We're all DOOMED

[mentalfloss]

Sure... No mention whatsoever that the taxes are earmarked for anything at all. That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

The focus of the article was on the polluter's liability, not on tax expenditures.

... But then again, I can ask you for the same in terms of predicting the future on this.. Do you have any proof that the monies will be spent on any meaningful eco projects?

NEMA

Government and Developers to work within environmental legislation to achieve sustainable development

In a world where environmental sustainability is key to the survival of future generations, communities across the board need to become involved in protecting our natural resources.

Stefano Contardo, Development Executive at Improvon, a company specialising in providing tailor-made industrial and commercial rental space, says environmental legislation is particularly relevant in the development industry as both government and developers work towards the same goal: a healthy, sustainable environment for all South Africans.

As such, NEMA (National Environmental Management Act) Legislation has been introduced as a tool to ensure sustainable development. “While EIAs (Environmental Impact Assessment) are an important tool in this process, they do pose certain challenges for developers,” admits Contardo. A critical aspect here is timing. “This is particularly challenging when awaiting feedback from the Departments, especially when public participation has been involved. The Departments have a backlog of applications and this can delay projects considerably,” he adds.

Variances in the way the legislation is interpreted affects how land can be utilised and in turn, poses a risk to investment. “While developers use independent teams to conduct an EIA’s once the application is submitted to government, it may be interpreted differently by their teams. Ultimately, this hinders any type of planning when it comes to the use of land, and such uncertainty is a challenge to investment,” Contardo informs.

Ultimately, it’s a case of pulling together and compromising. “Government has two equally important mandates – growing the South African economy whilst ensuring such growth does not occur at the expense of the environment. There are a number of resources that we can use to ensure we have an understanding of the legislation and comply with from the initial feasibility stages of a project,” Contardo maintains.

“Bridging the gap between capitalist and environmental perspectives is entirely possible – with the right amount of commitment and compromise from both sides. The legislation is well structured and the system works from a business perspective, we just need to take the time to understand and enforce it,” he concludes.

Government and Developers to work within environmental legislation to achieve sustainable development - SA Commercial Prop News | Commercial Property News in South Africa

 

[captain morgan]

The focus of the article was on the polluter's liability, not on tax expenditures.

Well, there ya go... The gvt wants to punish someone for an imagined transgression for which they have no plans nor 'solution'... Interesting how there is no issue with assessing a penalty, but no idea in terms of a solution.

That is the big red flag that this is no more than a tax grab founded on a pseudo-fad.

Government and Developers to work within environmental legislation to achieve sustainable development

The article is nothing more than fluff and uses a whole lot of words to say nothing at all.

 

[taxslave]

How?

B.C.foolishly put a carbon tat on gas and diesel. Goes to general revenue although we supposedly got a tax break elsewhere. The real effect was that those that must drive to work or don't have natural gas available for heat end up paying more taxes to buy a few votes in the city.

 

[mentalfloss]

Well, there ya go... The gvt wants to punish someone for an imagined transgression for which they have no plans nor 'solution'... Interesting how there is no issue with assessing a penalty, but no idea in terms of a solution.

We've already established your views on global warming are wrong, and yes, imposing a restriction on carbon emissions is a solution to the environmental issue.

The article is nothing more than fluff and uses a whole lot of words to say nothing at all.

You asked about a recent eco-measure developed by that government. I provided you with one.

B.C.foolishly put a carbon tat on gas and diesel. Goes to general revenue although we supposedly got a tax break elsewhere. The real effect was that those that must drive to work or don't have natural gas available for heat end up paying more taxes to buy a few votes in the city.

No one said paying taxes was going to be fun.

Myth: The carbon tax is just a tax grab.
Fact: Every dollar raised by the carbon tax is returned to individuals and businesses through tax reductions. None of the carbon tax revenue is used to fund government spending.
In the first three years of the carbon tax, tax cuts returned an estimated $316 million more to taxpayers than the amount of carbon tax paid. Over the next three years, the tax cuts are expected to return $761 million more to taxpayers than the amount of carbon tax paid.

Myth: The carbon tax unfairly impacts low-income British Columbians.
Fact: Most low-income individuals and families are better off under the revenue neutral carbon tax than they were before. A major component of the personal and business income tax cuts provided as part of the revenue neutral carbon tax is the ongoing low income climate action tax credit designed to help protect low income individuals and families. The credit is paid quarterly along with the federal GST credit and BC HST Credit.

The credit as of July 1, 2011 provides an annual maximum of $115.50 for each adult and $34.50 for each child ($115.50 for the first child in a single parent family). The maximum credit is reduced by 2 per cent of net income in excess of $30,968 for single individuals ($36,130 for families) The reduction thresholds are indexed to provincial inflation.

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/A6.htm

 

[captain morgan]

We've already established your views on global warming are wrong, and yes, imposing a restriction on carbon emissions is a solution to the environmental issue.

I still get a kick out of that comment every time you post it.

Funny how that entire movement has fizzled-out since the globe has started cooling, eh?

You asked about a recent eco-measure developed by that government. I provided you with one.

