Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
Did I say or quote that statement?
Assuming the government would not have delayed their contributions due to a lack of revenue. Having a revenue stream available avoids getting into debt to pay for it, that’s a good thing isn’t it? I get a kick out of your argument that saying the carbon tax is paying for it is wrong while also stating that without a carbon tax “other taxation” would pay for it. If the city were to implement an arena tax on certain services to help pay for a new building would you not consider that money to be going towards a new building because it simply becomes revenue?
From the article I linked earlier:
Even the opposition is “spinning” it that way.
|
Post 427 you quoted that statement to support your assertion we got the green line from the Carbon tax?????
I agree (and stated in my post)that the opposition screws this up as well when they talk of canceling the Carbon tax without discussing cuts that need to be made when reducing government revenues. And note that these cuts could be from the light bulb changing program or health care or education or roads or absorbed with debt.