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
      10-26-2018, 02:08 PM   #45
Bilbofraggins
First Lieutenant
Bilbofraggins's Avatar
Canada
72
Rep
366
Posts

Drives: 2013 X6M, 2015 X3 2.8i
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: NB, Canada

iTrader: (0)

All I can say is Roll on 2019.... Time to flush 💩eau...So much damage to the Nation in such a short time...
Appreciate 3
________2132.50
Zugzwang1005.00

      10-26-2018, 02:12 PM   #46
Grumpy Old Man
Lieutenant Colonel
Grumpy Old Man's Avatar
Canada
5798
Rep
1,781
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

From the article, at most 90% of the tax taken will be given back. Others have already noted that it won’t go directly or even proportionately to those who pay the most because of the tax (often poor who can not afford substitutes). Doesn’t seem like a very sensible nor fair system to me, but then I’m not Canadian.[/QUOTE]

My issue isn't with the rebate although the fact that the cheques will be getting mailed out in the lead up to the federal election seems an awful lot like vote buying.

My issue is that the rebates won't address the fact that the cost of everything will be going up due to the increase in cost to manufacturing/farming/transport/processing etc. Another fun fact is that since the pre retail price will be driven up we will then get taxed HST (Harmonized Sales Tax) on the increase in price caused by the Carbon Tax.

I'd love to see an analysis of how much the federal government will be collecting on that. Taxing a tax.....brings a tear to the liberal eye i'll bet.
Appreciate 2
2000cs858.50
Zugzwang1005.00

      10-26-2018, 02:19 PM   #47
JohnnyCanuck
Major
Canada
989
Rep
1,184
Posts

Drives: 2016 M235i xDrive
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
2008 was the global financial crisis where Canada faired better than any other G7 country. Also, the liberals managed to rape the EI fund of something like $50+ Billion dollars to get their house in order, It wasn't being fiscally or economically smart.
Are you deliberately choosing not to read before you respond. What I said, and is indisputable fact, is that the Harper government was in deficit before the crisis. They had completely chewed threw the budgetary and structural surpluses inherited from Chretien/Martin during strong economic times. Terrible fiscal management.

As for your other point ... yes, EI surpluses were redirected by the Liberals but EI has remained fiscally viable irrespective of that. The Chretien Liberals inherited a fiscal mess from Mulroney as a result of decades of fiscal mismanagement by the previous PC and Liberal governments. It made tough and difficult decisions to remedy that, including the EI one, but it was ultimately necessary. It is the only government in the past 40 years to take the issue of the fiscal side of the house seriously. And Harper, in two very short years, irresponsibly and deliberately destroyed the gains that were made for the sole purpose of political pandering.

As for your other point ... even Stephen Harper in his just released book credits Chretien and Martin for being the reason that Canada "... faired better than any other G7 country." It is widely recognized that the most significant reason why Canada faired better was the regulation of our financial sector and the credit for that lies solely with Jean Chretien. Even Martin and Manley wanted Canada to follow the deregulation pattern in the US and UK and it was Chretien who thought better of it. When Stephen Harper goes out of his way to credit a Liberal for anything, that should be enough for you.

If you're unwilling to give the Chretien/Martin government due credit for its fiscal management, all you're proving is that you're blindly partisan and that fact is irrelevant to you.
Appreciate 0
      10-26-2018, 02:22 PM   #48
MrRoboto
Brigadier General
Canada
1725
Rep
4,831
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
Are they going to rebate me the increase to the cost of everything other than fuel to heat my home or fuel for my car? I don't trust that the rebates will be anywhere close to coving the increases we are going to see on everything. The rebates aren't going to go to any manufacturing, distributing, farming, transportation etc. So their costs are mostly fixed and will go up, and they won't be absorbing that increase, it will get passed along to the consumer.

It would be great if you were right but I'll stand by my mistrust of government taxation and in particular Trudeau and his litany of broken promises, out right lies and fiscal ineptitude.
There are many provincial programs out there that offer rebates to implement more energy efficient products from windows, to heat pumps, to lightbulbs.