You provided fluff... No plan, no commitment, just fluff.

No one said paying taxes was going to be fun.

What's less fun is when the tax generating population picks up stake and leaves... Haliburton, Invescco or the effects felt by the State of California might give you an idea of the ramifications.

 

[mentalfloss]

I still get a kick out of that comment every time you post it.

Funny how that entire movement has fizzled-out since the globe has started cooling, eh?

You provided fluff... No plan, no commitment, just fluff.

What's less fun is when the tax generating population picks up stake and leaves... Haliburton, Invescco or the effects felt by the State of California might give you an idea of the ramifications.

Is there a point somewhere in there?

 

[captain morgan]

Is there a point somewhere in there?

There sure is... Educate yourself a bit and it will be glaringly obvious

 

[mentalfloss]

There sure is... Educate yourself a bit and it will be glaringly obvious

Thank you for your words of wisdom.

 

[captain morgan]

Thank you for your words of wisdom.

Really man, do you honestly expect everyone to spoon-feed you the answers?

 

[mentalfloss]

Since you couldn't refute my point on South Africa (and taxslave miserably failed his point on B.C.), I'll move on to Australia since we're on the topic of taxes.


Household Impact & Compensation

The carbon pricing scheme will impose costs on big polluters, which will result in higher end prices for certain products. Treasury estimates that an average family will pay $9.90 more per week in the first year of the scheme’s introduction.

There are two measures that have been introduced as part of the package to soften the impact of these price rises. Firstly, the tax-free threshold will be more than tripled from $6,000 to $18,200, exempting 1 million people from the need to pay income tax or file a tax return. People earning less than $80,000 per year will also receive a tax cut, which for most will equal approximately $300 per year. Secondly, pensioners and self-funded retirees, as well as family payment recipients and other allowance recipients will see their payments increase.

The level of compensation will see the vast majority of people be fully compensated for the price increases, and many will actually end up better off. Plus, if you can reduce your dependence on carbon-intensive products you could end up even better off still.

For more information about your specific entitlements, please try the Household compensation calculator.

Household Impact & Compensation | Carbon Tax | The Facts about the Carbon Tax

 

[darkbeaver]

"Energy giant Sasol, South Africa’s second-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases"

SA is a big place it emits a lot of gas, the writer must mean SAs biggest man made emitter. Could the author be mistaken and unintentionally misleading the reader.

I'd like to see a bus load of them try to collect the tax from a volcano.

 

[captain morgan]

Since you couldn't refute my point on South Africa (and taxslave miserably failed his point on B.C.), I'll move on to Australia since we're on the topic of taxes.

Puhlease...

You posted a fluff article from South Africa about the eevviiiillll emitters and how the gvt will punish them.. The article went on to kinda suggest that the gvt would do something, maybe, kinda at some undetermined point in the future on a project(s) that are yet to be imagined.

Fact is, you had no point and neither did the article other than they want to collect a carbon tax that they don't know what it will be applied against.

 

[mentalfloss]

"Energy giant Sasol, South Africa’s second-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases"

SA is a big place it emits a lot of gas, the writer must mean SAs biggest man made emitter. Could the author be mistaken and unintentionally misleading the reader.

Unintentionally misleading.

Cute.

Fact is, you had no point and neither did the article other than they want to collect a carbon tax that they don't know what it will be applied against.

Puhlleeeeeeeeeeeeze.

Fact is, you gots no proofs for your claim and I actually provided a legitimate environmental investment source enacted by the government.

 

[darkbeaver]

That sounds oddly like what the oceanographers from the University of Toronto were studying back in 1973 on the east coast of NB.

Bedford Institute maybe. I worked there in that same year I think. No I wasn't an scientist I was a lower deck slob on one of their pleasure craft. Oil is mineral the organic markers are contaminants, they say.

 

[TenPenny]

Bedford Institute maybe. I worked there in that same year I think. No I wasn't an scientist I was a lower deck slob on one of their pleasure craft. Oil is mineral the organic markers are contaminants, they say.

No, University of Toronto.

 

[captain morgan]

Puhlleeeeeeeeeeeeze.

Fact is, you gots no proofs for your claim and I actually provided a legitimate environmental investment source enacted by the government.

Thanks for coming out Ricky Lake.

Get back to me when you can show the eco-expenditure proposed by the S. African gvt, and better yet, something that is in the works... 'Til then, it's about as valuable as the lint stuck in your navel.

 

[darkbeaver]

No, University of Toronto.

They would have got on a bus and driven to BIO to be near the sea you see, and the oceanographic boats. They were always towing things that went bing.

 

[mentalfloss]

Get back to me when you can show the eco-expenditure proposed by the S. African gvt, and better yet, something that is in the works... 'Til then, it's about as valuable as the lint stuck in your navel.

Is there a reason why you're not satisfied with an actual project in the works that was provided?

 

[darkbeaver]

"a legitimate environmental investment source enacted by the government."

the blackest comedy in so few words

 

[mentalfloss]

"a legitimate environmental investment source enacted by the government."

the blackest comedy in so few words