The only difference is he backed down and left someone else holding the bag.
She was McGuilty's bag....
Kevin O’Leary Calls Out Ontario Premier Wynne Again on Carbon Taxes
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
The only difference is he backed down and left someone else holding the bag.
She was McGuilty's bag....
Your net worthy is denominated,inbated in carboned credits
A couple of grams of usefull material,process dfependant,
I'not worth the effort,,
go 8ll only, thjanks, the old ones want gold, what qar3e youy madeof?
A couple of grams of usefull material,process dfependant,
I'not worth the effort,,
go 8ll only, thjanks, the old ones want gold, what qar3e youy madeof?
Everyone supports a carbon tax, except O'Leary.
Seriously though, carbon pricing is happening.
Last edited:
Andrew Coyne used to sing the praises of the Harper Party.
That was before he discovered that they were not who they claimed to be. Stephen Harper may be gone, but his party is still a fraud. Take the issue of putting a price on carbon. Coyne writes (link is external):
The party of free markets, rather than support a plan that relies on the quintessential market instrument — prices — favours the most costly, intrusive and regulatory-heavy approach imaginable: the very approach that has so signally failed to date. The party of personal responsibility favours sparing people the costs of their economic choices, either socializing them via subsidy or disguising them via regulation.
All of the party's leadership candidates -- save one -- are vehemently opposed to putting a price on carbon:
Interim leader Rona Ambrose, attacking the Liberal carbon price plan this week, said her party favours “regulation on industry rather than taxes on Canadians,” as if the costs of regulation were not a form of tax, or that industry would not pass on these costs to “Canadians.”
Yet the position of the Conservative party, and of virtually every one of its leading lights, is flat-out opposition to carbon pricing, in whatever form. Of the federal party leadership candidates, only one, Michael Chong, has come out in favour. The other 87 or so are all opposed. The official line remains the same: it’s a “tax on everything,” and they want no part of it.
But, like it or not, a tax is on its way:
British Columbia has had a carbon tax since 2008. Alberta will have one in place by 2018. Ontario and Quebec are implementing cap-and-trade regimes.
That’s 80 per cent of the country, by population, where carbon pricing is now law. And in six weeks the government of Canada will formally commit the country to the Paris climate accord, together with its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution, UN-speak for emissions reductions target. By year’s end, the Trudeau government has signalled it will have a national carbon price in place, with or without the provinces’ cooperation.
The Harper Party has never been who and what it claimed to be. And it has never been able to deal with facts that don't suit its agenda.
Embracing carbon pricing need not be seen as capitulation to their opponents. There remain sharp differences between left and right approaches to carbon pricing, which conservatives could usefully exploit. One, Conservatives should insist that any revenues collected from the public via carbon pricing be returned to them in the form of lower taxes on income. That is, carbon pricing should be revenue-neutral, as it was in B.C.
Two, carbon pricing should be instituted as a replacement for existing subsidy and regulatory approaches, not, as currently envisaged, simply loaded on top. Carbon pricing might thus be used to lighten, rather than add to, the regulatory burden on industry, just as it lightens the tax load on individuals — a feature that might be of greater interest to many voters than even saving the planet.
Conservatives allowed the left to claim carbon pricing as their own, but there is no reason they cannot reclaim it. There’s a conservative case for carbon pricing. But there is no good conservative case for the alternative.
That was before he discovered that they were not who they claimed to be. Stephen Harper may be gone, but his party is still a fraud. Take the issue of putting a price on carbon. Coyne writes (link is external):
The party of free markets, rather than support a plan that relies on the quintessential market instrument — prices — favours the most costly, intrusive and regulatory-heavy approach imaginable: the very approach that has so signally failed to date. The party of personal responsibility favours sparing people the costs of their economic choices, either socializing them via subsidy or disguising them via regulation.
All of the party's leadership candidates -- save one -- are vehemently opposed to putting a price on carbon:
Interim leader Rona Ambrose, attacking the Liberal carbon price plan this week, said her party favours “regulation on industry rather than taxes on Canadians,” as if the costs of regulation were not a form of tax, or that industry would not pass on these costs to “Canadians.”
Yet the position of the Conservative party, and of virtually every one of its leading lights, is flat-out opposition to carbon pricing, in whatever form. Of the federal party leadership candidates, only one, Michael Chong, has come out in favour. The other 87 or so are all opposed. The official line remains the same: it’s a “tax on everything,” and they want no part of it.
But, like it or not, a tax is on its way:
British Columbia has had a carbon tax since 2008. Alberta will have one in place by 2018. Ontario and Quebec are implementing cap-and-trade regimes.
That’s 80 per cent of the country, by population, where carbon pricing is now law. And in six weeks the government of Canada will formally commit the country to the Paris climate accord, together with its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution, UN-speak for emissions reductions target. By year’s end, the Trudeau government has signalled it will have a national carbon price in place, with or without the provinces’ cooperation.
