What taxes should a carbon tax replace?


Machjo
#1
Firstly, I'd expand a carbon tax to a non-renewable resource tax and raise taxes on tobacco, alcohol, gambling products, and animal products and byproducts.

However, back to the question. I think we should reduce income taxes and value added taxes like the GST. I would be open to a modest wealth tax though, but then scrap income taxes and value added taxes altogether except on addictive products and non-renewable resources.
 
darkbeaver
#2
Well that seems a very complicated path Machjo, to such as me who would rather work out the details with tanks. Tax is unexceptable. My ticket to here explicidly unulls any tax on my person whatever, forever, you can tax my bones, if you like,
 
Cannuck
#3
No need.

Nanotech Wafer Turns Carbon Dioxide Into Ethanol | Popular Science (external - login to view)
 
Machjo
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

No need.

Nanotech Wafer Turns Carbon Dioxide Into Ethanol | Popular Science (external - login to view)

If I have to pay a tax on a portion of the profits that I make from the non-renewable resources I extract from the ground, then I have an incentive to produce ethanol since I wouldn't need to pay a tax on the profits I make from the sale of the ethanol that I produce.

But if I pay no tax on the profits that I make from the sale of the non-renweable resources that I extract from the ground, then where's the incentive for me to produce ethanol?
 
Cannuck
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

...then where's the incentive for me to produce ethanol?

Limits.
 
Johnnny
#6
It should replace HST
 
Machjo
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Limits.

That's even more extreme than a tax. In the case of a tax, a resource-extraction company can still meet market demand except that the tax will naturally reduce that demand.

In the case of 'limits,' the company extracts what it's allowed to extract, charges an exorbitant fee according to market demand for a product the supply of which is severely reduced, and the company pockets the profits.

If we're going to do that, then we could scrap the carbon tax idea but just raise the cost of royalties. As royalties go up, companies will lose interest in extraction.

Actually, between a carbon tax and royalties, I'd rather we not have a carbon tax but just charge higher roaylties intsead. That way, we can import cheap gas from abroad while keeping our own resources in the ground.

This importation would lower the value of the Canadian dollar and so promote our manufacturing exports.
 
Cannuck
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

That's even more extreme than a tax.

Don't be silly. We've had limits on practically everything that has substantial negative impacts
 
Machjo
#9
Though even that has a similar impact. If the Canadian dollar drops in value, then even if there is no tax on carbon, the drop in currency value would still reduce gas consumption.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Don't be silly. We've had limits on practically everything that has substantial negative impacts

With a tax (or higher royalties), they can still extract to meet market demand. Imposing a limit is similar to the NDP's proposal of carbon credits. A tax allows some elasticity in supply. A limit is a hard line drawn in the sand. A tax merely discourages consumption, a limit bans consumption beyond the limit.
 
darkbeaver
#10
Carbon is my birthright, get off my front steps before I activate my shotgun.
 
Machjo
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by JohnnnyView Post

It should replace HST

I can agree to that. At least a carbon tax (or a higher royalty) is basedo on the actual resources you consume. Why should you pay a tax on software or a human service that doesn't consume any non-renewable resource? It makes no sense.
 
Cannuck
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Though even that has a similar impact. If the Canadian dollar drops in value, then even if there is no tax on carbon, the drop in currency value would still reduce gas consumption.



With a tax (or higher royalties), they can still extract to meet market demand. Imposing a limit is similar to the NDP's proposal of carbon credits. A tax allows some elasticity in supply. A limit is a hard line drawn in the sand. A tax merely discourages consumption, a limit bans consumption beyond the limit.

If its bad, limit it, not tax it. We don't tax raw sewage being dumped into rivers. We limit it.
 
darkbeaver
#13
Today I have consumed the carbon sink in a two kilo bag of parsnips, tax me if you can, you silly millinium twat.
 
Machjo
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Carbon is my birthright, get off my front steps before I activate my shotgun.

We should tax gunpowder too.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

If its bad, limit it, not tax it. We don't tax raw sewage being dumped into rivers. We limit it.

You have a point and I'm open to the idea. But we have to consider the circumstances too. For example, no intelligent person would disagree that we shouldn't consume alcohol. However, to force an alcoholic to quit cold turkey could kill him, and so an exception must be made whereby the goal then becomes to gradually wean him off of it. Likewise, some physicians now administer heroin to heroin addicts for harm reduction. They don't deny that heroin addiction is bad, but they also recognize it's preferable that the addict gets his heroin from a reliable source than off the street, in relative terms, always with the ultimate goal of weaning him off of it if possible.

The same applies to gas. Yes, it is harmful to the environment, but our suburbs depend on it. If we just flat out limited it, that would cause way too sudden a spike in gas prices. While rural and urban communities might survite it (with much pain mind you), it would devastate suburban economies. Does this mean we continue with the same old same old? Of course not. However, a carbon tax is like a gentle nudge, a discouragement, like a tax on cigarettes and alcohol or on sugary drinks, etc. A hard limit would probably lead to a black market and devastated economies, whereas a tax still allows the market to respond to it but more gradually. As the tax gradually increases over time, people would move out of the suburbs. Population density would increase in cities while farmland would slowly reclaim suburbs over time as a natural market reaction to higher gas prices, but that would be a gradual process. The market needs time to respond, to buy the bicycles and build the bicycle paths, or more fuel efficient cars, etc. We can't do it overnight.

