[FFR]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Is it really just a 1% tax cut? From my understanding this whole idea is "revenue neutral" which I take to mean whatever is generated will be provided back in tax cuts. More tax revenue = decreased income tax for consumers.

The only tax cuts that I have heard about are a 1% income tax cut. Revenue Neutral does not mean that additional funds raised by the government will be passed back to citizens in terms of tax cuts. The only thing that Revenue Neutral means is that whatever the government takes in, they will spend. Who said it has to be on more income tax cuts? Sure that may be the intent (but if it is, I've not heard that), but most likely, the raised funds will go to more social programs which don't affect the majority of society.

Originally Posted by ikaris

This is the whole beauty of our capitalistic society. While many of the products and services may have inelastic demand currently, eventually they will become elastic. When they do, as prices go up, demand will decrease and the producers will have to adapt.

How? By reducing emissions to reduce their tax impact. The companies that don't do it will simply see their profits disappear as compared to the companies that do clean up their act.

This is obviously not going to be an immediate result, and it will take time to get there.

See, this is one point that we strongly disagree. Please explain to me how I will be able to reduce my use of natural gas to heat my home. I already turn my furnace off completely for 5-6 months of the year and have a programmable thermostat to turn down the temperature when no one is home. Unforunately, Canada is a cold place some times, and no matter what costs the natural gas companies pass to me, I have to suck it up and pay it because I need to live.

I also need to eat food. Again, no matter how much costs are raised by producers and retailers, I have to buy food. I live in a condo building. I don't have a yard where I can plant my own food to try and spend less.

Please explain to me how exactly, natural gas and food will become elastic, because frankly, I'm not seeing it.

Originally Posted by ikaris

It's just that we've tried that, and we can see that it's not working.



This is where I would suggest that the more efficient companies using greener models will prevail and the prices that may have gone up, will eventually settle back down as the companies that refuse to change their ways go bankrupt.

Except, again, there is a problem with this statement. Companies that transport any goods, need to use diesel to transport. It's more environmentally friendly than gasoline, so what do you suggest they do to begin using a "greener" model? They can't do anything, so they will pass on costs to consumers.

And how exactly, are companies going bankrupt going to help our already struggling economy?? Companies that go bankrupt affect alot more than just the CEOs and managers. What about all the employees that are working for those companies? Where do you suggest they go? To the other companies that are cutting as many costs as they can to try to keep consumer prices down?

Originally Posted by ikaris

This whole idea of the "green shift" is to help change the way we all consume. I don't think it's perfect, but it's certainly an idea by the Liberals and Greens that challenge the status quo.

I've now seen what the NDP wants to do (blech!). What about the Conservatives? They refuse to release their platform, which (as I mentioned before) scares the crap out of me. Is it because they don't have a plan?

The Conservatives plan is here: http://www.ec.gc.ca/cleanair-airpur/...84CB7-1_En.htm

I will be completely honest and say that I havne't read through the entire thing yet, but you can't say they dont have a plan. At least their plan has targets, which is more than the Green Shift has.