The Harper Party has never been who and what it claimed to be. And it has never been able to deal with facts that don't suit its agenda.
Embracing carbon pricing need not be seen as capitulation to their opponents. There remain sharp differences between left and right approaches to carbon pricing, which conservatives could usefully exploit. One, Conservatives should insist that any revenues collected from the public via carbon pricing be returned to them in the form of lower taxes on income. That is, carbon pricing should be revenue-neutral, as it was in B.C.
Two, carbon pricing should be instituted as a replacement for existing subsidy and regulatory approaches, not, as currently envisaged, simply loaded on top. Carbon pricing might thus be used to lighten, rather than add to, the regulatory burden on industry, just as it lightens the tax load on individuals — a feature that might be of greater interest to many voters than even saving the planet.
Conservatives allowed the left to claim carbon pricing as their own, but there is no reason they cannot reclaim it. There’s a conservative case for carbon pricing. But there is no good conservative case for the alternative.
A carbon tax in essence has shown that government's will not use it as intended or perpetrated; they take this new found pot of gold for their own agenda and distribute the rest to their 'chosen ones'. I know that JT has been unable to bring any real jobs to Canada, and taxing or selling off our assets is the only option, but a carbon tax will only send more jobs out of Canada, and make this good*&m recession last longer. We need our Government to improve our lives, not make it worst. JT's so called "carbon pricing", can't even call it what it is!!! it's a tax JT, yup. Taxing the oil companies is one thing people really don't care much about, but when you TAX the poor working people, then they do not forget. The whole green agenda is inept and lacking, it is also too expensive and unrealistic. Australia is out and I don't blame them. Things are going to get worst folks! I'm not a fan of O'Leary, but he's right, 70Million is a lot to just loose!!
remember Maurice Strong?
"“In order to save the planet, the group [GIM] decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about? This group of world leaders [GIM] forms a secret society to bring about an economic collapse.”
Maurice Strong, the Father of America's Destruction
politics?
lol
this has nothing to do with politics
"George Soros and his Canadian sidekick, Kyoto architect Maurice Strong, are the brains behind the likes of Al Gore, Mikhail Gorbachev and Barak Obama, all who belong to the above and the “Chicago Climate Exchange” which will make billions on climate change. "
from the above link
you know george SOROS the guy behind forcing all the immigration in europe and I guess the US and Canada too
TO DESTROY INDUSTRIAL NATIONS
"“In order to save the planet, the group [GIM] decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about? This group of world leaders [GIM] forms a secret society to bring about an economic collapse.”
Maurice Strong, the Father of America's Destruction
politics?
lol
this has nothing to do with politics
"George Soros and his Canadian sidekick, Kyoto architect Maurice Strong, are the brains behind the likes of Al Gore, Mikhail Gorbachev and Barak Obama, all who belong to the above and the “Chicago Climate Exchange” which will make billions on climate change. "
from the above link
you know george SOROS the guy behind forcing all the immigration in europe and I guess the US and Canada too
TO DESTROY INDUSTRIAL NATIONS
Last edited:
The only things that has ever work to lower emissions was mandatory fuel mileage minimums and the Tier system for diesel vehicles aND heavy equipment.
Easy. Since this regressive tax puts an unfair burden on rural areas that do not have access to NG or public transit the residents burn wood instead of expensive oil. They also don't bother going to see a doctor until an ambulance ride is necessary. That way there isn't a bunch of trucks making the long journey to the city every day.
Why would you NEED a truck in a rural area? Buy a Smart car. 700 go up for auction next week. For some odd reason the eco-friendly Cars 2 Go failed.
I've been considering picking one up and fitting a mower deck under it.
By burning wood they have no clue what your emissions really are.
An old tractor tire will heat 4000sqft shop all winter.
If tou chain saw the tractor Tire use the rubber chunks on the driveway. It keeps the dust down and is quieter than type 32 roadbed.
I've been considering picking one up and fitting a mower deck under it.
By burning wood they have no clue what your emissions really are.
An old tractor tire will heat 4000sqft shop all winter.
If tou chain saw the tractor Tire use the rubber chunks on the driveway. It keeps the dust down and is quieter than type 32 roadbed.
Someone better assist him with these letters.
You can't help to be reminded,if he is rich,I can also be rich,then again with shift work I am tired,no big changes for this old dog
The Conservative party and his wife should help him write another letter,possibly he is regressing to grade 8 presentation,or he is drinking and writing?,no idea,but I think the letter is silly
Natural gas costs are also sky rocketing in Ontario.
Also the hydro company is going to be billing monthly now... more fees?
Also the hydro company is going to be billing monthly now... more fees?
Not too late to build a pipe from BC. We haven't started shipping it to China yet.