Of course we might want to introduce limits eventually. For example, once sufficiently few people smoke or drink alcohol, we might eventually be able to ban it. But until then, all we can do is add moderately tougher laws every year towards that end. A carbon tax is that kind of gradual nudging law. Over time, we could then introduce more extreme measures like a hard limit, but one step at a time, and a carbon tax is a more gradual step in that direction.
 
Cannuck
#15
There's nothing wrong with alcohol. You're being silly
 
Machjo
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

There's nothing wrong with alcohol. You're being silly

What does alcohol do to the brain and the liver?

Either way, I think we agree that BC, though not even close itself, is still closer to imposing limits on carbon than any other province is, and that's thanks to its gradual gas tax over the years.
 
Ludlow
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

There's nothing wrong with alcohol. You're being silly

Ye need to down a gallon Alan and do eat some pickled eggs and peanuts so you can entertain yourself with your own farts dummah. .
 
Cannuck
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

What does alcohol do to the brain and the liver?

Either way, I think we agree that BC, though not even close itself, is still closer to imposing limits on carbon than any other province is, and that's thanks to its gradual gas tax over the years.

7 Health Benefits Of Drinking Alcohol (external - login to view)


There's no need for a carbon tax if carbon is no longer a problem.
 
petros
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

If I have to pay a tax on a portion of the profits that I make from the non-renewable resources I extract from the ground, then I have an incentive to produce ethanol since I wouldn't need to pay a tax on the profits I make from the sale of the ethanol that I produce.

But if I pay no tax on the profits that I make from the sale of the non-renweable resources that I extract from the ground, then where's the incentive for me to produce ethanol?

You'll create more CO2 than you save not to mention you'll still have to pay road and municipal taxes, Fed excise taxes, licenses, AND carbon taxes on your refinery that produces FUEL.

Same goes for biodiesel.
 
MHz
#20
Idling tax as you wait for the snowplows. Why not make a buck this winter. Go to ACME Hardware and get some snow-chain cross links as they are flatter than normal chain and some rope that will fit through the end links. Just before you get stuck put one on each drive wheel and one steering tire. Cars would not need the winter spikes but pick-ups with aggressive tires would. Straps if you don't want a coil of rope as it has to be cutoff each time you put them on.
Stock up and then drive around with them on and sell pairs at 2x the normal price. 4x if they are already stuck. Welcome to the North.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Same goes for biodiesel.

When it gets to be -40 fuel turns to gell, the exhaust has to keep the tanks warmer than that so it isn't an extinction level event just not something you find on vehicles today. Think of a railway on skies to get the full impact of what a winter is actually like when the grid goes down. You produce your own power for all the goodies so just a small interruption.

'Improper tire tax' when it is winter and you have summer tires and no traction devices. The ones that get sand when they fill up get a discount on the gas and then all the side-streets get some sand also.
 
JLM
+1
#21  Top Rated Post
That god damn criminal real estate transfer tax. I have no problem with taxing stuff like alcohol and tobacco that is potentially harmful, but what the f**k is the harm in owning a house?
 
Cannuck
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

That god damn criminal real estate transfer tax. I have no problem with taxing stuff like alcohol and tobacco that is potentially harmful, but what the f**k is the harm in owning a house?

Stop being so silly. Taxes aren't levied on things just because they're harmful
 
bobnoorduyn
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

That god damn criminal real estate transfer tax. I have no problem with taxing stuff like alcohol and tobacco that is potentially harmful, but what the f**k is the harm in owning a house?


I don't know but I've been told that in that other country they call it the "Welcome to Quebec Tax". Sounds nicer dunnit?
 
mentalfloss
#24
It should be on top of other taxes not replace them.

We need more taxes.
 
lone wolf
+1
#25
Don't you ever get tired of being an azz?
 
mentalfloss
#26
10 Big Reasons to Feel Good About Taxes | Canadians for Tax Fairness (external - login to view)
 
JLM
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

It should be on top of other taxes not replace them.

We need more taxes.



Why? So you and the other idiot on here can be paid for being useless?

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

10 Big Reasons to Feel Good About Taxes | Canadians for Tax Fairness (external - login to view)




3. The average Canadian household receives about $41,000 in public services each year (with no mark-up for private profit), a tremendous bargain for the vast majority of Canadians.


Where does one apply to get this $41 grand a year?
 
petros
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

It should be on top of other taxes not replace them.

We need more taxes.

Why?
 
Cannuck
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Why?

You will need to have more taxes to take over and run all the doctors offices that are currently private businesses
 
mentalfloss
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Why?

Because we pay too little and don't have enough for services.

You can blame caring fiscal conservatives like Cannuck for that.
 
no new posts