Rex Murphy: Burning the budget to heat the home

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
203
63
Ontario
Rex Murphy: Burning the budget to heat the home

Obviously, with a successful election well behind her, those words are now moot. There will be a gasoline tax, and the rationalization for her reversal is, of course, the fight against climate change. The logic is basic, as far as economics is concerned: raise the price of something and people will buy less of it. And if people buy less, they drive less, and if they drive less, why then Ontario will, by some infinitesimal degree at some utterly indeterminable time, be cooler.

This is pure nonsense, of course, because gasoline is neither a shoe nor a watch. People do not fill up their tanks for show or therapy. They buy only what they need. People drive, almost exclusively, where they need to drive: to school with their children, to work, to run errands, to visit aging relatives. It’s something people in this world of ours need.

Rex Murphy: Burning the budget to heat the home | National Post

Only Liberal progs could be so stupid as to not get that. But they care about people other than themselves, ha.
 
Last edited:

Dixie Cup

House Member
Sep 16, 2006
3,196
534
113
Edmonton
He is correct. You do what you have to do to re-arrange the budget so that you can continue with "life" as best you can. If you still need to drive, something else has to give.


JMHO
 

bobnoorduyn

Council Member
Nov 26, 2008
2,264
28
48
Mountain Veiw County
Governments of all stripes have used taxation as a means of promoting their social engineering agenda, when that fails to achieve their goals, the lefties in particular resort to legislation. This is simply a revenue grab dressed up as social engineering, they should just be honest and say so as both are equally despicable.
 

Nick Danger

Council Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,216
150
63
Penticton, BC
People drive, almost exclusively, where they need to drive...

People will drive distances short enough to walk and will turn their noses up at mass transit options in favour of a one-person-one-vehicle approach. As a society we have become addicted to convenience and it is having adverse effects on the environment and our health. This opens the door wide to so-called "sin taxes".
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
203
63
Ontario
People drive, almost exclusively, where they need to drive...

People will drive distances short enough to walk and will turn their noses up at mass transit options in favour of a one-person-one-vehicle approach. As a society we have become addicted to convenience and it is having adverse effects on the environment and our health.
Mass transit is great in urban areas, although I'm sure many would give a decent argument for how it isn't. and densely populated suburban areas. Not so great in large spread out suburban and rural areas, where it just isn't feasible or cost effective enough

If you want to put forward mass transit as you have, it has to be there to actually do the job. It simply isn't. Where it exists now out side urban areas, it's oft inefficient, prone to stoppages, and runs on time tables that make it incompatible with so many people. Forcing people to rely on their more reliable car.

So we come back to, poor planning. Tax first, think about alternatives later.

This new tax has nothing to do with green thinking, and everything to do with a tax grab.
 
Last edited:

Nick Danger

Council Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,216
150
63
Penticton, BC
This new tax has nothing to do with green thinking, and everything to do with a tax grab.

To a degree. Still, resistance to that grab is partially stifled by the fact that there are very few among us who couldn't reduce our fuel consumption with a little sacrifice in convenience. It's like tobacco taxes. really, who is willing to stand up for the right to cheap access to something that does such damage? The same applies to fossil fuel consumption, granted to a lesser degree.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
203
63
Ontario
To a degree.
No, it's a straight up cash grab.

Still, resistance to that grab is partially stifled by the fact that there are very few among us who couldn't reduce our fuel consumption with a little sacrifice in convenience.
People who can't afford it, are already not wasting gas.

It's like tobacco taxes. really, who is willing to stand up for the right to cheap access to something that does such damage? The same applies to fossil fuel consumption, granted to a lesser degree.
Good point, I'll start buying tank loads of gas on the rez and sell it out of my driveway.

So anyway, there's one small problem with your point there, land based transportation actually isn't that destructive. The logical place to start is the biggest polluters, right?

Well that's transoceanic shipping, that exceeds the combined GHG output of all the worlds land based transportation, combined.

But nope, we'll tax people trying to earn a living.

Cash grab, nothing more, nothing less.
 

Dixie Cup

House Member
Sep 16, 2006
3,196
534
113
Edmonton
Mass transit is great in urban areas, although I'm sure many would give a decent argument for how it isn't. and densely populated suburban areas. Not so great in large spread out suburban and rural areas, where it just isn't feasible or cost effective enough

If you want to put forward mass transit as you have, it has to be there to actually do the job. It simply isn't. Where it exists now out side urban areas, it's oft inefficient, prone to stoppages, and runs on time tables that make it incompatible with so many people. Forcing people to rely on their more reliable car.

