Well I live in a super liberal state and the thought of scrapping or reducing any tax is taboo.
Proof That a Price on Carbon Works
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Well I live in a super liberal state and the thought of scrapping or reducing any tax is taboo.
So little faith in the free market and user-pay taxes here in Canada, even among CPC members who don't realize just how much their suburbanites lifestyle is subsidized by the taxpayer.
Hong Kong? Bring it on!
Hong Kong? Bring it on!
I'd say suburbanites are maintaining their suburbs and paying for it themselves as well as subsidizing the urbanites.
Just to be clear, you are proposing we in Canada, with our clear air and sky, model a system after a place where you recently visited and complained of being overwrought with smog?
The big problem with a carbon tax that everybody ignores, is it does not work as advertised. It does not cut down carbon production. It just gives more money to the government.
Also again, Hong Kong and China need to stop their carbon output. Canada's output is miniscule in comparison.
If you live in a city like Toronto or it's suburbs .....I live 500 miles to the north And I'm willing to match my yearly gasoline use or "Carbon footprint" with any one of you.....
Lower income tax, cut subsidies to public transit, cut any value-added tax, and introduce a Hong-Kong-style carbon tax.
If your claim is true, then suburban life would suddenly become attractive, urban life much less so.
My guess is though that it would be the reverse for the most part.
Enjoy your $17.38 loaf of bread... What was that?.. You wanted a roast beef sammie and fries?
Let's see, steer from Sask, potatoes from PEI.... Lemme just add this up.... That comes to $208.11
Perhaps it is a much different climate there.
Here in Mass public transit is completely dependent on subsidies. Lowering any sort of Massachusetts tax is practically unheard of. Suburban life already is attractive and our cities depend on taxes generated by suburbanites.
Hong Kong would fit in your State a few times over.
The comparison between HK and Canada or the USA in terms of land mass and relative distances is irrelevant on that basis alone.
You're confusing Hong Kong with central China. You're also confusing per capita vs. total output.
Considering Hong Kong's population and Shenzhen's population right next to it, the two cities combined reaching near Canada's total population, Hong Kong's air was remarkably pleasant. Not as clean as Canada's, but if Hong Kong polluted like Canada does on a per capita basis, Hong Kong would be worse than Beijing!
Hong Kong's air was clean enough that I could enjoy it. I'm sure the following played a role in making the air so pleasant in Hong Kong:
1. A high carbon tax.
2. No transit subsidies. All funding of public transit is supported by commuter fares.
3. More user-pay transit fares. A subway ticket between two neighboring stations is less expensive than between distant stations, and bus fares vary depending on distance covered too. Many buses are like taxis with no stop in between, all on board going to the same location.
Transit passes do exist, but you have to scan it when you enter and again when you exit. To enter, you must have enough money on the card to cover the most expensive possible fare.
Canada can certainly learn from Hong Kong's user-pay system.
Sadly, and again in Massachusetts, commuter fares are paying for massive salaries and pensions due to decades of corruption and nest feathering. So that ship has sailed here and would never work.
Of course it's attractive. It's all subsidized. Urbanites use the car on weekends to go camping, otherwise we walk to work assuming we don't work from home.
Who do think uses the subsidized buses and clogs the rush-hour freeways with their cars? Usually not urbanites nor ruralites, but suburbanites even though we urbanites still pay taxes for them. Given higher city-centre property taxes, no wonder suburban life is so cushy.
Much of Hong Kong's transit system, though heavily regulated by the Government, is privately owned.
Like I'd said before, a carbon tax is a very capitalist idea, which might explain why Hong Kong embraced it while North America rejects it.
Massachusetts sounds like a cesspool of corruption.
I'd say the culture is a bit different. I doubt many city dwellers head to the country camping. The urban poor are pretty much stuck where they are and almost 100% subsidized. The Urban wealthy most likely are heading to their cottage on Cape Cod or New Hampshire.
And like I said earlier, commuter fares here in Massachusetts pay salaries and pensions that the hacks set up for themselves decades ago. Public transit is heavily subsidized through tax payer money. However in some suburbs you will see farms and farm stands.
You can say that again!
Massachusetts should hire a Hong Kong urban planner and a Hong Kong tax adviser.
I'm not saying Hong Kong doesn't help its poor, but it's more in the form of a hand up than a hand out like it is here in Canada. Hong Kong invests heavily in trades and professional education for the unemployed, literacy education, addiction therapy.
Its philosophy focuses on teaching a man to fish, not just giving him a fish.
Last edited:
Yeah... that type of talk is pretty much blasphemy here in Massachusetts. They'd even go so far as to call you a racist here just to silence you if you spoke such words.
Not as clean as Canada's? There's an understatement.
Air pollution in Hong Kong is one of the biggest issues facing the city. Visibility is less than eight kilometers for 30% of the year, according to experts. The two main issues are street-level pollution and the regional smog problem. According to Hong Kong's Environmental Protection Department, diesel vehicles are the main source of street-level pollution while smog is caused by a combination of pollutants from motor vehicles, marine vessels, industry and power plants both in Hong Kong and in the Pearl River Delta region. The Hong Kong government endorsed an emission reduction plan for the PRD region up to 2020 which includes emission reduction targets for four major air pollutants, namely sulphur dioxide(SO2), nitrogen oxides(NOX), respirable suspended particulates(RSP) and volatile organic compounds(VOC), for 2015 and 2020.
Hong Kong air pollution | South China Morning Post
Ah, short-term thinking. Sure teaching a person to fish is more expensive on a yearly basis than just giving him a fish (extra education costs). On the flip side though, I'd rather pay more now to have the unemployed working and paying taxes next year than pay less now and support the unemployed for the rest of their lives. I prefer pay now, save later over save now, pay forever.
1. Consider its population.
2. Consider its neighboring population centres in the mainland.
When I was there, as polluted as the air was, it was still pleasent, and I attribute that to high carbon taxes and user-pay transit fares.
Given how clean Hong Kong's air is for its population, you bet we can learn from it.
If Hong Kong's per capita pollution reached Toronto's, Hong Kong would be worse than Beijing.
On a per capita level, Hong Kong pollutes less than any Canadian urban centre.
You're forgetting some things though:
1. Very low income tax.
2. No GST.
3. You can choose to buy more local products. You don't get to choose to pay GST or income tax.
We have more control over how much gas tax we're willing to pay.
Last edited:
It's revenue neutral, they reduced emissions and they are consistently one of the top economic performers.
Of course when the Government says revenue neutral, it means it on a mass scale. For the individual, unless you're the perfect representation of Joe Average, you'll likely end up paying either more or less tax.
For example, if you live in a small high-density town surrounded by farmland, work from home, and live next to the local shopping centre, your cost of living will drop dramatically.
On the other hand, if you live on the outskirts of Toronto, work in downtown Toronto, and live far from any shop, your cost of living will undoubtedly increase.
But then again, that's the whole point of a carbon tax, to discourage and cease subsidizing such an inefficient lifestyle.