BMW E60 5-Series Forum | 5Post.com  
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  

Go Back   BMW E60 5-Series Forum | 5Post.com > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      11-05-2018, 10:37 AM   #133
________
Lieutenant Colonel
2136
Rep
1,514
Posts

Drives: _
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: _

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRoboto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnerDriver View Post
If I change my source of heating from oil to a greener alternative, that implies the producers of oil will need to produce less of it, and will pay less carbon tax, with less carbon tax, there's less money to provide me with a rebate.

With my rebate getting lower as I move to the greener alternative, how am I making more money in the long run?
The price per tonne is going up for the carbon emitters over time.

Your rebate is not based on actual consumption...it's all statistics.
All I'm hearing is you blindly believe this, but I'm not grasping any factual information to buy-into this idea.

Which is ok. But please count me out and the provinces here will not abide by this. From the border of Alberta to the border of Quebec this will not pass.
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2018, 10:38 AM   #134
Run Silent
Run Deep
Run Silent's Avatar
United_States
12374
Rep
3,447
Posts

Drives: Back and Forth To Work
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: The Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRoboto View Post
They are directly related. By law the carbon tax had to be revenue neutral. In order to achieve this the government had to reduce income taxes, etc to offset the increased the revenue coming in from the carbon tax.
By fact, if what you describe is totally accurate, then you have just proved that the system has not created any of the benefits you describe.

If the cap/trade program was completely revenue neutral and didn't add any additional expense to any taxpayer, then it would created a completely neutral effect for the business environment as well - causing a net zero effect (I doubt this, as no tax will ever spur the business it attaches itself too, but that is a different argument).

Bottom line, the tax plan didn't create any of the positive things you mention, the two items are corollary, not causative.

If I stub my toe and then later that day, I receive a promotion at work, the subbed toe didn't cause me to get promoted. This analogy is basically what you are trying to state, lol.


.
__________________
Don't sweat petty things....or pet sweaty things.
Appreciate 2
________2135.50
MKSixer15647.50

      11-05-2018, 10:41 AM   #135
MrRoboto
Brigadier General
Canada
1742
Rep
4,836
Posts

Drives: VO 1M
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnerDriver View Post
So now you're stating that the purpose of the tax is not to comply with the Paris Agreement, but rather to make the provinces more competitive and better-off economically?

Or, instead of counter-intuitively hindering a country's performance, the carbon taxes assist in its development?

No-brainer!
BC did this on it's own. Not related to the Paris agreement. Asa I have said numerous time, if the provinces have their own plan, they aren't subject to the federal tax.

In the BC example, their plan has not only have met the pollution reduction targets but has also benefitted the taxpayers and businesses economically.
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2018, 10:46 AM   #136
MrRoboto
Brigadier General
Canada
1742
Rep
4,836
Posts

Drives: VO 1M
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnerDriver View Post
All I'm hearing is you blindly believe this, but I'm not grasping any factual information to buy-into this idea.

Which is ok. But please count me out and the provinces here will not abide by this. From the border of Alberta to the border of Quebec this will not pass.
I am not blindly believing anything. I have read the plan on how it's all suppose to work and we'll have to wait and see if it does or not.
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2018, 10:49 AM   #137
MrRoboto
Brigadier General
Canada
1742
Rep
4,836
Posts

Drives: VO 1M
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by usshelena725 View Post
By fact, if what you describe is totally accurate, then you have just proved that the system has not created any of the benefits you describe.

If the cap/trade program was completely revenue neutral and didn't add any additional expense to any taxpayer, then it would created a completely neutral effect for the business environment as well - causing a net zero effect (I doubt this, as no tax will ever spur the business it attaches itself too, but that is a different argument).

Bottom line, the tax plan didn't create any of the positive things you mention, the two items are corollary, not causative.

If I stub my toe and then later that day, I receive a promotion at work, the subbed toe didn't cause me to get promoted. This analogy is basically what you are trying to state, lol.

