TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Why does Ontario keep voting Liberal?
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by djeso more taxes is not going to help them in any way.

Neither is a world full of carbon.

quote:

Originally posted by djeso Canadians pay enough of taxes already, there are better and many more ways of getting your taxes back legally, vs this carbon tax, like Jayx1, says everything in price will increase, you'll end up spending more your every days needs. If I'm a business owner that provide a service and now my expenses increase, wouldn't it make sense for me to increase that cost of the service I provide? Btw, not everyone drives for pleasure, it's a means for people to get to work, and many families are financially struggling already, more taxes is not going to help them in any way.

other taxes will be lowered to offset the costs of the carbon tax....and yes you will probably see an increase in some products but the increase will be minor. The tax is basically being used as a way to get industries and people to change the way they do things.

quote:

Originally posted by djmanu The only party with my opinions is the libertarian party: http://www.libertarian.ca

Absolutely wonderful..... IN THEORY. Unfortunately, most people are greedy fucks and won't do anything to assist those less fortunate in a climate such as this. Reminds me of a more modern and thought through version of communism - again, great in theory but most humans are too greedy to have a self-sustaining society.

Seems to me that liberarian views would recreate a 'class' society where the rich are really rich and the poor are full of scurvy and bath once a month a la victorian times....

quote:

Originally posted by StereoPrincess So to review, I am for more kids and I am for a carbon tax.

Wait you want people to pump out more kids and you want to try save the environment? Not be a ass but isnt that also hypocritical?

quote:

Originally posted by djmanu The only party with my opinions is the libertarian party: http://www.libertarian.ca

lol, socialist!

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced other taxes will be lowered to offset the costs of the carbon tax....and yes you will probably see an increase in some products but the increase will be minor. The tax is basically being used as a way to get industries and people to change the way they do things.

But retrofitting and retooling is immensely expensive. All for a theory that is unproven.

If you are using a diesel engine, what are you supposed to switch to? You cannot just magically upgrade all engines to burn more cleanly, and use less fuel. Science and progress just does not work like that. You will be paying more for something, even though you have no alternative to upgrade.

What about for people heating their homes? Again, you can only upgrade your home eating equipment so far. You should not be expected to heat your home less, just because it helps stop some CO2 from entering the atmosphere.

Landlords who offer all included (heating, electricity) rent will be hit hard. Their municipal government will only allow them to raise their rent a small percentage, but their energy costs will go up by much more. Will there be a federal mandate allowing them to increase their prices in line with the increase of energy costs due to the tax?

There are just too many areas the tax will cause havoc, that the liberals have not thought of. Their numbers are not clear, or accurate, and I don't believe in the science.

quote:

Originally posted by Import Wait you want people to pump out more kids and you want to try save the environment? Not be a ass but isnt that also hypocritical?

Good point. Having more kids in this part of the world is really hard on the environment.

i'm going to be argumentative here, just because i feel like doing so and its so easy:

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Our bloated health care system. There needs to be more of a public/private partnership and if people with money want to go to the front of the line they can pay more and subsidize everyone else while also freeing up space. Furthermore pricing and salaries can still be regulated by government in order to ensure a balanced system.

You do realize that the 3p hospital experiment we've run here in ontario has actually been more costly, less efficacious in health terms, and was a deal brokered in such corporate secrecy that it required a court order to open the details to the public?
source: http://www.thebramptonnews.com/arti...ital/Page1.html

And if there's one profession where we have actually had documented data supporting the brain drain theory, it is in the field of health care and medicine. Nurses get massive signing bonuses, accomodations and food paid for, vastly higher salaries, and more in the U.S., as it is. And that's just of the nursing profession, never mind the doctors and more critically, specialiasts. If by regulating salaries
you mean decreasing them, this will exasperate the problem immensely.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Our bloated health care system. There needs to be more of a public/private partnership and if people with money want to go to the front of the line they can pay more and subsidize everyone else while also freeing up space. Furthermore pricing and salaries can still be regulated by government in order to ensure a balanced system. National daycare as proposed by liberals and NDP. No thanks. If you cant afford to have kids, dont have them. Its bad enough that bachalors and seniors have to pay education taxes as it is but at least that goes toward a better educated population as opposed to supporting someone's double income lifestyle. Gun registries, complicated income and corperate taxes, CRTC, and the list goes on. These are the things that make our country innefficient and helps send jobs overseas. The green shift is one more burden we do not need. As i said, lets fix the environment with innovative, money making ideas instead of just another new tax.