So we come back to, poor planning. Tax first, think about alternatives later.

This new tax has nothing to do with green thinking, and everything to do with a tax grab.


I agree completely and I can give you an example.


In Edmonton, we have buses that are "express" - they go though out the city in various locations and end up at a terminal. From the terminal they then go "express" to downtown, which means they don't stop anywhere. So far, so good. But then, when it comes time to go home, the last "express" bus leaves the downtown area at......5:00 p.m. which means only if you get off at 4:30 can you catch it. Most people I know who work downtown get off at 5.


So, having missed the last express, you need to then transfer 2 or 3 times to get back home and, if you're lucky enough to catch the bus that takes you to your neighbourhood at the terminal, you may get home by 6. If not, it's likely closer to 7. So why would I wait for a frigin' bus when I can drive and be home by 5:30?


As it happens, my office moved into the River Valley and I couldn't catch a bus now coming or going because only 1 bus runs by there, it runs sporatically and I have to go downtown to catch a bus to come back to where I work. So, I drive 3x a week ('cuz I go swimming after work) and between my hubby and a co-worker, share rides 2ce a week. Much more efficient than catching transit.


JMHO
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
96,807
2,749
113
Moccasin Flats
Hey hey hey. I don't know about Rex but 20¢ per L in taxes has teleported work 12.675km closer and made my commute 25 minutes less.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
74,806
334
83
Vernon, B.C.
I agree completely and I can give you an example.


In Edmonton, we have buses that are "express" - they go though out the city in various locations and end up at a terminal. From the terminal they then go "express" to downtown, which means they don't stop anywhere. So far, so good. But then, when it comes time to go home, the last "express" bus leaves the downtown area at......5:00 p.m. which means only if you get off at 4:30 can you catch it. Most people I know who work downtown get off at 5.




JMHO


Enough to make one wish he/she was living in Grimshaw! :)
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
20,750
1,573
113
B.C.
Hey hey hey. I don't know about Rex but 20¢ per L in taxes has teleported work 12.675km closer and made my commute 25 minutes less.
Yup I'm thinking of moving back to Ditchmond for a lesser commute . Yikes
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Now Hear This, until from old age they take my license I am not riding a damn bus.
I am not going to carpool or share a vehicle or buy a smaller vehicle to satisfy a
noodle who want to shove me down the ladder of life. I am a senior and a farmer
and I will continue to use as much fuel as I please. Now being a farmer some of
that tax free fuel will make its way into my tank. I am sick of governments forcing
their view about carbon and the global warming nonsense down my throat
Makes me want to go out to the old Silverado and fire it up and let it run in the yard
for half an hour
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
20,750
1,573
113
B.C.
Now Hear This, until from old age they take my license I am not riding a damn bus.
I am not going to carpool or share a vehicle or buy a smaller vehicle to satisfy a
noodle who want to shove me down the ladder of life. I am a senior and a farmer
and I will continue to use as much fuel as I please. Now being a farmer some of
that tax free fuel will make its way into my tank. I am sick of governments forcing
their view about carbon and the global warming nonsense down my throat
Makes me want to go out to the old Silverado and fire it up and let it run in the yard
for half an hour
How do you like the liberal government so far ?
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
8,069
1,146
113
Olympus Mons
Rex Murphy: Burning the budget to heat the home

Obviously, with a successful election well behind her, those words are now moot. There will be a gasoline tax, and the rationalization for her reversal is, of course, the fight against climate change. The logic is basic, as far as economics is concerned: raise the price of something and people will buy less of it. And if people buy less, they drive less, and if they drive less, why then Ontario will, by some infinitesimal degree at some utterly indeterminable time, be cooler.

This is pure nonsense, of course, because gasoline is neither a shoe nor a watch. People do not fill up their tanks for show or therapy. They buy only what they need. People drive, almost exclusively, where they need to drive: to school with their children, to work, to run errands, to visit aging relatives. It’s something people in this world of ours need.
Even a monkey could figure that out, and not a special monkey either, just your run of the mill, average, everyday monkey. Here's the thing, gas prices have skyrocketed over the last 25 years. And yet, there are more cars on the road than ever. All 4.3 cents a liter does is hurt the lower income groups by creating an unnecessary price increase in food and consumer goods. And of course those price increases mean more tax revenues from the sale of those items too. It's a blatant tax grab, all so Ms. Hot Air can pretend she's doing something to save the planet.