I work with my Dad on the farm. I can tell you right now that if taxes on fuel are increased with Dion's green shift, it will put more pressure on an already frustrating situation.
Farmers don't have the luxury of passing on costs to the consumer like other industries. If a carbon tax is put in place, not only gas and diesel prices will rise. Truckers will charge more to transport our grain. Fertilizer will increase in cost because of rising natural gas costs. Heating bills for our shop will increase. And the list goes on. If gas prices increase like some have suggusted on this board, it would easily amout to tens of thousands of dollars to our farm.
Dion can say that he will give farmers and truckers a rebate to cover the cost increases, but I assure you it won't. Many farmers are already on the verge of quitting, and this will only increase the number of farm sales.
I'm not saying I'm against the environmental movement, but it can't be forced upon us in one step. This is something that should take years to bring in, starting with gradually phasing out what we deem to be causing the problem and gradually phasing in newer more efficient technologies. A new tax will do absolutely nothing, but create another big government program that does nothing but take more taxes out of the average Canadian's pocket.
Not to mention, western farmers are FORCED to sell their wheat and barley to the wheat board yet eastern farmers can sell it to whom they please.
I assume that Devil's Advocate was talking about real GDP growth so no, higher prices wont cause higher GDP.
More to the point, carbon taxes will not cause a recession. They will lower economic growth by about 1 - 4% from a baseline scenario with no carbon tax. Once you factor in the environmental benefits (provided the world adopts a carbon price which is likely) then it's safe to say you come out ahead with a carbon tax.
Did a Conservative tell you this? Because it isn't true.
Did a liberal tell you this? Because it isn't true.
Yeah, like 3 days after they were elected David Dodge the Deputy Minister of Finance told them that the Country had never been in worse financial standing (thanks to Conservative mismanagement) and that most of their platform would have to be shelved in order to restore financial sanity to the country.
You can hardly blame the Liberal party for failing to cut the GST under those circumstances.
Probably didn't have anything to do with a world wide recession.
Thankfully I'm not talking about programs at all. I'm talking about tax cuts. Even the Liberals can manage a tax cut it's one of the simplest policy instruments available to government.
It's not so much managing the tax cut as managing the difference between the carbon tax revenue and tax cut plus other program expenses. Based on their history, they're likely to miscalculate either the amount of tax that they'll bring in, or the overhead that "is needed" (read: is set up) to manage it, resulting in a larger tax grab with the amount going to general revenue. Look at the EI "fund" for an easy example.
Did a liberal tell you this? Because it isn't true.
Agreed 1-4% GDP reduction from a baseline of only 1% growth equals crippling recession. The difference between boom and bust from 2006 to 2008 is 3% growth compared to 1% growth. Imagine what would happen if 4% was hived off. Even 1% would hurt.
Well thanks for your rant. But this is more of the same cynical, ideological bilge that I was talking about earlier.
To address some of your points though:
It is very likely that they had no clue of the country's finances.
The revenue forecasts of the carbon tax are relatively easy to calculate and relatively accurate especially considering the brief 4 year window that they're using.
So I would disagree with you.
Ok, so if I got your argument:
The Liberals were so incompetent that they were not aware of the available documents on national finances.
These same Liberals have a plan, and are forcasting it out all of four years. Are they anticipating that the Mayans were correct in that the world will end in 2012?
Or, perhaps they are viewing it like they did with Kyoto. A four year plan is only about as long as a majority government lasts, so any issues that appear farther out become someone else's problem.
Speaking of bilge. You aren't convincing me of the legitimacy of Dion's carbon scam.
The fact that the Liberals have never done what their plans spelled out might be a pretty good reason not to believe they will suddenly change in this case.
For all your beefs about the "fiberals", you certainly have a propensity to post plenty of exaggerations or straight-up untruths yourself.
According to wikipedia (consider the source), Chretien's Liberals kept 78% of the campaign promises they outlined in the 1993 Red Book. I'm sure you don't agree with most/all of what they did, but to say that the Liberals "have never done what their plans spelled out" is factually incorrect.
Not eliminating the GST was, of course, a very notable member of that 22% of their platform that wasn't enacted, but it's unlikely they could have balanced the federal budget if they had followed through on that. I'm sure most people would agree it was a good thing that they didn't keep that promise. Note that even the current Conservative government realizes that they can't cut the GST completely, and even reducing it to 5% has brought the federal budget dangerously close to a deficit.
If that's the case....why in the hell would ANYONE want such a group running things?