Costs may get passed on to the consumer but you don't have to buy what they are selling. Find alternatives.

Ontario could have avoided all of this if Ford had kept the cap and trade system in place and worked with the feds.
Appreciate 0
      10-26-2018, 02:42 PM   #49
Run Silent
Run Deep
Run Silent's Avatar
United_States
10371
Rep
2,924
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
I agree with what you wrote, our friend in the Tennessee mountains seems like he's in a region similar to Ontario as opposed to Vancouver. My point is also that the folks in much of BC live in a climate where they can easily rely less on fossil fuels than much of the rest of Canada.
Yes, that was the point I was trying to make - I felt that our regional similarities allowed a somewhat equitable comparison for utility and hydro rates.



Quote:
Originally Posted by 2000cs View Post
Iím not in the mining business but I am in a related (downstream) industry. I have toured surface, deep wall and narrow seam coal mines, and talked directly to miners and owners. I agree with usshelena on his points throughout this thread.

I have also talked to the people who live in Appalachian coal mining country where so-called MTM was practiced. I havenít seen any of it for years, although I do occasionally see city folk who have never been there (I ask) protesting it. The mountain people appreciate some level ground - it gives them buildable sites for golf, shopping and industry/jobs. I have never heard anyone from the mining areas, even non-miners, complain about the look or environmental impact of any form of mining.

Mining practices are high tech and high art; mining regulations are incredibly strict especially as it relates to water during mining operations and restoration after mining is complete (really as one area completes and an adjacent opens; it is kind of a continuous process for deep wall).
You've got all the main points spot on, sir.

For reference, our Asset Retirement Obligations net of current portion as of the most recent form 10-K (2017) were $538,000,000. It's not chump change.

Also - see before/after photos below:
__________________
Nou gaan ons braai!

Last edited by Run Silent; 07-11-2019 at 07:27 AM..
Appreciate 1
2000cs858.50

      10-26-2018, 03:33 PM   #50
Grumpy Old Man
Lieutenant Colonel
Grumpy Old Man's Avatar
Canada
5798
Rep
1,781
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck View Post
Are you deliberately choosing not to read before you respond. What I said, and is indisputable fact, is that the Harper government was in deficit before the crisis. They had completely chewed threw the budgetary and structural surpluses inherited from Chretien/Martin during strong economic times. Terrible fiscal management.

As for your other point ... yes, EI surpluses were redirected by the Liberals but EI has remained fiscally viable irrespective of that. The Chretien Liberals inherited a fiscal mess from Mulroney as a result of decades of fiscal mismanagement by the previous PC and Liberal governments. It made tough and difficult decisions to remedy that, including the EI one, but it was ultimately necessary. It is the only government in the past 40 years to take the issue of the fiscal side of the house seriously. And Harper, in two very short years, irresponsibly and deliberately destroyed the gains that were made for the sole purpose of political pandering.

As for your other point ... even Stephen Harper in his just released book credits Chretien and Martin for being the reason that Canada "... faired better than any other G7 country." It is widely recognized that the most significant reason why Canada faired better was the regulation of our financial sector and the credit for that lies solely with Jean Chretien. Even Martin and Manley wanted Canada to follow the deregulation pattern in the US and UK and it was Chretien who thought better of it. When Stephen Harper goes out of his way to credit a Liberal for anything, that should be enough for you.

If you're unwilling to give the Chretien/Martin government due credit for its fiscal management, all you're proving is that you're blindly partisan and that fact is irrelevant to you.
As for your other point ... yes, EI surpluses were redirected by the Liberals...

