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

___________________
Be the best person you can be. Always.

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.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

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]

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

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.