.
You're not understanding. Read the article.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle19512237/
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2018, 11:06 AM   #138
MrRoboto
Brigadier General
Canada
1742
Rep
4,836
Posts

Drives: VO 1M
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by usshelena725 View Post
No, I understand just fine. You stated that the current cap and trade program in the province is a direct cause of the economic positives in said province. That is not factually accurate, irrespective of what any article states.


.
Seems pretty black and white to me. If the carbon tax hadn't been introduced in BC then the reductions in the other taxes wouldn't have happened to offset those revenues.
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2018, 11:32 AM   #139
MrRoboto
Brigadier General
Canada
1742
Rep
4,836
Posts

Drives: VO 1M
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by usshelena725 View Post
The feeling is mutual.
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2018, 12:47 PM   #140
City Pig
Lieutenant Colonel
City Pig's Avatar
Canada
6102
Rep
1,970
Posts

Drives: Porsche 993, 2015 MB GLK
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Niagara on the Lake

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRoboto View Post
They are directly related. By law the carbon tax had to be revenue neutral. In order to achieve this the government had to reduce income taxes, etc to offset the increased the revenue coming in from the carbon tax.
Except, it's no longer revenue neutral.

https://business.financialpost.com/o...ment-cash-grab
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2018, 12:56 PM   #141
MrRoboto
Brigadier General
Canada
1742
Rep
4,836
Posts

Drives: VO 1M
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
Except, it's no longer revenue neutral.

https://business.financialpost.com/o...ment-cash-grab
Link broken.
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2018, 01:11 PM   #142
City Pig
Lieutenant Colonel
City Pig's Avatar
Canada
6102
Rep
1,970
Posts

Drives: Porsche 993, 2015 MB GLK
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Niagara on the Lake

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRoboto View Post
Link broken.
I've cut and pasted it from the Financial Post for you.

How B.C.’s formerly ‘revenue neutral’ carbon tax turned into another government cash grab

Charles Lammam and Taylor Jackson: The carbon tax will result in a cumulative $865 million tax increase on British Columbians — so much for revenue neutrality

In a major announcement last year, the Trudeau government imposed a policy that will require all provinces to put a price on carbon emissions by 2018. As governments in Canada and elsewhere pursue carbon pricing, British Columbia’s carbon tax has received global praise as the gold standard.

Both the United Nations and the World Bank have declared B.C.’s “revenue neutral” carbon tax the model to follow. The OECD called it a “text book” example of how to implement carbon pricing. Commentators in Canada and the U.S have similarly hyped B.C.’s carbon tax, arguing it’s proof that governments can get carbon policy right.

One of the underlying reasons for all this praise is the alleged revenue neutrality of B.C.’s carbon tax. Revenue neutrality simply means any new revenue from the carbon tax is offset with new tax cuts to ensure there’s no net tax increase from the policy.

But there’s a fundamental problem with the B.C. model and proponents would do well to temper their enthusiasm: B.C.’s carbon tax is not actually revenue neutral.

Back in 2008/09, when the province first introduced the carbon tax, the B.C. government promised revenue neutrality. And initially it was. To offset the new revenue, the government introduced new cuts to personal and business tax rates and a new tax credit for low-income earners. The value of these new tax reductions was enough to offset all the new revenue generated from the carbon tax.

However, just five years later, as the carbon-tax revenue increased, the government no longer provided new tax cuts that sufficiently offset the carbon tax’s revenue. In other words, B.C.’s carbon tax ceased being revenue neutral in 2013/14.

This is certainly contrary to what the B.C. government reports in its official documents, which claim that the total value of tax cuts more than offsets carbon tax revenue. By 2013/14, the government was no longer solely relying on new tax reductions to offset carbon-tax revenue and instead began using pre-existing tax credits to give the appearance of revenue neutrality.

Carbon taxes will add up to an $865-million tax increase on British Columbians
In fact, a number of the tax credits the government now counts as offsets were first introduced in the 1990s — well before their inclusion in the government’s revenue-neutral calculation.

