09-24-2018, 12:44 PM
|
#421
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dino7c
This reminds me of the democrats strategy of "Trump's a bad guy"
|
Hes a bad guy Gary....hes not a good guy!
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
09-28-2018, 07:06 AM
|
#422
|
Posted the 6 millionth post!
|
Doug Ford coming to Calgary for UCP anti-carbon tax rally
Basically the whole article:
Newly minted Ontario Premier Doug Ford is coming to Alberta next month for a United Conservative Party rally opposing carbon tax programs.
Ford will attend the free Oct. 5 event at the BMO Centre, where he’ll be hosted by UCP Leader Jason Kenney.
Ford scrapped Ontario’s cap-and-trade system after taking office in June and has vowed to legally challenge the federal government’s contentious carbon pricing plan.
Alberta’s broad-based carbon levy, a core element of the NDP government’s climate plan, is $30 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions. When applied to gasoline, the tax is almost seven cents per litre.
Kenney has vowed to repeal Alberta’s carbon tax should the UCP form government following next spring’s provincial election.
The federal climate plan — to take effect in January — calls for taxes on greenhouse gas emissions starting at $10 per tonne and rising by $10 a year to $50 a tonne in 2022.
|
|
|
09-28-2018, 07:12 AM
|
#423
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck
Probably not what the party needed, but you also need that young conservative vote so what are you gonna do?
|
I take offense to this kind of posting. You are essentially insinuating that young conservative voters are racist and it's just false. I don't care what party you support but if false group racist accusations this is all you got to prop up your party you better take a good look at what you are supporting.
|
|
|
09-28-2018, 08:30 AM
|
#424
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
Doug Ford coming to Calgary for UCP anti-carbon tax rally
Basically the whole article:
Newly minted Ontario Premier Doug Ford is coming to Alberta next month for a United Conservative Party rally opposing carbon tax programs.
Ford will attend the free Oct. 5 event at the BMO Centre, where he’ll be hosted by UCP Leader Jason Kenney.
Ford scrapped Ontario’s cap-and-trade system after taking office in June and has vowed to legally challenge the federal government’s contentious carbon pricing plan.
Alberta’s broad-based carbon levy, a core element of the NDP government’s climate plan, is $30 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions. When applied to gasoline, the tax is almost seven cents per litre.
Kenney has vowed to repeal Alberta’s carbon tax should the UCP form government following next spring’s provincial election.
The federal climate plan — to take effect in January — calls for taxes on greenhouse gas emissions starting at $10 per tonne and rising by $10 a year to $50 a tonne in 2022.
|
Good. We should be scrapping it, bth Provincially and Federally.
Frankly, I dont like Ford or Kenney's politics, but we should be abandoning Carbon taxes.
Global Warming, climate change etc, are well documented, you can debate that, I believe its an issue, but Canada taxing Carbon isnt going to move the global warming needle at all, but removing Carbon Taxes helps Canadians.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-28-2018, 08:53 AM
|
#425
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Global Warming, climate change etc, are well documented, you can debate that, I believe its an issue, but Canada taxing Carbon isnt going to move the global warming needle at all, but removing Carbon Taxes helps Canadians.
|
Do projects like the green line not help Canadians?
|
|
|
09-28-2018, 10:34 AM
|
#426
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
Do projects like the green line not help Canadians?
|
Wasn't the green line pre-carbon tax?
|
|
|
09-28-2018, 10:40 AM
|
#427
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Wasn't the green line pre-carbon tax?
|
Quote:
Alberta plans to spend $1.53-billion in provincial carbon tax money to help bankroll a major Calgary transit project known as the Green Line.
|
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.theg...ticle35579224/
|
|
|
09-28-2018, 11:01 AM
|
#428
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
Do projects like the green line not help Canadians?
|
These programs should not be funded with a Carbon Tax. If a project is viable and beneficial taxes should fund it regardless of the tax source of the project.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-28-2018, 11:08 AM
|
#429
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
These programs should not be funded with a Carbon Tax. If a project is viable and beneficial taxes should fund it regardless of the tax source of the project.
|
The bolded portion seems to contradict the first sentence in your statement. The carbon tax is a tax is it not?
|
|
|
09-28-2018, 11:41 AM
|
#430
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
The bolded portion seems to contradict the first sentence in your statement. The carbon tax is a tax is it not?
|
My objection is tying the existence of the Carbon tax to the outcome of getting the green line. The two are unrelated.
The decision around a Carbon tax should be do we want to curtail the use of Carbon and slowly shift people away from Carbon. If the answer is yes than you implement a Carbon tax AND reduce other taxes accordingly. The implementation of a Carbon Tax should be revenue neutral and sized according to how quickly you would like to incentivise change along with the difficulty in making changes.
Then on the spending side of the government you decide which projects need funding and how much revenue need and set your suite of taxes at an appropriate level to fund those needs.
The key here is that if the Green line was necessary whether or not we have a Carbon tax is immaterial. The project should have been funded.
The same with people arguing against the Carbon tax. The argument against the Carbon tax isn't that its a tax hike. Its that this specific form of tax is more harmful than another form of tax. It is independent of the how much tax question.
A Carbon tax, A PST, Income Tax, property tax have to be assessed based on the affects of that type of tax vs the alternative types of taxes and not based on the increase or decrease in government revenue as a result of the implementation of the tax. The type of tax and the amount of tax are two completely different issues that our politicians continue to fail at distinguishing between.