Everybody sees the balance sheets but very few politicians and almost every citizen has any idea how to evaluate them. That's what a bureaucracy of experts is for, to evaluate, analyze and provide expert advice on policy. When you're in opposition you don't have that base of expertise so you likely would not have understood the depth of Canadian finances.
Hell the Conservatives had the benefit of that expertise and STILL didn't understand it.
To somehow hold the Liberals' feet to the fire is because they chose to scrap the GST cuts in favour of returning the country to economic prosperity is, in my opinion, a laughable, cynical, partisan and (most of all) simple minded argument.
And yet it so easily defeats your arguments that tax cuts are impossible to screw up.
You really don't think that the major opposition parties have experts that will have the ability to understand the economic forcasts and budget projections, etc? ESPECIALLY the finance critic? That is remarkably naive, imo.
However, this does bring me to a question. Given the Liberals currently are not in government, and therefore cannot possibly understand Canadian finances under your arguments, how can Dion's numbers for his Carbon scam possibly be considered realistic or viable? Your own argument renders all Liberal projections worthless.
Last edited by Resolute 14; 09-10-2008 at 12:46 PM.
To somehow hold the Liberals' feet to the fire is because they chose to scrap the GST cuts in favour of returning the country to economic prosperity is, in my opinion, a laughable, cynical, partisan and (most of all) simple minded argument.
And don't forget hypocritical. Most of the same Conservative supporters who blast the Liberals for breaking their campaign pledge to scrap the GST are now giving Harper a free ride over his broken promose not to tax income trusts.
Harper on the campaign trail:
From the CPC campaign platform, Stand Up for Canada:
Where's the outrage, CPC supporters, where's the outrage? You've been blasting the Liberals for 15 years over an unkept campaign promise, but when the Harper government doesn't just fail to keep a promise but instead does precisely what they said they would never do, you give them a pass. Maybe some of the conservatives on this site have been drinking that Oiler-fan kool-aid and it's made them unable to look at their favourite party objectively.
However, this does bring me to a question. Given the Liberals currently are not in government, and therefore cannot possibly understand Canadian finances under your arguments, how can Dion's numbers for his Carbon scam possibly be considered realistic or viable? Your own argument renders all Liberal projectsions worthless.
My argument is that no political party including the Conservatives had any idea over the scale of austerity measures that were required in the years after the 1993 election.
You say that the Liberals projections are worthless. Ok maybe, but I would say that that's a pithy argument because the Liberals projections are inconsequential. Why? Well the only 'projections' that the Liberals conduct are future demand for fossil fuels. Dion provides no numbers on the carbon taxes economic effects writ-large. Maybe he should have but he doesn't. The only projections he makes is revenue projections from the tax based on projected demand for fossil fuels. So yes, his projections on fossil fuel consumption may be off by a bit but consumption has followed a fairly predictable historical trend.
The people saying that there will be small effects on GDP are independent modellers and researchers.
Futher to my last post, despite not supporting the Conservatives overall, I actually agree with Harper/Flaherty's decision to break their campaign promise and tax income trusts. It was a necessary move for the good of the federal government's finances, as more and more corporations (including major companies like BCE and Telus) were planning trust conversions in an attempt to dodge the taxman.
I should also point out that the income trust taxation decision had a direct financial impact on me personally, and I lost several thousand dollars specifically because of it. In spite of this, I still think it was the right thing to do.
Questions for those that think this Green Shaft is "good policy"....
Is it an economic policy, an environmental policy, or both? If it is an economic policy, why is it being sold as an environmental policy? If it is an environmental policy, why are no environmental targets listed in the policy? Why doesn't the policy list a single GHG reduction target? And if they are hoping the policy will create GHG reductions (which they certainly claim it will), where will the difference in revenue come from? In year 4 of the plan it is projected to raise something like $16B... and the Libs will spend that $16B completely. What if there are reductions? How will the Libs make up the delta between the $16B they expect to generate, and the number they actually make after we all stop drivig cars, heating our houses, cooking our food, etc? Will they raise income taxes back up? Maybe raise the GST as Dion has suggested? Perhaps reduce the other social funding for low income earners?
This is flat out bad policy that makes no sense, and is unsustainable. Watch that as soon as the Libs lose this election, this policy will be dumped almost as fast as Dion will be.