Once the pre-existing tax reductions are properly removed from the government’s revenue-neutral calculation, B.C. taxpayers endured a net tax increase of $226 million in 2013/14 and $151 million in 2014/15. Those numbers are based on historical data.

According to data from the government’s own projections, the carbon tax will result in a cumulative $865 million tax increase on British Columbians between 2013/14 and 2018/19. So much for revenue neutrality.

But the problems don’t end there.

Like all taxes, a carbon tax imposes economic costs beyond the amount of money the tax raises, as people change their behaviour in ways that reduce economic output. Part of the rationale for a revenue-neutral carbon tax is to mitigate this effect by concurrently cutting other taxes that also distort economic activity such as personal and corporate tax rates.

In recent years, however, a much smaller share of B.C.’s carbon tax is being offset by cuts to broad-based tax rates that actually improve incentives and foster economic activity. Specifically, before 2013/14, cuts to B.C.’s general corporate income tax rate and two lowest personal income tax rates totalled, on average, more than 60 per cent of the revenue generated by the carbon tax. From 2013/14 onwards, these tax cuts account for less than 45 per cent of the revenue generated by the carbon tax.

While an increasing share of carbon-tax revenue is being offset with targeted tax credits for specific individuals and businesses, these types of tax measures do virtually nothing to mitigate the economic costs of the carbon tax.

B.C.’s carbon tax is evidence that once political realities set in, the textbook theory of a revenue-neutral carbon tax unravels. B.C.’s carbon tax is not the “gold standard” it’s often made out to be.

Charles Lammam and Taylor Jackson are co- authors of the Fraser Institute study, “Examining the Revenue Neutrality of British Columbia’s Carbon Tax.”
Appreciate 3
________2135.50
Run Silent12373.50
MKSixer15647.50

      11-05-2018, 01:38 PM   #143
City Pig
Lieutenant Colonel
City Pig's Avatar
Canada
6102
Rep
1,970
Posts

Drives: Porsche 993, 2015 MB GLK
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Niagara on the Lake

iTrader: (0)

Here are a few more stories debunking revenue neutral BC carbon tax.
Many of these are left leaning publications.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3255195/b...l-claim-study/

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...mostly-hot-air

http://theclimateexaminer.ca/2017/09...ue-neutrality/

https://www.timescolonist.com/opinio...ver-1.23070822

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ticle36488526/

https://www.macleans.ca/economy/econ...ifferent-path/

Last edited by City Pig; 11-05-2018 at 01:46 PM..
Appreciate 2
Run Silent12373.50
________2135.50

      11-05-2018, 01:46 PM   #144
Run Silent
Run Deep
Run Silent's Avatar
United_States
12374
Rep
3,447
Posts

Drives: Back and Forth To Work
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: The Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Garage List


The general populace should understand that taxes will never be revenue neutral. To think otherwise is just to broadcast stupidity.

If the government spends time to come up with a new tax, that is exactly what it will be - a new tax....in addition to what you already pay.
__________________
Don't sweat petty things....or pet sweaty things.
Appreciate 2
MKSixer15647.50
glennQNYC5628.00

      11-05-2018, 01:51 PM   #145
MKSixer
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar
15648
Rep
7,591
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
As I've stated ad nauseam...another cash grab based on lies and deception. When are people going to educate themselves enough to stop falling for this shell game. It's a disgrace.

This is Canada's version of, "You have to pass the law to see what's in the law." I'm physically ill now.

__________________
Several actors have played James Bond, Sean Connery IS James Bond...

Lewi6, First of His Name, Destroyer of Careers, Master of Pole Positions, 6X WDC, Master of All Tracks, Scorer of Maximum Points, Whisperer of Tires, Minimizer of Fuel Utilization, Maximizer of Consistency in Finishing. Look Upon Him With DRED.
Appreciate 3
City Pig6102.00
Run Silent12373.50
________2135.50

      11-05-2018, 01:55 PM   #146
City Pig
Lieutenant Colonel
City Pig's Avatar
Canada
6102
Rep
1,970
Posts

Drives: Porsche 993, 2015 MB GLK
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Niagara on the Lake

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
As I've stated ad nauseam...another cash grab based on lies and deception. When are people going to educate themselves enough to stop falling for this shell game. It's a disgrace.

