Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Doesn't it? Sure it may not be a direct address but if carbon output is created by energy consumption and if big homes take more energy to heat then by extension they produce more carbon. Tax the big homes more and people have less incentive to buy them (and developers less incentive to build them over smaller units due to lower demand).

I mean from an economic perspective if you want to effect change then what you want to do is increase incentives on what you want and disincentives on what you don't.

So why not tax energy usage?

We looked at new home in an area of greater Montreal on the weekend in a municipality where all new construction single family dwellings are required to use geothermal energy. These were huge 4000ish sq ft homes, and constucted/equipped such that were projected to use less than $1000 per year in total energy expense requirements (all appliances, lighting, and temperature management).

I am sure this is less than half the energy requirement of the average 1000 sq ft bungalow.

Tax usage.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Ok then. Ontario energy costs have basically doubled since the province started eliminating coal as a power source. Meanwhile Alberta is rocking very low energy rates and burning coal at a higher rate than any other province. We've been impacted a ton to reduce our greenhouse gases.

You're really trying to over simplify things. Its more then just the conversion of Coal.

The Ontario Government record on energy is gross, it goes to the gas plant scandals, exporting electricity to buy it back at higher costs , the terrible way that they've handled wind power. The mismanagement by Ontario Power or whatever its called.

Basically the cost of utilities in Ontario is way out of reality because Wynne is corrupt and stupid.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You're really trying to over simplify things. Its more then just the conversion of Coal.

The Ontario Government record on energy is gross, it goes to the gas plant scandals, exporting electricity to buy it back at higher costs , the terrible way that they've handled wind power. The mismanagement by Ontario Power or whatever its called.

Basically the cost of utilities in Ontario is way out of reality because Wynne is corrupt and stupid.

Or the fact that the hydro company employees are paid a fortune. Many of the lower end employees get over $100k/year plus crazy amounts of vacation days and stress leave.

In Ontario, getting a job with a power company is like being in the mafia and getting "made".

But a lot of this predates Wynne (although I am not a fan of hers anymore, so I don't care if she takes the fall).

[Maccalus]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

So why not tax energy usage?

We looked at new home in an area of greater Montreal on the weekend in a municipality where all new construction single family dwellings are required to use geothermal energy. These were huge 4000ish sq ft homes, and constucted/equipped such that were projected to use less than $1000 per year in total energy expense requirements (all appliances, lighting, and temperature management).

I am sure this is less than half the energy requirement of the average 1000 sq ft bungalow.

Tax usage.

I agree here, but I don't think we would have to increase taxes by much if at all if we forced the mandatory fees on our electricity and gas bills to be rolled into the price. The case for alternatives such as geothermal heating and cooling, PV panels and even LED bulbs increases when you have more incentive to reduce energy usage. You need to run an LED light bulb for a very long time to make up for the cost difference at 8cents/kwh.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You're really trying to over simplify things. Its more then just the conversion of Coal.

The Ontario Government record on energy is gross, it goes to the gas plant scandals, exporting electricity to buy it back at higher costs , the terrible way that they've handled wind power. The mismanagement by Ontario Power or whatever its called.

Basically the cost of utilities in Ontario is way out of reality because Wynne is corrupt and stupid.

And the fact they keep getting voted in tells you how bad the provincial PCs and NDP are seen around here from the last time they ran the show.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

So why not tax energy usage?

Ideally you would tax both no? If you want to lower household emissions your end goal would be to see Canadian homes that are both space (less area to heat) and energy (less energy used to heat that space) efficient. So tax both excess space and excess usage and parlay the revenue from that taxation into cooresponding tax credits to encourage efficient space and efficient usage.

[Poster]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's a bold bold statement, considering who is in charge now....

id like a party with the fiscal policy of the CPC and social policy of the LPC.

since that doesnt exist, I will hold my nose and vote CPC.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Poster

id like a party with the fiscal policy of the CPC and social policy of the LPC.

since that doesnt exist, I will hold my nose and vote CPC.

Don't the Greens claim to be that kind of party?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Ideally you would tax both no? If you want to lower household emissions your end goal would be to see Canadian homes that are both space (less area to heat) and energy (less energy used to heat that space) efficient. So tax both excess space and excess usage and parlay the revenue from that taxation into cooresponding tax credits to encourage efficient space and efficient usage.

Fair enough, I guess.
But then call it what it is - instituting a luxury tax in conjunction with an energy conservation carbon footprint reduction incentive.
And where do we stop? Do we impose a tax on everyone (who does not require it for the purposes of work) when they buy a new F-150? Should an RV come with a large tax added?

If the objective is reduced energy usage and reduced emissions, the fairest way to address it, imo, is targeting the usage.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Fair enough, I guess.
But then call it what it is - instituting a luxury tax in conjunction with an energy conservation carbon footprint reduction incentive.
And where do we stop? Do we impose a tax on everyone (who does not require it for the purposes of work) when they buy a new F-150? Should an RV come with a large tax added?