"redirected"? Sorry, BS government speak. Those funds were never intended to be used for anything other than unemployment insurance, sorry I'm old and thats what it is to me. Taking money out of an account that you have no right to and then claiming you balanced the books is weak at best.
Appreciate 1
Zugzwang1005.00

      10-26-2018, 03:36 PM   #51
Grumpy Old Man
Lieutenant Colonel
Grumpy Old Man's Avatar
Canada
5798
Rep
1,781
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

I guess time will tell to see that if the new tax is revenue neutral and prices on everything else don't go up. I'm going to suggest the price on everything will go up at least 5% in the short term, the government will collect HST on that 5% and then prices will go up more.....I hope i'm wrong but I can't recall a time when any government hasn't raised taxes and the cost of living.
Appreciate 1
Run Silent10370.50

      10-26-2018, 04:10 PM   #52
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
7369
Rep
7,085
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

Wait, it's in Canadian (play) money. Never mind then
Appreciate 3
Run Silent10370.50
MKSixer13430.00

      10-26-2018, 04:12 PM   #53
JohnnyCanuck
Major
Canada
989
Rep
1,184
Posts

Drives: 2016 M235i xDrive
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
As for your other point ... yes, EI surpluses were redirected by the Liberals...

"redirected"? Sorry, BS government speak. Those funds were never intended to be used for anything other than unemployment insurance, sorry I'm old and thats what it is to me. Taking money out of an account that you have no right to and then claiming you balanced the books is weak at best.
In principle I actually agree with you and if the same thing had happened with CPP (for example) it'd be outrageous. However, I do think there are a couple of legitimate counter-points: one, they didn't balance the books on just the EI surplus, it was part of a pretty comprehensive program of reining in spending and smoothing revenue; and two, EI is essentially a payroll tax and I suppose the right thing to do would have been to rebate the surplus and then introduce a payroll tax when you think of the big drivers of program spending they are the type of things that payroll taxes are commonly used to cover (transfer payments for health care at the top of the list).

All that said ... on balance the only government we've had for decades who paid any attention to the fiscal side of the house was the Chretien/Martin Liberals. Trudeau 1 didn't. Mulroney didn't. Clark/Campbell/Turner don't count given the shortness of their tenures. Harper didn't. And, Trudeau 2 so far hasn't. And, the direction we're going (and not just Canada) is that wedge politics are influencing fiscal policy decisions more and more making it less and less likely that anyone will ever properly address fiscal imperatives. As much as I am not thrilled with the current government in this respect, there is a less than zero chance that Andrew Scheer will be any better.
Appreciate 1
      10-26-2018, 04:13 PM   #54
Grumpy Old Man
Lieutenant Colonel
Grumpy Old Man's Avatar
Canada
5798
Rep
1,781
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
Wait, it's in Canadian (play) money. Never mind then
That maybe true, but I still have to fork it over.....
Appreciate 1
________2132.50

      10-26-2018, 04:24 PM   #55
Run Silent
Run Deep
Run Silent's Avatar
United_States
10371
Rep
2,924
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
Wait, it's in Canadian (play) money. Never mind then
Well....there are some similarities.....
__________________
Nou gaan ons braai!

Last edited by Run Silent; 07-11-2019 at 07:27 AM..
Appreciate 2
      10-26-2018, 04:46 PM   #56
glennQNYC
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
glennQNYC's Avatar
United_States
4934
Rep
4,739
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
If this is so needed and beneficial; why exempt air travel? There are lots of plane tickets purchased purely for pleasure trips. Shouldn't they contribute to this cause or explore utilizing more "green" methods of travel?
__________________
Appreciate 3
________2132.50
c1pher1382.50

      10-26-2018, 05:04 PM   #57
________
Lieutenant Colonel
2133
Rep
1,514
Posts

Drives: _
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: _

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
If this is so needed and beneficial; why exempt air travel? There are lots of plane tickets purchased purely for pleasure trips. Shouldn't they contribute to this cause or explore utilizing more "green" methods of travel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
If this is so needed and beneficial; why exempt air travel? There are lots of plane tickets purchased purely for pleasure trips. Shouldn't they contribute to this cause or explore utilizing more "green" methods of travel?
I hear walking around the park is the greenest pleasure trip ever. Followed by a Google Street View of Rome, of course.
Appreciate 0
      10-27-2018, 06:34 AM   #58
TomHudson
Captain
447
Rep
884
Posts

