Brad Wall's still blowing smoke on climate change

[Machjo]

Its irrelevant whether it works or not if its unnecessary. Is your letter done yet? Its less than a week before the HALO fundraiser.

From what I'm reading in the article, the BC system gives me something I don't enjoy in other provinces: more choice!

Elsewhere, whether I live far from work and shopping or close to work and shopping, I'll pay more or less the same tax because much of it is in income tax.

In BC, it'll be a much bigger difference. Since I'd pay less in income tax there but more in ga, tax, I would have the choice to live closer to work and shops and so avoid the gas tax and consequently tax overall. As more people move closer to work, the government loses revenue, yes, but it also saves money on transportation infrastructure since people who live close to work and shopping produce less traffic. Neat eh.

You lose money because of climate change.

Never mind climate change. I worry about the limited availability of our resources. It would be preferable to promote more energy efficient cities now than live on cheap gas until the last drop and then crash.

Given Canada's climate, we stand to benefit from global warming. Again, my concern is more with the limited supply of non-renewable resources.

 

[Cannuck]

Its irrelevant if we can easily convert CO2 to ethanol. Carbon will no longer be a problem except for folks like Flossy

 

[Machjo]

What about user pay? Income tax is not user pay, a gas tax is.

 

[Cannuck]

What about user pay? Income tax is not user pay, a gas tax is.

User pay for what?

 

[darkbeaver]

You lose money because of climate change.

No I don't, you do, me , I'm immune from lunacy. I adapt to climate change, I'll be here when you are fondly remembered. The formula is cut lots of firewood, consume whenever you want more. I need x ammount ov BTu's, I will burnyou if necessary, your a thin person a couple of hours of comfort at best. You'll have to be dried first for optimum consumption, we don't want you fukking up the flue do we. You're are very damp person but our dryers are efficient. You are a beautiful person anbd wqe will celebrate the twenty-eight seconds it trakes to consume you in the digester.

 

[Machjo]

User pay for what?

Roads, highways, asthma treatment, etc. etc. etc.

Be honest. If you suddenly had to pay less income tax and more gas tax, would that not affect your spending habits?

If I had the choice, I'd chose a as tax over income tax. Okay, I kind of have a choice in that I could move to BC, except my family is here, so it's a coerced choice. But yes, if I could choose, I would choose a gas tax over an income tax.

 

[Cannuck]

Roads, highways, asthma treatment, etc. etc. etc.

Be honest. If you suddenly had to pay less income tax and more gas tax, would that not affect your spending habits?

If I had the choice, I'd chose a as tax over income tax. Okay, I kind of have a choice in that I could move to BC, except my family is here, so it's a coerced choice. But yes, if I could choose, I would choose a gas tax over an income tax.

Do you have a point?

 

[Machjo]

Do you have a point?

Yes. A carbon tax can promote more efficient, higher-density, more mixed urban development

 

[darkbeaver]

I'am not paying anymore taxes untill it's fixed, I'm a free person and you're a tax collector , it';s my mission in life to die with a huge tax debt which you can collect in hell, fukk off

 

[mentalfloss]

Yes. A carbon tax can promote more efficient, higher-density, more mixed urban development

It depends on what government is in power because they get to choose what to do with the revenue.

 

[Cannuck]

Yes. A carbon tax can promote more efficient, higher-density, more mixed urban development

Nope.

 

[mentalfloss]

I'm not sure if that has happened in BC, but it's certainly been good for business and reducing emissions.

 

[petros]

Uh uh. No reductions besides, it can't be invested in projects or initiatives. It's neutral remember.

 

[mentalfloss]

Yes, emissions went down exclusively in BC because of their carbon tax.

So now we have three things that you belligerently do not accept (in addition to your denials with Machjo).

1. There is a scientific consensus on climate change
2. Oil subsidies exist
3. Carbon pricing reduces emissions

 

[petros]

YHow exactly did emissions go down for 4 years and then rise to new heights because of the Carbon tax?

 

[Dixie Cup]

Nanotech Wafer Turns Carbon Dioxide Into Ethanol | Popular Science

Looks like MF and his friends may have to figure out another wealth transfer scheme

See, human ingenuity. Eventually, they'll perfect it for general use.

Its irrelevant whether it works or not if its unnecessary. Is your letter done yet? Its less than a week before the HALO fundraiser.

And I question the revenue neutral claim. Betch'a if you had an audit, that claim would prove false. When government is involved in anything, it always costs more. And while BC's economy might be "the best" in Canada, it's only because the ROC sucks!!


'course, I've been wrong b4 LOL


JMHO

 

[taxslave]

A carbon tax is a good thing if it first goes towards paying the debt and then towards lowering value added taxes, income taxes, tariffs, etc.

It's like a cigarette or alcohol tax.

Honestly, I'd say most tax revenue should come from 'sin' taxes and fines, taxes on carbon, alcohol, cigarettes, meat, etc.

You don't want to pay tax, then act responsibly and you won't pay taxes. Unfortunately, our present tax system is not set up that way.

If you are going to tax carbon why is the tax not applied to exports? Does only carbon burned in Canada pollute?

 

[Cannuck]

And I question the revenue neutral claim.

The term "revenue neutral" is disingenuous because we all know (well, Flossy probably doesn't) that any government program or policy required bureaucrats to manage it. There is no way the money going out equals the money coming in. It equals the revenue minus expenses. That is the important number.

Of course it's all irrelevant now that we've discovered a technology to eliminate the carbon emissions problem

 

[mentalfloss]

Revenue neutral just means that the revenue is used to either incentivize people (and corporations) to reduce their fossil fuel consumption or as an investment in carbon reduction technologies

 

[Jinentonix]

All this huff and it's all the usual guff.


Climate change is real.

Correct

It's primarily motivated by humans right now.

Incorrect.

Reducing carbon emissions is a necessary requirement to remedy the problem.

Riiiight. Because even Mother Nature can be influenced with billions of dollars to change her mind.

Carbon pricing is the way to do that.

Bullsh*t. In 1986, gas in Britain was $5/gallon. Today it's about $10/gallon and there's more cars on British roads and highways than ever before. In Canada in 1986, gas was less than $1/gallon. Today's it's around $5/ gallon and there's more cars on the roads and highways then ever before.
Look at Ontario's "Global adjustment fee". Ontarians are essentially paying a tax for NOT creating GHGs with our power generation. Proof that carbon pricing and carbon taxes are all about the redistribution of wealth and nothing to do with climate. The former chair of the IPCC has claimed that this is all about the redistribution of wealth. His problem with the IPCC panels was they were very short on science and very long on ideology. The former chair of the UN committee on Economics and the environment (or whatever it was called) essentially said the same thing. All these carbon schemes have nothing to do with climate and everything to do with the redistribution of wealth.

But you don't care about that because you're incapable of thinking for yourself. You're like religious idiots. You'd rather believe your ideological masters than deal with truth and reality.