I definitely agree about the gun registry bullshit, as its entirely a political white elephant with zero documented effectiveness except in the area of demonstrating idiocy.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 The green shift is one more burden we do not need. As i said, lets fix the environment with innovative, money making ideas instead of just another new tax.

Right, just because Canada's economy hasn't been entirely sunk due entirely to the fact that our finite resources are in good supply does not mean we're not going to burn ourselves into an environment incapable of recovery. Here's a better thought, straight out of the Alberta PC playbook - vigorously enforce the carbon tax but also reward R&D that promotes alternative energy resources. Even the Alberta oil sands barons are behind this one.

b/c ontario is full of immigrants who feel obligated to vote liberal and will 'til the day they die.

quote:

Originally posted by StereoPrincess Jay is against the carbon tax but said the kids thing, it's hypocritical.

Uhh no... you see there's a small difference, that being that the cost of child care is based on market forces, whereas the cost of a carbon tax is imposed artificially and arbitrarily. Really not the same thing at all.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced The tax is basically being used as a way to get industries and people to change the way they do things.

I'm sure that is indeed how it's intended. I also can't recall any examples from history where taxation has actually been effective as a means of social control.

The best way to promote energy conservation is to make people accountable to the market for what they use: remove the price caps on hydro and put in residential smart sub-meters. The market wants to do this anyway because energy costs money - governments only need to remove the barriers (fortunately, Ontario has made it slightly easier).

These are provincial issues, not federal, but that's a matter of constitutional delegation. It's not an excuse for the feds to impose sub-optimal or unworkable solutions simply because the provinces aren't pulling their weight.

I work in this industry and I am well-versed in the issues at hand and specifically in the behaviour of energy consumers. That does not automatically make me an expert on energy policy, but I do feel that I speak with some authority when I say that a carbon tax will accomplish next to nothing in terms of energy savings. People will chalk it up to the "cost of living" in Canada. Many, however, will cut their consumption (typically by about 40%) if you give them the ability to monitor their costs directly and see the financial impact of consumption/conservation, and this is something that the market is already moving toward without government interference.

quote:

Originally posted by English Rachel I am supposed to save $30k minimum (not even close to earnings - just enough to pay the mortgage and eat) before I even think of taking a year off with a baby??????????

Yes. One is expected to get their shit together before brining a child into this world.

If someone can't budget without a kid how does someone expect to budget once they actually have one (or two, or three)?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Uhh no... you see there's a small difference, that being that the cost of child care is based on market forces, whereas the cost of a carbon tax is imposed artificially and arbitrarily. Really not the same thing at all. I'm sure that is indeed how it's intended. I also can't recall any examples from history where taxation has actually been effective as a means of social control. The best way to promote energy conservation is to make people accountable to the market for what they use: remove the price caps on hydro and put in residential smart sub-meters. The market wants to do this anyway because energy costs money - governments only need to remove the barriers (fortunately, Ontario has made it slightly easier). These are provincial issues, not federal, but that's a matter of constitutional delegation. It's not an excuse for the feds to impose sub-optimal or unworkable solutions simply because the provinces aren't pulling their weight. I work in this industry and I am well-versed in the issues at hand and specifically in the behaviour of energy consumers. That does not automatically make me an expert on energy policy, but I do feel that I speak with some authority when I say that a carbon tax will accomplish next to nothing in terms of energy savings. People will chalk it up to the "cost of living" in Canada. Many, however, will cut their consumption (typically by about 40%) if you give them the ability to monitor their costs directly and see the financial impact of consumption/conservation, and this is something that the market is already moving toward without government interference.