If the objective is reduced energy usage and reduced emissions, the fairest way to address it, imo, is targeting the usage.

That's a good way to go, but there would have to be some way to not end up hurting those who can not afford to buy all the newest energy efficient items, like furnaces, new windows, appliances etc. Jacking up their energy bills isn't going to make them more efficient, it will just make them more miserable.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's a good way to go, but there would have to be some way to not end up hurting those who can not afford to buy all the newest energy efficient items, like furnaces, new windows, appliances etc. Jacking up their energy bills isn't going to make them more efficient, it will just make them more miserable.

That can be offset by lower taxes at the bottom brackets or a larger personal exemption (just as a couple of options).

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Fair enough, I guess.
But then call it what it is - instituting a luxury tax in conjunction with an energy conservation carbon footprint reduction incentive.
And where do we stop? Do we impose a tax on everyone (who does not require it for the purposes of work) when they buy a new F-150? Should an RV come with a large tax added?

If the objective is reduced energy usage and reduced emissions, the fairest way to address it, imo, is targeting the usage.

How do you target the increased carbon footprint of using far more materials in construction and using more materials to maintain it compared to a smaller house?

Sure it's great to have a new 4000 square foot house that uses the energy of an older 2000 square foot house, but a new 2000 square foot house would use even less while saving on materials.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You're really trying to over simplify things. Its more then just the conversion of Coal.

The Ontario Government record on energy is gross, it goes to the gas plant scandals, exporting electricity to buy it back at higher costs , the terrible way that they've handled wind power. The mismanagement by Ontario Power or whatever its called.

Basically the cost of utilities in Ontario is way out of reality because Wynne is corrupt and stupid.

Why is it the words "Liberal" and "corruption" always go hand in hand? I can accept that a level of corruption exists in all parties but with the Liberals it's always the large scale stuff involving millions of dollars.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

And where do we stop? Do we impose a tax on everyone (who does not require it for the purposes of work) when they buy a new F-150? Should an RV come with a large tax added?

I don't see why not. A tax on a new automobiles that don't meet a certain threshold for fuel efficiency and credit on ones that have exceptional fuel efficiency (I'd probably sort it by auto class thou) would be the logical equivalency. I mean you don't want to make it so that people who want a truck or RV can't have them... but you shouldn't have any problem with encouraging folk to get the most fuel efficient versions of same. If it moves the needle in terms of auto sales the manufacterors will adapt to the market.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Why is it the words "Liberal" and "corruption" always go hand in hand? I can accept that a level of corruption exists in all parties but with the Liberals it's always the large scale stuff involving millions of dollars.

Its because you have those partisan blinders. The CPC over the last decade has engaged in all kinds of unscrupulous activity, but they have blue signs.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Why is it the words "Liberal" and "corruption" always go hand in hand? I can accept that a level of corruption exists in all parties but with the Liberals it's always the large scale stuff involving millions of dollars.

If you look back at the history of Canadian Scandals, all parties are pretty scandalized. It wasn't that long ago that the PC's in Alberta's primary job was coverup.

However the Ornge and Gas Plant scandals in Ontario probably represent two of the biggest provincial scandals in the last 20 or 30 years.

But as stated above the shame is that the PC's and NDP parties couldn't rally to beat them in an election.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by opendoor

How do you target the increased carbon footprint of using far more materials in construction and using more materials to maintain it compared to a smaller house?

Sure it's great to have a new 4000 square foot house that uses the energy of an older 2000 square foot house, but a new 2000 square foot house would use even less while saving on materials.

Definitely valid, but you aren't likely to see a 2000 sq ft urban home built with geothermal climate control. The cost would be too prohibited.
Let's not kid ourselves... we didn't stop by as serious buyers, just to check it out. These homes ran $1.7M.

[Poster]

Originally Posted by troutman

Don't the Greens claim to be that kind of party?

my understanding is that the Greens align with NDP policy and stay focused on environmental issues.

besides, they arent a viable option to use a vote on.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If you look back at the history of Canadian Scandals, all parties are pretty scandalized. It wasn't that long ago that the PC's in Alberta's primary job was coverup.

However the Ornge and Gas Plant scandals in Ontario probably represent two of the biggest provincial scandals in the last 20 or 30 years.

But as stated above the shame is that the PC's and NDP parties couldn't rally to beat them in an election.

The Gas Plant stuff was politics at its worst. Basically just bought seats.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Why is it the words "Liberal" and "corruption" always go hand in hand? I can accept that a level of corruption exists in all parties but with the Liberals it's always the large scale stuff involving millions of dollars.

It's because you are cherrypicking history here.... It wasn't that long ago that Conservative and corruption went hand in hand with the Airbus affair that involved millions of dollars. Same thing and I'd argue even worse because that involved a lot of kickbacks, including a huge suspect payment directly to a prime minster.

Politicians are like diapers, you need to change them quickly and often for the same reason.