So I was just going over some of the latest (Harris-Decima, admittedly from late August before the election was called) province-by-province polling numbers, and here are the things that I'll be watching for as this election gets closer:
1. BC: BC is the only province where the Tories lost seats last election. On the one hand, this is a potential area where the Tories can make inroads and regain a few seats. It's one of the few provinces where three parties are in play, and so the vote-splitting will be a factor. Last election, the Tories were at 37, Libs and Dems at 28 and Greens at 5.
The Harris numbers have Tories at 31, Libs at 23, and Greens at 15. Strange that the Greens don't seem to be eroding the NDP numbers, but are drawing from the two major parties there. First, it's hard to say whether people who claim to vote green right now will actually vote green, or will go back to a major party when the chips are down. Secondly, where does this Green vote occur? Is it Vancouver Island? If so, it could result in a few seats changing hands, possibly with the NDP benefiting, since they lost a couple close seconds on the Island.
2. Prairies: How close can the Tories get to a sweep? I'm going to discount the last Saskatchewan/Manitoba poll (which was from April and had the NDP at a surreal 46%), but beyond that, there's little fluctuation from last election results. Outside of Winnipeg, and Goodale's riding if he runs again, it could go all Tory.
3. Ontario: Here's where it gets interesting. Multiple late august polls see the Tories at 30%, down from 35% last election, with the liberals and greens benefiting the most. This election will be a failure for Harper if he can't make inroads in Ontario. He needs to get that support level up to around 38% in Ontario, and he hasn't polled over 35% since February.
4. Quebec: Here's where it gets really interesting. Keep in mind that Quebec was largely pissed off at the liberals because of the sponsorship scandal. The question for this election is: was the upsurge in Tory support simply a protest vote? Is there an ideological link there for Harper in Quebec, or will they embrace a francophone leader who comes across as a dweeb in the rest of Canada? Support for the Bloc is polling at around 31%, way down from 42% last election. One poll shows these votes going Conservative, another shows them going Liberal, another splits them. Both parties have the potential to pick up seats here. The Conservatives finished second in a lot of the Bloc ridings, so if disgruntled block voters divide evenly, there's some significant possible pickups in rural Quebec.
5. Maritimes: They're hard to read from polling numbers, as the national polls that I've seen don't have province-by-province breakdowns for the maritimes. Which is unfortunate, because voting patterns are so different from one province to the next. One poll shows the Liberals at 54% in the region, which is higher than they got in any single maritime province last time around. There's certainly no signs of the Tories making meaningful inroads, but there were a few seats that they barely lost last time around, so pickups here aren't out of the question.
I don't know, despite the national polls, when you go through region by region, it's hard to figure out where the Tories are going to pick up seats. They need to go after Ontario hard, try not to lose seats in BC and the Maritimes, and then go after the Bloc in Quebec.
From the Liberal perspective, I don't think they have any chance of getting a government, but there's signs that they're being forgiven in Quebec and that they could hold onto most of their current seats in BC, Ontario and the Maritimes.
For the NDP, the most interesting thing is that outside of the prairies, they don't seem to be losing a lot of support to the Greens. Looking at the BC numbers, it seems like green party support is coming primarily at the expense of Liberals and Conservatives.
I'm looking forward to better polling data over the next couple weeks to see what happens to these trends. Still far too early to make predictions, but a few early ones (like Segma predicting the Tories with 186 seats) seem way out to lunch.
May pushing so hard to get into this debate might lead her party to ruin on a national level.
She has issues with saying some incredibly stupid things when a microphone is thrust into her face, and a experienced Candidate like Harper and Layton will push her harder then she's ever been pushed before.
Frankly as a fringe party leader she's had an easy time of it with no expectations and no pressure. In a national debate, its a differrent story. Layton and Harper will gun for her, Dion will probably stupidly try to help her out or defend her, and Duceppe will probably proposition her.
Bad move by her, she should have used her exclusion to play the poor me underdog card.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I am torn on whether May should be in the debate. On one hand I fully supported the National Party (circa 1993) when they wanted into the debate. I still have a thought that parties who run candidates in every riding (or 95% or something) should be included in the debate.
I guess the fact that she has no seats (I don't count her 11th hour scandalized crossover!) is critical though when you consider the BQ.
I do think that if she is in the debate its not a big deal. I steadfastly cling to my belief that the Greens are an extremist party. They get votes because no one expects them to actually win, and its safe way to cast a protest vote. I know that they finished ahead of major parties in some ridings, and they will again...but so did the Rhino party. (For the record I would be supportive of the Rhino's at the debate should they ever come into existence again!)