huh? people and especially industry always respond to increases and decreases in costs, whether they be in the form of costs associated with market force supply and demand or governmental taxes. if there's one thing people and industry respond to, its money.

moreover, there are a slew of examples where non-monetary constructs have a significant impact on behaviour. here's but one off the top of my head that was recently in the news:

in california they've implemented an averaged energy consumption 'report card' that is issued to constituents that shows their energy output versus those of their neighbours. the study showed a very high correlation coefficient between those who were over their neighbourhood average consumption and their propensity to lower their energy expenditure. the rub in this is that it also showed that those who were below average had a propensity to consume even more energy(presumably because they felt they could slack off a bit due to their comparatively thrifty consumption averages).

so there you go, very high correlation in both directions, and based purely on something as juvenile as a fucking report card.

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker Yes. One is expected to get their shit together before brining a child into this world. If someone can't budget without a kid how does someone expect to budget once they actually have one (or two, or three)?

"Getting your shit together" doesn't necessarily involve 30K of savings - that's beyond a lot of people. By your logic, only the wealthy should have children? Seriously?

Procreation is a basic human function. It's not a simple choice like what to have for dinner.

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker Yes. One is expected to get their shit together before brining a child into this world. If someone can't budget without a kid how does someone expect to budget once they actually have one (or two, or three)?

I actually have more than that saved currently, I just wanted to save it for my child's education rather than spend it on living whilst on mat leave, so there

quote:

Originally posted by Import Wait you want people to pump out more kids and you want to try save the environment?

In Canada. Yes.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut that being that the cost of child care is based on market forces.

How?

There are pretty poor people having kids and thank god cuz the richer people aren't having any (the richer you are the more you don't want to share with your children). Obviously the market doesn't control those forces.

there will come a time when we, as a species, will have to realize that our 'basic human function' to reproduce will leave the world in more trouble than that from which we can extricate ourselves.

thinking beyond one's basic needs is the hallmark of an intelligent species, tho we've shown precious little of that.

sorry, lil philosophical rant there. carry on.

quote:

Originally posted by -g- there will come a time when we, as a species, will have to realize that our 'basic human function' to reproduce will leave the world in more trouble than that from which we can extricate ourselves. thinking beyond one's basic needs is the hallmark of an intelligent species, tho we've shown precious little of that. sorry, lil philosophical rant there. carry on.

I get what you're saying, but it will never happen. You simply will not ever see people choosing the environment over having children....certainly not enough people to make a difference, anyways.

quote:

Originally posted by -g- huh? people and especially industry always respond to increases and decreases in costs, whether they be in the form of costs associated with market force supply and demand or governmental taxes. if there's one thing people and industry respond to, its money.

That is actually incorrect. People do not respond to high taxes in the same way that they respond to higher costs due to high demand or short supply. The assertion that they do rests on the false premise that people have no awareness of what the cost is composed of; they are aware, and psychological factors are therefore at play.

People do not drive their cars less as a result of fuel taxes or GST at the pump. However, people did drive less (for a while) when they ratcheted up the price after Katrina. People in countries with very high tax burdens (i.e. most of Europe) do not necessarily live more frugally than people in countries with lower taxes (Americans are the real penny-pinchers). However, Canadians swarmed across the border to buy cars and everything else when the dollar value went above bar.

When the GST was cut, and then cut again, we didn't see a huge increase in spending.

The pattern is extremely clear - people hate taxes, but when it comes to buying decisions, they mostly ignore them. More taxes are a wonderful way to piss people off and hurt the economy while accomplishing little else.

quote:

moreover, there are a slew of examples where non-monetary constructs have a significant impact on behaviour. here's but one off the top of my head that was recently in the news:

Sure, I'll definitely side with you on that one, and there's no reason to rule out non-monetary incentives for reducing waste (in fact, this is one of the things our company does).

