A lot of talk has been had about the politically suicidal aspect of Stephane Dion’s rumoured crusade to introduce a carbon tax into the federal tax structure. We’re told it’s good policy, but bad politics and even some conservatives are reluctant to disagree with that statement given that a carbon tax can be crafted out as a consumption tax that would allow people to save money instead of having the taxman gouge them before they even see the paycheque.
A fundamental component of the debate has been ignored so far though and that is whether a tax on the sixth element of the periodic table is really such a good idea after all. For example, I relayed a report late last year on how an obsessive academic from Australia proposed the sick ideal of putting a carbon tax on each baby born into the world and a yearly tax on children for the first years of their lives. As we have our national government apologizing for the Chinese head tax of almost 100 years ago, calling the practice a shameful blemish from our past, eco-liberals are gearing up to add a tax that doesn’t discriminate on race necessarily but on simply existing. The professor was never quite clear on what would happen if families either refused or could not afford to pay the tax, although he was certainly joyous in announcing how this would effectively womens’ (and mens’) right to chose to have their babies (something liberals often love to do except when they know the choice will result in one less life in the world).
On the other end of the age spectrum though, Stephane Dion’s carbon tax threatens the well-being of our society. While details haven’t been offered by many pundits so far, I’m sure more than a few of them have been sharing my imagination of a Conservative attack ad picturing an elderly old lady, huddled in the corner of a dark, snow-squalling room; as the picture pans out from the detailed sadness of this lonely old woman, a caption will read something to the effect that the retired lady wouldn’t afford heat because that nasty Scrooge of a Liberal, Stephane Dion, is taxing coal so high that she can’t afford to keep warm this Christmas/winter. Whether or not we end up seeing an ad like this run, the fact still remains that some fixed-income Canadians will be hit hard by a carbon tax, often in the case where they slaved away their whole lives under an income tax system that punished them when they were making more money. Now they wouldn’t make as much, which should reduce their burden under income tax, but would be sideswiped by the Dion carbon tax at a time in their lives where going out to make more money simply wouldn’t be an option.
Finally, we have to realize just what a ridiculous notion it is for the Liberals to propose that a carbon tax would be tax neutral. Take the mathematical equation ax + by + cz = 100, where a, b, and c are the percentages of total tax that three hypothetical taxpayers, x, y, and z, would pay into the system. If a tax shift were truly neutral (and Canadians have good reason to believe that no political party that proposes a new tax will EVER deliver on the neutrality promise), that 100 would have to stay the same since it represents 100% of the taxes the government collects now.
On the one hand, it may go down for x because he doesn’t buy as much carbon in a year, but z’s burden might go up because she lives on a rural farm where oil heating and a truck are the necessities of a farmer, not the luxury that we might think. Will *big oil* account for some of the z’s out there who will see their tax bill increase? Most definately, but who do you think will pay for it in the end? The fat cat execs who The Left is always telling us about, or the common Canadian who goes to fill up at the pump?
On the other hand, we have to ask just why the Liberal spin doctors are already playing up the tax neutral element of such a carbon tax? After all, either the government isn’t going to be collecting the same amount of money because carbon usage will go down (in which case, we have to ask how Dion plans to fund his national daycare and other new spending projects), or they will and we will be essentially using the same amount of carbon. Thinking further, what isn’t carbon out there? Bread? Wrong. Clothes? Try again. Wood? Look elsewhere. In fact, the only things I can think of off the top of my head are computer chips and software programmes that are downloaded off the internet. Not exactly the bare necessities but I’m sure the tech industry is already thrilled that our government already presumes that we’re pirates and thieves every time we buy a CD/DVD and is itching to get into the flash drive market as well (think of it as a silicon tax — maybe we should just harmonize it with Dion’s carbon tax and have a tax on all IV A elements!).
Ultimately though, if the Liberals are willing to fight for this one in an election, I say go for it. After all, it wouldn’t take long for someone to point out the obvious: if all this environmental posturing we’re doing now is meant to save the Earth and, ultimately, our existence as a species, why would we impose a tax that would be so destructive both to our children and our elderly? Isn’t the point about making our quality of life better? And once the debate is framed that way, Dion’s already ill-advised plan will be toast and we won’t have to hear any more about eco-radicalism, or at least until the summer of 2024 when we have a couple more days over 30 than usual!
William wrote:
Would someone ask Mr. Suzuki…
Why does Dion think his job is to CHANGE MY lifestyle?
Why is MY lifestyle to be taxed into oblivion?
Why can China build 500+ coal-fired energy plants, but Ontario isn’t allowed to build 5?
Why is energy from coal good for the Chinese, but bad for Canadians?
Does burning coal in Canada cause global warming? ..while burning coal in China does NOT.
and one more thing…
Is there a global warming crisis or not?
Posted on 18-May-08 at 7:21 pm | Permalink
Aviator wrote:
Many good points, but the tax on children was a spoof, like the zebras losing their stripes and ’second-hand alcohol’. They just were poking fun at the ludicrous things claimed by the Global Warming crowd. CO2 is a bureaucrat/tax collector’s dream in that it is invisible and essential to all life on this planet - and no one has yet found it to be harmful in concentrations of less than 5000 parts per million (ppm) and not fatal until 15000 ppm (and it is currently about 387 ppm), in fact, plants love both it and warmth!
Posted on 18-May-08 at 7:36 pm | Permalink
The Right wrote:
Mr.Dion Carbon tax will be has revenue neutral as Mr.Jack Layton is right wing. The GST was supposed to be revenue neutral,and we all know how that turned out anything but…
I have seen numbers has high has 17 billion $ from a carbon tax. If it should be “revenue neutral” then
Mr.Dion would have to decrease our income by 17 billion $.
Let us say that Canadians would stop buying gas,heat their homes differently,because carbon tax is supposed to change Canadians habit.
This my liberal friends would spell a big deficit in our federal budget ,because they wouldn’t collect the 17 billion $ and yet the federal government would have to lower our income by 17 billion $. This is why I don’t buy this notion of revenue neutral.
I did my rounds on Fantasy world I.E.liblogs everytime I criticized this propose plan from Mr.Dion they tell me to wait and see before I say anything about it. But they sure have no problems of approving this plan even though they haven’t seen it either. Just seems funny to me thats all. Good post by the way.
Posted on 18-May-08 at 8:00 pm | Permalink
Carole wrote:
Funny isn’t it how in QP all the libs were frieking out about Harper making an announcemnet about his 20 year plan for the military that no one knew anything about…but the libs can make an announcement about this stupid carbon tax without anyone seeing any documentation about its content and that’s ok??
Posted on 19-May-08 at 7:23 am | Permalink
Abattoir wrote:
Any reasonable discussion on this topic here at this time is completely impossible, because:
a) the posters do not recognize the science of climate change; and
b) the Liberals have not yet released the details of their plan.
Hyperbole about $17B in taxes and little old ladies huddling in the corner is not worth the time it takes to write it, at least until we can read the proposal and have a meaningful discussion about its merits.
In general, however, I have to say I agree with the concept of increasing taxes on something we want to reduce (carbon emissions), and decreasing taxes on salaries. I will wait until I see the actual proposal before I make up my mind, and I suggest you do the same.
Posted on 19-May-08 at 2:27 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Abattoir, once again I’d like to point out that it is not the job of everyone out there to accept the scientific hypotheses put out by people by yourself, but it is your job to convince us of why your assertions are the correct presumptions. The Left certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on thought, as much as it likes to believe it does!
Posted on 19-May-08 at 2:43 pm | Permalink
Scott from Winnipeg wrote:
…unless it’s a discussion about the existence of God, right Matty? We all know that in THAT case, it’s up to dissenters (heathens) to prove that he DOESN’T.
Are you getting any closer to understanding why nobody (save for yourself) takes you seriously?
How’s the smashbros coming boyo?
Posted on 19-May-08 at 3:14 pm | Permalink
Abattoir wrote:
Matthew,
My point was simply that this is not a place where it is possible to have a meaningful discussion regarding Dion’s carbon tax plans. You do not believe in the science of climate change; therefore, it is safe to assume that you will not support Dion’s plans, no matter how they are implemented.
Posted on 19-May-08 at 5:44 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Abattoir, accept my apologies then.
Scott, I still haven’t seen you explain where the very first particle came from, and aside from that, Christianity claims to be an absolute truth by the authority of an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-encompassing God who created all things, by what authority do you speak on behalf of as an atheist?
Posted on 19-May-08 at 5:55 pm | Permalink
Scott from Winnipeg wrote:
“Christianity claims to be an absolute truth by the authority of an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-encompassing God”
Oh, riggggght.
You got that from a book you read, right? The bible I think? A book written by flesh-and-blood, whose stories can be traced back to their pagan origins, amongst others?
Yes, I can see why the burden of proof would not apply.
Rats, I’m an atheist now? I guess I should let my wife and folks know.
Posted on 19-May-08 at 7:19 pm | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
Abattoir,
The proponents of “climate change” are stepping outside of the realm of science. Rightly or wrongly, they are conflating it with politics. I will not deny their right to do so however, the onus is on them to make their case convincing. They have not succeeded.
Unless the science is convincing, there is no point discussing it any more than discussing religion.
Posted on 20-May-08 at 8:42 am | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Thanks for answering the question Scott!
Posted on 20-May-08 at 5:33 pm | Permalink
Scott from Winnipeg wrote:
As you make it abundantly clear, my question about whether you realize nobody takes you seriously was rhetorical.
Posted on 21-May-08 at 11:17 am | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Scott, how about you and your kin get more than 20% in a general election then you can come back and *think* about talking about speaking for everybody out there…
Posted on 21-May-08 at 9:54 pm | Permalink
JF wrote:
I just cannot understand the number of naive people who actually are in favour of this stupid tax, just like any other tax. The GST was supposed to solve all our problems - all it did was fill government coffers and empty mine! Same with Ontario’s OHIP premium (tax) - it hasn’t done anything to make hospital lineups shorter or increase the number of doctors. When are Canadians going to wake up and smell the lies. Get rid of as much tax as humanly possible - then, when you’ve cut absolutely all you can, cut some more! And isn’t it interesting that there’s so much hoopla to cut 1% of the GST but if they have to introduce the GST, it’s done in one swoop (7%), not 1% at a time over a few years. Canadians, put some brains one for crying out loud - stop listening to these lying politicians!
Posted on 09-Jun-08 at 6:26 pm | Permalink