Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius
Well instead of saying most effective I should have said cheapest method to reduce emissions. What I think gets lost is that that kind of statement is taken as because of the tax people drive less and reduce emissions. While that is part that is also a very small almost inconsequential part.
Much larger is how the pricing effects the commodity as a whole. By increasing the price is makes alternatives more profitable and lucrative. It incentivizes more research and development into alternatives. Solar and wind power is no where near ready to take over the grid, but unless we make it more cost effective to increase our development there it just won't happen.
Alberta is also in a unique position that it needs revenue badly. Cuts need to be made but there is a much larger revenue problem by decades of supplementing with oil money. I don't see that a revenue neutral carbon tax acts any differently unless all other factors remain the same, which they won't.
Many Albertans don't want any new taxes, but that just isn't an option anymore, oil can't bail us out. People keep pointing at BC for a revenue neutral carbon tax, but if we were to take BC's tax scheme we would have a much more progressive income tax regime (way more wealth redistribution than there is now) plus a 7% PST. I am all for it. The problem is people want revenue neutral and no other increased costs... unfortunately that just isn't possible.
The NDP dressed up a PST in a carbon tax dress and sent it to prom, I'm not denying that. But instead of administering two programs, we now only administer one, reducing beaurocracy and overall costs. Isn't that a good thing?
|
I was on that page myself, but I have to admit I'm coming around to the dark side. I took a spin through the revenues and populations of our neighbours and frankly Alberta seems to have higher revenues on a per capita basis than either BC or Saskatchewan. Granted, that is my "back of the envelope" calculation and its not perfect, but it does beg a particularly important question. If we have more revenue for the government per capita and ostensibly are providing the same services the is the problem revenue or spending?