I fail to see how that's relevant to this discussion, however.

quote:

Originally posted by StereoPrincess There are pretty poor people having kids and thank god cuz the richer people aren't having any (the richer you are the more you don't want to share with your children). Obviously the market doesn't control those forces.

If you're going to consider that a "market force", wouldn't that drive the cost of child care down, not up? You're not helping your argument here.

Come on Margs, regardless of political leanings I know you understand the difference between the natural price of goods and services as determined by supply and demand and an arbitrary government-controlled-and-enforced tax. We don't have a tax on children. Your analogy was a false one.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper I get what you're saying, but it will never happen. You simply will not ever see people choosing the environment over having children....certainly not enough people to make a difference, anyways.

then we're finished as a species.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper I get what you're saying, but it will never happen. You simply will not ever see people choosing the environment over having children....certainly not enough people to make a difference, anyways.

That's because environmental issues are a speculative, intangible threat. Death is a real one, and procreation is the natural response to that threat.

quote:

Originally posted by -g- then we're finished as a species.

[Citation Needed]

quote:

Originally posted by -g- then we're finished as a species.

I totally believe this will be the case. Overarching concern for the environment will never take precedent over procreation, which has been hardwired into the human species since we appeared on the earth.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut That is actually incorrect. People do not respond to high taxes in the same way that they respond to higher costs due to high demand or short supply. The assertion that they do rests on the false premise that people have no awareness of what the cost is composed of; they are aware, and psychological factors are therefore at play. When the GST was cut, and then cut again, we didn't see a huge increase in spending. The pattern is extremely clear - people hate taxes, but when it comes to buying decisions, they mostly ignore them. More taxes are a wonderful way to piss people off and hurt the economy while accomplishing little else.

sources for any of that, or just your say so?... for all of it really. its one of those arguments that sounds like it might be true and reasonable to most people, but i'm afraid that it might also not be true, and without any data to back that up, i'm afraid its just a theory.

the gst cut you mention is in particular a poor example to illustrate what you're trying to get across. the nature of the tax favours the rich more than the poor(you should know why so i won't explain that part), so that it effects only the purchase of larger ticket items, rather than motivating the savings of literally pennies in most day to day purchases.

quote:

Sure, I'll definitely side with you on that one, and there's no reason to rule out non-monetary incentives for reducing waste (in fact, this is one of the things our company does). I fail to see how that's relevant to this discussion, however.

its relevant only in response to your previous point that it was only through market response that behavioural changes would be successfully implemented. here is an example where the simple idea of outperforming a neighbour in the absurdly silly idea of a report card letter grade reaped benefits (and more importantly, enacted sweeping behaviour changes), where market forces could not.

---

Posted by Sentinal on Sep-11-2008 02:11:

I was talking to a friend of mine's little girl, and she said she wanted to be Prime Minister some day. Both of her parents, NDP supporters, were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were Prime Minister what would be the first thing you would do? She replied, 'I'd give houses to all the homeless people.' 'Wow...what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'You don't have to wait until you're Prime Minister to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward a new house. She thought that over for a few seconds while her Mom glared at me, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?'

And I said, 'Welcome to the Conservative Party.'

---

Posted by -g- on Sep-11-2008 02:23:

quote:

Originally posted by Sentinal I was talking to a friend of mine's little girl, and she said she wanted to be Prime Minister some day. Both of her parents, NDP supporters, were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were Prime Minister what would be the first thing you would do? She replied, 'I'd give houses to all the homeless people.' 'Wow...what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'You don't have to wait until you're Prime Minister to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward a new house. She thought that over for a few seconds while her Mom glared at me, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?' And I said, 'Welcome to the Conservative Party.'

i had no idea that the PC party was in the business of creating jobs for the homeless! that come with a benefits package too? would these be salaried positions, hourly waged, or piece work based?

---

Posted by Abercrombie on Sep-11-2008 03:53:

reposting this from our last election's thread

Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

---

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.