Drives: 2011 E90 M3
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Toronto

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
If this is so needed and beneficial; why exempt air travel? There are lots of plane tickets purchased purely for pleasure trips. Shouldn't they contribute to this cause or explore utilizing more "green" methods of travel?
Air travel is probably the tightest margins to make money, and already subjected to multiple taxes and fees and in Canada is very expensive.
Since Iím in Toronto, I drive to Buffalo and fly from there and save a fortune, especially if itís a family trip. I have yet to fly to the west coast of Canada due to the expense, and I blame unnecessary taxes that hinder domestic travel.

Whether the Government wants to call this a tax or not, it will be less money in my pocket at the end if the fiscal year, and thus will affect my spending habits. The things that will not change is the amount I drive, having 2 cars, electricity use, natural gas use, transportation habits etc. Therefore negatively impacting my disposable income.

As I have previously said, with having this fee collected and redistributed to others without the same demands of family, housing and transportation it results in being wealth redistribution with government taking itís share.

As itís been previously mention, once this fee (tax) is collected, it can be distributed to whatever program the sitting government sees fit. Once extra taxes are implemented, they are nearly impossible to rescind and rarely support the program it was intended.

Sitting at 1.6% of global GHGís many small communities with low family incomes are already facing extra fees of nearly $1000 per year (Nova Scotia for ex). These communities feel ďguiltyĒ and want change and disproportionately take an unnecessary burden on local taxpayers. Charlottetown PEI is looking at buying electric buses at $1 million per (twice the price of diesel). Itís crazy expensive!

Obviously something I canít and donít support.
Appreciate 3
Run Silent10370.50
2000cs858.50

      10-27-2018, 09:35 AM   #59
bbbbmw
Major General
2358
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRoboto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
The article was published June 27th, 2018 and it the way I read it seems to indicate that it is based on Stats Canada data and analysis from a number of reputable universities. If you seriously believe Trudeau you are very naive, and if you believe that taxing carbon is going to make life cheaper than you are even more naive. Only the liberals believe that this will make life cheaper, I've yet to hear one explanation that this will save me money or actually green the planet.
The numbers quoted in the article are from a report from April 2017 by Dr Jennifer Winter and completely taken out of context.

https://www.policyschool.ca/effect-c...an-households/
https://www.policyschool.ca/calculat...s-challenging/

The math is very simple, spend less on carbon taxed products then your rebate check is for and you're ahead.
Wouldn't it make far more sense to simply tax these products at a higher rate, and just leave the consumer out of it? Rather than some funky bait-and-switch government scheme?

This reminds me of Obamacare, and Gruber's remarks that it was based upon the "stupidity of the American voter."
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 1
      10-27-2018, 09:37 AM   #60
bbbbmw
Major General
2358
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by usshelena725 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomHudson View Post
As Canadians we seem to absorb a huge moral issue when contribute less than 2% of global GHG emissions. Considering it’s the seconds largest country in the world, any transportation is going to be energy consumed. Also a Northern climate has its burden to be heated and illuminated for many months of the year.
Per the Paris Accords:

Total reduction in carbon emissions to limit global temp growth to only 1.5c is 15 gigatons annually. Or 15,000,000,000 tons. Total emissions generated by Canada is 563,000,000 tons. So if we just shut off all the electricity, heat, infrastructure, gas, transportation, and any other modern convenience in Canada, it still wouldn't matter. For the Canadian government to tax its citizens with absolutely zero gain for anyone is absurd.

Even if every single country on earth reverted back to pre-industrial revolution emissions levels, the censuses among climate scientists and agreed upon by the Paris Accords states that it would still take as long as 1,000 years after a complete halt of greenhouse gas emissions for environmental measures like sea level and ocean surface temperature to return to pre-industrial levels.