This is Canada's version of, "You have to pass the law to see what's in the law." I'm physically ill now.

What I find both sickening and shocking is the number of people who actually believe this non-sense. Not that we pollute, of course we do and of course we should pollute less, but the notion that taxing us for something that we have little control of and telling us it will be revenue neutral. Simple logic shows the contrary and a few quick internet searches supports that truth.
Appreciate 4
Run Silent12373.50
MKSixer15647.50
________2135.50
glennQNYC5628.00

      11-05-2018, 01:59 PM   #147
MKSixer
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar
15648
Rep
7,591
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
What I find both sickening and shocking is the number of people who actually believe this non-sense. Not that we pollute, of course we do and of course we should pollute less, but the notion that taxing us for something that we have little control of and telling us it will be revenue neutral. Simple logic shows the contrary and a few quick internet searches supports that truth.
Exactly. I understand the hope of making something positive happen but there is NO BENEFIT to attaching a financial inducement to this and we all know what it's for. It's a wealth transference scheme.

It's shameful in every way and cannot be excused.
__________________
Several actors have played James Bond, Sean Connery IS James Bond...

Lewi6, First of His Name, Destroyer of Careers, Master of Pole Positions, 6X WDC, Master of All Tracks, Scorer of Maximum Points, Whisperer of Tires, Minimizer of Fuel Utilization, Maximizer of Consistency in Finishing. Look Upon Him With DRED.
Appreciate 2
________2135.50
City Pig6102.00

      11-05-2018, 03:03 PM   #148
MrRoboto
Brigadier General
Canada
1742
Rep
4,836
Posts

Drives: VO 1M
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
What I find both sickening and shocking is the number of people who actually believe this non-sense. Not that we pollute, of course we do and of course we should pollute less, but the notion that taxing us for something that we have little control of and telling us it will be revenue neutral. Simple logic shows the contrary and a few quick internet searches supports that truth.
What other option does the government have? Maybe we shouldn't have signed on to the accord in the first place.
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2018, 03:05 PM   #149
________
Lieutenant Colonel
2136
Rep
1,514
Posts

Drives: _
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: _

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRoboto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
What I find both sickening and shocking is the number of people who actually believe this non-sense. Not that we pollute, of course we do and of course we should pollute less, but the notion that taxing us for something that we have little control of and telling us it will be revenue neutral. Simple logic shows the contrary and a few quick internet searches supports that truth.
What other option does the government have?
I gave you one example and you ignored it lol
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2018, 03:11 PM   #150
City Pig
Lieutenant Colonel
City Pig's Avatar
Canada
6102
Rep
1,970
Posts

Drives: Porsche 993, 2015 MB GLK
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Niagara on the Lake

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRoboto View Post
What other option does the government have? Maybe we shouldn't have signed on to the accord in the first place.
I'll just attach my earlier post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRoboto View Post
The provinces should have developed their own program. Carbon pricing has been in place in BC since 2008 and has been successful. Ontario had a cap and trade program but Ford scrapped it and cost the taxpayers 3B to refund companies on carbon credits and eliminated the federal transfer payments. Ford should have worked with the previous plan to make it better.
As I said earlier, Canada has a negative GHG impact on the planet. Ontario cut it's GHG emissions by 22% by eliminating coal fired hydro and replacing it with solar and wind power at enormous cost and driving up the cost of electricity by well over 100% making Ontario the most expensive place to electricity in North America. Why do we need any tax on carbon? Experts continue to say Ontario and Canadas reduction will have zero global impact.

With respect to BC, my understanding is that the rebates are not necessarily given to the tax payer but for example in the form of tax credits for the film industry. So I guess the math may be revenue neutral but the money isn't going back to the consumer. I'm also hearing that the program has actually stopped being revenue neutral.

https://business.financialpost.com/o...ment-cash-grab

If that's your position why have you ignored my repeated assertions that this tax will drive up the cost of every single thing we purchase and therefore will not be revenue neutral.

