't get with the whole "revenue neutral" idea. So we have a company that makes widgets that has to pay $1 per widget for pollution. Let's assume they don't worry about profit margin on that $1 and just raise their price by $1 to the consumer.

The consumer, in the best case scenario, "revenue neutral" now receives a tax break of $1. Excellent, all is good.

Now, because that $1 went to the customer instead, it may be a foreign country that develops the best "cleaning" technology. So the widget company buys an American device which eliminates their pollution, and no longer has to pay the $1.

They do have to pay for the device, so they don't lower the price immediately, but because they are not polluting, the government no longer receives $1 per widget.

The customer, then, now has the higher price, but the government can't afford the $1 tax break, unless it increases the taxation rate on other products (which would be crushing as fewer and fewer products carried the whole tax load of the first polluters), or raises taxes, or cuts spending.

We are left with higher priced goods and a cleaner environment, which is really what is going to be the endgame of any plan... there has always been a cost to pollution, it's just that consumers haven't paid it, rather the people who could only afford to live on the cheap land next to the polluters paid the price in terms of health and quality of life.

What would make a lot more sense to me is if every dollar that is charged to polluters is invested by our government in Canadian companies doing R&D or production in the technologies needed to reduce the pollution, and phase in the penalties for polluters over time so it's a gradual increase in prices, like inflation, rather than a fast shock.

Even better, those investments might provide very high returns if we have a breakthrough that companies around the world purchase, which could then be sold and the savings applied directly to our national debt, which would THEN help every Canadian as lower debt means lower interest which could mean lower taxes.

I might even be fine with the green shift, knowing taxes will go back up later, if they phased it in, but I think the sudden jump from nothing to full taxation will be so disruptive to the economy has me steering away from the liberals.

You WILL have an income tax savings each year. What it doesn’t tell you is how much extra you are going to pay to heat your home, drive your car, or buy goods. If you save $100 a year on income taxes, only to have a carbon tax drive the cost of everything you buy up by $110 a year, are you saving any money?

Dion says the green shift is neutral, but that’s a bit of a play on words. The plan contains $15 billion in carbon taxes. From that $15B they will spend $1 billion in farm/trucking subsidies, $9 billion in income tax cuts, $3 billion for child care, and $2 billion in various credits for the poor. The only person it’s neutral for is the government. Tax payers get a net tax hike of 6 billion dollars.

I am disapointed that gasoline doesn't get an increase in tax with his plan, keeping the price above 1.10$ is crucial if we don't want all those idiots that parked their HUmmer's to go out and buy another. If gasoline prices remain high demand for crude oil will continue to slide along with the price effectively taking all the profits big oil have been making all summer and redirecting them back to us as tax cuts or social spending

other than that I like the plan, it's a step in the right direction, spending a little bit now to ensure the next generations' well being

If it’s so important, why not just ban hummers? At least then I don’t go broke paying through the nose for gas.

I know I should just ignore all these goofball polls but really, more than half of supposedly intelligent high income HVers honestly think government redistribution of wealth is a good thing?? I can't believe these "polls" aren't being manipulated.

Judging by the comments on this site many people barely think government capable of managing garbage collection without screwing it up. Yet more than 50% think that a Dion government TAX would end up being a positive eonomic stimulus? Unreal.

Clue: government manipulation of the economy is never a good thing.

If you want to feel good about doing something "for the planet" then fine, go for it, support all the taxes and corporate penalization programs you like, that's your right. But to pretend it would help Canada become economically more competitive and put more money in everyone's pockets is just downright goofy. In my not so humble opinion.