It is all a total scam.
Never mind that it's based upon the whole Global Warming scam in the first place.

Utter nonsense.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 3
arkie6299.00
Run Silent10370.50
glennQNYC4933.50

      10-27-2018, 03:24 PM   #61
MrRoboto
Brigadier General
Canada
1725
Rep
4,831
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Wouldn't it make far more sense to simply tax these products at a higher rate, and just leave the consumer out of it? Rather than some funky bait-and-switch government scheme?

This reminds me of Obamacare, and Gruber's remarks that it was based upon the "stupidity of the American voter."
That's basically exactly what is happening. Green energy producers aren't subject to a 'pollution tax' The consumer has to be involved...who is going to buy or not buy the products.
Appreciate 0
      10-27-2018, 05:47 PM   #62
Grumpy Old Man
Lieutenant Colonel
Grumpy Old Man's Avatar
Canada
5798
Rep
1,781
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
That's basically exactly what is happening. Green energy producers aren't subject to a 'pollution tax' The consumer has to be involved...who is going to buy or not buy the products.
When you say "products", you mean like food and clothing, heat, hydro and fuel for your car?
Appreciate 0
      10-28-2018, 06:56 AM   #63
TomHudson
Captain
447
Rep
884
Posts

Drives: 2011 E90 M3
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Toronto

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRoboto View Post
That's basically exactly what is happening. Green energy producers aren't subject to a 'pollution tax' The consumer has to be involved...who is going to buy or not buy the products.
I work for a 100% paper recycling company that produces roll paper from our Mills and produces corrugated products. We are subjected to every tax and fee the governments on every level can levy on us. There is no pass for what I would consider fundamentally Green by leaving trees standing and keeping paper out of landfills.
With a limited market in Canada, and competition, weíre expanding into the US in partnerships with US companies.

As margins get tighter to make money in Canada, subsidized US companies are making new high tech machines that will make ours obsolete. There is no incentive to build a new machine in Canada, with a cost in the high 100ís of millions.

We can actually do real environmental work here without ruining our manufacturing base and buying European sourced Green panels and wind mills....
Appreciate 1
      10-28-2018, 08:02 AM   #64
c1pher
Primo Generalissimo
United_States
1383
Rep
2,239
Posts

Drives: Porsche Macan Turbo
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: DC area

iTrader: (0)

But if I own six vehicles but can only drive one of them at a time, should I pay more than the guy who owns the tuned diesel turbo F350 with no cats and daily drives it?
Appreciate 0
      10-28-2018, 10:30 AM   #65
glennQNYC
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
glennQNYC's Avatar
United_States
4934
Rep
4,739
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by MGM135is View Post
But if I own six vehicles but can only drive one of them at a time, should I pay more than the guy who owns the tuned diesel turbo F350 with no cats and daily drives it?
How would this work... Only your first vehicle or two gets taxed? As the number of vehicles owned goes up, the tax goes down?
__________________
Appreciate 0
      10-28-2018, 10:40 AM   #66
glennQNYC
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
glennQNYC's Avatar
United_States
4934
Rep
4,739
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomHudson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
If this is so needed and beneficial; why exempt air travel? There are lots of plane tickets purchased purely for pleasure trips. Shouldn't they contribute to this cause or explore utilizing more "green" methods of travel?
Air travel is probably the tightest margins to make money, and already subjected to multiple taxes and fees and in Canada is very expensive.
I'm not assuming there would be any reduction in margin... This additional fee would necessarily be passed straight into the consumer. Isn't that the point of these fees in the first place? To incentivize behavior towards green options?

I find it very interesting that air travel gets a waiver when it's a huge polluter and many trips are for pleasure in the first place. IMO this detail is a clear display of how this isn't a serious plan for addressing the purported challenge, and is instead just a creative implementation of a new revenue source with a happy face pasted on it.
__________________
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 06:11 PM.




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