We don't need this tax, the Liberals own expert says it will have zero effect globally and yet we press on. Perhaps we need to pull out of the Paris Accord, the USA has.

You continually assert that the tax will be revenue neutral as it is in BC, I've given at least 6 sources/articles that say it won't. Just saying something over and over doesn't make it true. This will cost us all more, much more and government won't back off once it's implemented as they will be addicted to the revenue as we have all seen time and again.

Last edited by City Pig; 11-05-2018 at 03:22 PM..
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2018, 03:19 PM   #151
MrRoboto
Brigadier General
Canada
1742
Rep
4,836
Posts

Drives: VO 1M
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnerDriver View Post
I gave you one example and you ignored it lol
I must have missed it. I'll go back and review.
Appreciate 1
________2135.50

      11-05-2018, 03:21 PM   #152
MrRoboto
Brigadier General
Canada
1742
Rep
4,836
Posts

Drives: VO 1M
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
I've not ignored a single thing you've said, but if that's your position why have you ignored my repeated assertions that this tax will drive up the cost of every single thing we purchase and therefore will not be revenue neutral.

We don't need this tax, the Liberals own expert says it will have zero effect globally and yet we press on. Perhaps we need to pull out of the Paris Accord, the USA has.

You continually assert that the tax will be revenue neutral as it is in BC, I've given at least 6 sources/articles that say it won't. Just saying something over and over doesn't make it true. This will cost us all more, much more and government won't back off once it's implemented as they will be addicted to the revenue as we have all seen time and again. LOL
I think you are talking to the wrong guy. No-one said you ignored anything.
Appreciate 1
________2135.50

      11-05-2018, 03:23 PM   #153
City Pig
Lieutenant Colonel
City Pig's Avatar
Canada
6102
Rep
1,970
Posts

Drives: Porsche 993, 2015 MB GLK
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Niagara on the Lake

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRoboto View Post
I think you are talking to the wrong guy. No-one said you ignored anything.
I fixed that, thanks.
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2018, 03:36 PM   #154
MrRoboto
Brigadier General
Canada
1742
Rep
4,836
Posts

Drives: VO 1M
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
I'll just attach my earlier post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRoboto View Post
The provinces should have developed their own program. Carbon pricing has been in place in BC since 2008 and has been successful. Ontario had a cap and trade program but Ford scrapped it and cost the taxpayers 3B to refund companies on carbon credits and eliminated the federal transfer payments. Ford should have worked with the previous plan to make it better.
As I said earlier, Canada has a negative GHG impact on the planet. Ontario cut it's GHG emissions by 22% by eliminating coal fired hydro and replacing it with solar and wind power at enormous cost and driving up the cost of electricity by well over 100% making Ontario the most expensive place to electricity in North America. Why do we need any tax on carbon? Experts continue to say Ontario and Canadas reduction will have zero global impact.

With respect to BC, my understanding is that the rebates are not necessarily given to the tax payer but for example in the form of tax credits for the film industry. So I guess the math may be revenue neutral but the money isn't going back to the consumer. I'm also hearing that the program has actually stopped being revenue neutral.

https://business.financialpost.com/o...ment-cash-grab

If that's your position why have you ignored my repeated assertions that this tax will drive up the cost of every single thing we purchase and therefore will not be revenue neutral.

We don't need this tax, the Liberals own expert says it will have zero effect globally and yet we press on. Perhaps we need to pull out of the Paris Accord, the USA has.

You continually assert that the tax will be revenue neutral as it is in BC, I've given at least 6 sources/articles that say it won't. Just saying something over and over doesn't make it true. This will cost us all more, much more and government won't back off once it's implemented as they will be addicted to the revenue as we have all seen time and again.

Hold on a sec. I thought the vast majority of 60%+ of Ontarios energy comes from Nuclear and less then 5% is solar so that can't be the only reason for Ontario's high power prices.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:19 AM.




5post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST