The Hook

Green (not necessarily the party) Hypocrisy

http://www.cbc.ca/thepoint/MT/2009/04/april_22_green_hypocrisy_faces.html

Michael Hlinka, one of the point persons on CBC's The Point, says we are simply not serious about being Green, and that it's almost embarassing the silly-assed things we do that skirt the central issues, rather than tackle them head on. He asks what politician in his right mind is going to introduce, never mind increase, a carbon tax of such proportions as to actually cause people to think seriously before jumping in their auto "for a spin around the block". Yet he continues, that is what is needed.

The Green party of BCis wrong is advocating so-called "revenue neutrality". The tax should go towards funding alternate transportation, so that commuters who presently use their automobiles, would have a choice, and wouldn't be effectively trapped into paying the tax.

Tht is precisely what is wrong with Campbell's so-called "carbon tax": it offers no viable alternatives to jumping in the car, except staying at home. In that, it is a regressive tax, and certainly not a progressive one.

Here is a very good example of the regressive tendencies of the Campbell government:
http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/03/25/LightRail/

Revenue Neutral Is a Joke

Revenue neutral my arse. This is tax shifting away from corporations to consumers. Plain and simple. Yet another way the environmental movement has been usurped by the corporate agenda.

A carbon tax does nothing to get people out of their cars. Driving and owning a car is already more expensive than taking public transit, yet we still have huge numbers of people using single occupancy automobile travel as their mode of transport. This will be the case until transit is available on a much larger and efficient scale across the Fraser Valley.

Campbell's plan and the Greens plan does nothing to ensure the expansion of accessible and effective public transit, which is the best and most practical approach to reducing our regions GHG emissions.

Not to mention this tax is province wide. I would be mad as hell if I lived in rural BC or other regions with little to no public transit. Essentially British Columbians in those areas are sharing a disproportionate tax load now as they have no choice but to drive.

The whole thing stinks.

Sales Taxes Are Not Regressive

Scrapping income taxes and replacing them with sales taxes, if properly administered, is a sound, progressive policy.

Taxing income is an onerous, time consuming, and inefficient way to collect money. A sales tax is straight forward and efficient. It's not necessary, as its detractors often point out, for lower income people to suffer when sales taxes are increased, because it's easy to exempt some items, and tax others at a higher rate.

Why do we want to discourage income by taxing it? Please, instead, tax SUVs, dirty energy, junk food, and cigarettes. Necessities and real food can be tax free, as can bicycles and solar panels.

Right now, rich people can find shelters to avoid income taxes, so we're not, as many left wing people believe, making the rich pay. And all the while, our governments waste time adding layer after layer of rules to our income tax code, and average citizens spend more and more time each spring figuring out how much money to pay. Or, more and more often, figuring out how to avoid paying.

The Greens are committed to spending money on energy efficiency and public transportation. This and shifting our taxes to reduce things we don't want, and increase things we like, makes them the only party that is making economic sense.

Tbarnston

"Revenue neutral my arse."

Revenue neutral means that one tax (in this case, income tax) is replaced with another (carbon tax), so the revenue stream is equal. Perhaps you are misunderstanding what your arse is telling you.

"This is tax shifting away from corporations to consumers. Plain and simple. Yet another way the environmental movement has been usurped by the corporate agenda."

Consumers are end users, so they are always affected when cost of production goes up. You can't tax or fine an energy producer, and expect the price to the consumer will remain the same. A carbon tax, though, is preferable because it is simple, immediate and transparent.

"A carbon tax does nothing to get people out of their cars."

Of course it does. When the cost of driving increases, people drive less. They also choose more fuel efficient cars.

"Driving and owning a car is already more expensive than taking public transit, yet we still have huge numbers of people using single occupancy automobile travel as their mode of transport. This will be the case until transit is available on a much larger and efficient scale across the Fraser Valley."

We need to continue to make cars less attractive to use and public transport more attractive.

"Campbell's plan and the Greens plan does nothing to ensure the expansion of accessible and effective public transit, which is the best and most practical approach to reducing our regions GHG emissions."

You obviously know nothing about the Greens. They are all about investing in effective public transportation.

"Not to mention this tax is province wide. I would be mad as hell if I lived in rural BC or other regions with little to no public transit. Essentially British Columbians in those areas are sharing a disproportionate tax load now as they have no choice but to drive."

Most of us live in places where public transportation is available. It's easy to give a rebate to the relatively few people who live in rural areas. But everyone can drive less, choose fuel efficient vehicles, keep them better tuned up, and use less energy in their home.

"The whole thing stinks."

Dirty energy and refusing to admit that everyone has to do their part to fix this problem is what stinks.

Beacon Hill

"Taxing income is an onerous, time consuming, and inefficient way to collect money."

It also works. High income earners are taxed at a higher rate and many low income people aren't taxed at all yet all enjoy the benefits.

"A sales tax is straight forward and efficient."

For government perhaps because its business that has to do the collecting adding hours, paperwork and complexity to their operations instead of governments'.

"Why do we want to discourage income by taxing it?"

Because its fairer than taxing consumption. And I could say why would we want to tax consumption since the economy depends on it?

"Right now, rich people can find shelters to avoid income taxes, so we're not, as many left wing people believe, making the rich pay."

The reason CD Howe and the Fraser Institute support sales taxes over income taxes is because the "rich" will pay even less.

"And all the while, our governments waste time adding layer after layer of rules to our income tax code, and average citizens spend more and more time each spring figuring out how much money to pay."

The tax code can be both simple and fair, adding complexity is a choice governments make to serve their special interests.

Beacon Hill

"Revenue neutral means that one tax (in this case, income tax) is replaced with another (carbon tax), so the revenue stream is equal. Perhaps you are misunderstanding what your arse is telling you."

And as your arse will tell you, if many high-income people are further ahead but revenue stays the same then there are lower income people paying more.

"Consumers are end users, so they are always affected when cost of production goes up. You can't tax or fine an energy producer, and expect the price to the consumer will remain the same."

So you're in favour of corporations paying no tax?

"Of course it does. When the cost of driving increases, people drive less. They also choose more fuel efficient cars."

Except emissions have increased so apparently things aren't working as well in real life as they should in theory.

"We need to continue to make cars less attractive to use and public transport more attractive."

Which I guess is why transit fares keep going up?