Quote:
Originally Posted by McG
is this expense really necessary? think about it for a second.
there is a carbon tax applied that removes money from the economy and allocates it to the least efficient spender, the government.
instead of using those funds to help reduce debt, invest in green tech, help families, etc., the NDP government has chosen instead to purchase light bulbs, shower heads, and doo-dads to reduce energy consumption.
So if you drive a vehicle, you pay more and theoretically drive less (but doubtful that you do), but the NDP want you to use less electricity and water.
Wouldn't a more efficient way be to get rid of a tax and reduce the burden on every person that drives in this province, so that they can then spend the money as they see fit, including on efficiency measures like thermostats, shower heads, led light bulbs for their house?
To reduce fuel consumption, why don't they just mail everyone a free tire pressure gauge?
|
I'm quite sick of this argument that the government is somehow the least efficient spender of money. Though this is the wrong thread to do it in because this light bulb thing is the definition of waste.
The amount of waste in simple interest payments, and purchasing of items with low utility put regular people as terribly inefficient spenders. Now this creates a value judgement on people but purchasing starbucks is not a good allocation of capital. It costs more than the equivalent drink of equivalent quality and is purely a branding exercise. The government would be better off introducing a starbucks tax and forcing mandatory savings for people if we want to efficiently allocate available capital.
The government can be an efficient provider of goods and services in markets that do not require risk and innovation.