So to summarize:
We got the Green Line because the NDP raised taxes.
Whether a Carbon tax harms or hurts Canadians depends on the basket of goods they buy relative to the average Canadians basket of goods. And without an export exemption or an import tariff hurts Canadian companies competitiveness in high carbon industries but could help Canadian companies in low carbon industries
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-28-2018, 01:01 PM
|
#431
|
Franchise Player
|
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...rman-1.4841247
Quote:
Premier Rachel Notley says she will speak at the upcoming Alberta Teachers' Association convention to counter an anticipated keynote speech by anti-pipeline activist Tzeporah Berman.
The ATA has been under fire for inviting Berman, a key opponent of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion, to speak at its conference on Oct. 13.
"I will be going myself to make the case for Alberta and our industry to grow, to counter misinformation and ensure that the whole story is told," Notley told delegates Thursday at the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association meeting in Red Deer.
|
You might remember Berman, Notley appointed her to the committee advising Alberta on how to develop the oilsands. She made around $23000 on that comittee even though she compared the oilsands to Mordor and opposed Transmountain. Suddenly Notley feels the need to "counter the misinformation", must be an election coming.
|
|
|
09-28-2018, 01:03 PM
|
#432
|
Franchise Player
|
Same ATA #%&$ers that invited David Suzuki to Calgary.
|
|
|
09-28-2018, 01:04 PM
|
#433
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacks
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...rman-1.4841247
You might remember Berman, Notley appointed her to the committee advising Alberta on how to develop the oilsands. She made around $23000 on that comittee even though she compared the oilsands to Mordor and opposed Transmountain. Suddenly Notley feels the need to "counter the misinformation", must be an election coming.
|
Amazing how staring the prospect of your dethroning changes one's tune.
Berman is a nutcase and despite Notley appointing her that nutcase is coming back to bite her in the ass.
As they say, live by the sword, die by the sword.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
09-28-2018, 01:22 PM
|
#434
|
Not a casual user
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Wasn't the green line pre-carbon tax?
|
It was
Quote:
Calgary politicians were positively giddy Friday after the federal government pledged $1.53 billion for the city’s long-sought LRT Green Line, despite numerous challenges still facing the project.
The contribution from the federal Public Transit Fund accounts for one-third of the project’s $4.6-billion price tag.
|
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...ne-lrt-project
__________________
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Dion For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-28-2018, 01:43 PM
|
#435
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Are we, as voters, shooting ourselves in the foot by not allowing politicians to move on from previous positions? We see it with Scheer with people believing he's still a conservative dinosaur on social issues. We see it with Notley on the anti-pipeline stance. We see it with Kenney on some of his previous stances during his federal politics career.
I'm not asking this with an agenda, it's a truthful ask. On the average, does it usually end up that when a politician gains/re-gains power, their old behaviour comes back to roost?
|
|
|
09-28-2018, 02:12 PM
|
#436
|
Franchise Player
|
Sure if you really think that they have have changed their beliefs. I would bet money that if we weren't coming into an election that Notley wouldn't be going out of her way to counter the garbage that Berman is spewing. Berman never should have been appointed to that comittee, it was ridiculous and Notley defended it. This isn't exactly a long time ago either, it was last year.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jacks For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-28-2018, 02:19 PM
|
#437
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dion
|
The federal portion did not provide enough to fund the entire project Dion. The costs are being covered by the combined contributions of the municipal, provincial and federal governments.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to iggy_oi For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-28-2018, 02:32 PM
|
#438
|
Franchise Player
|
GGG, the point I was making in response to Locke’s comment was that regardless of whether you agree or disagree on the carbon tax being the best way to increase revenues to pay for projects that will actually help Canadians like the green line, stating that the removal of the tax will be good for Canadians without offering any alternatives for how to make up the shortfall of those needed funds without it is nonsense.
|
|
|
09-28-2018, 05:10 PM
|
#439
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
GGG, the point I was making in response to Locke’s comment was that regardless of whether you agree or disagree on the carbon tax being the best way to increase revenues to pay for projects that will actually help Canadians like the green line, stating that the removal of the tax will be good for Canadians without offering any alternatives for how to make up the shortfall of those needed funds without it is nonsense.
|
While I may agree that cutting a tax without stating what expenses you will cut is terrible policy when you quote the statement that the "Green line is paid for by the Carbon Tax" its just wrong. The green line was paid for by government revenues. Without the Carbon tax the green line would have been funded through debt or other taxation.
Using the green line as a benefit to the Carbon Tax is pure spin, and doubles down on the awful moronic policy that Carbon Taxes should only be spent on green things. It shows a complete misunderstanding of how a Carbon tax works and why it is an almost pain free way to wean the world off of CO2.
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-28-2018, 06:39 PM
|
#440
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
While I may agree that cutting a tax without stating what expenses you will cut is terrible policy when you quote the statement that the "Green line is paid for by the Carbon Tax" its just wrong.
|
Did I say or quote that statement?
Quote:
The green line was paid for by government revenues. Without the Carbon tax the green line would have been funded through debt or other taxation.
|
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?
Quote:
Using the green line as a benefit to the Carbon Tax is pure spin, and doubles down on the awful moronic policy that Carbon Taxes should only be spent on green things.
|
From the article I linked earlier:
Quote:
Wildrose member Prasad Panda said the party supports the project, but would use other money for it rather than carbon tax funding if the NDP is defeated in the next election.
|
Even the opposition is “spinning” it that way.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:13 AM.
|
|