Here’s a smattering of news in the news today.
First off, Kyle and Dom are looking to trade away their home in Kipling, which Kyle traded for starting with just a red paper clip.
–
Hat tip to Michelle and Karen
==
Also, the Green Party scooped the Liberals (as did CBC) in the release of a Carbon Shift tax plan, which would cut BILLIONS of dollars out of income taxes that Canadians pay.
Let’s see the Canadian Taxpayers Federation speak out against it, for a good laugh (http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=2902). It’s all the more funny that they are against a tax shift, because they go on (and on) about wanting taxes cut, and here is the biggest income tax cut to come along in a while, and they’ll be against it because it will slow down the energy industry. I wonder who the CTF’s masters are, eh?
It’s important to note that May’s Greens did not scoop the Liberals by a day. It’s been several years in fact! The Liberal plan is a modification of the Green’s ideas to cut income tax (a bad tax to pay in most peoples’ eyes because INCOME is good), and instead tax bad things like pollution.
==
Make no mistake, the Conservatives are bending our country over to be paddled by United States special interest groups. Bill C-61 is a bill crafted without consultation of, or concern for, the Canadian voting public!
==
Canadians, prepare to be offended! Someone is making light of hockey! *GASP*
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Lore_Weaver | 18-Jun-08 at 6:44 pm | Permalink
============
Let’s see the Canadian Taxpayers Federation speak out against it, for a good laugh (http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=2902). It’s all the more funny that they are against a tax shift, because they go on (and on) about wanting taxes cut, and here is the biggest income tax cut to come along in a while, and they’ll be against it because it will slow down the energy industry. I wonder who the CTF’s masters are, eh?
=========================
The CTF isn’t exactly a Conservative Party supporter. They should be against a Tax Shift, because it’s not explicitly a Tax Cut. “Here are the taxes we’re going to cut!” with no, “These taxes are going to be levied here, here, and here”.
Revenue neutral is fine to say, and with respect to Government coffers, I don’t doubt that it’s true, but it’s not going to be true for the Canadian public, because the taxes they impose on producers are going to be absorbed by us consumers at a higher rate.
Dion’s plan will save me ~ $360 a year. Lets say that tax goes into home heating, which I can’t not do, and increases Sask Power’s cost by $30 a month. I’m going to be paying more than $30 a month for my heating…
Revenue neutrality for the government isn’t revenue neutrality for the consumer.
It’s all weasel words to defend a poor policy.
If Dion was so into saving the environment, he’d do research into alternative energy.
Lore_Weaver | 18-Jun-08 at 6:45 pm | Permalink
==========
Make no mistake, the Conservatives are bending our country over to be paddled by United States special interest groups. Bill C-61 is a bill crafted without consultation of, or concern for, the Canadian voting public!
===========
I’m working my ass off to make sure this doesn’t happen. I’ll let you know later if I’m going to the policy convention.
Saskboy | 19-Jun-08 at 11:33 am | Permalink
Good luck to you Lore, on your second comment.
However, you’re missing the POINT of the carbon tax shift.
“I’m going to be paying more than $30 a month for my heating…”
Well no kidding. The idea is to have people, and ultimately society rearrange itself and its priorities so ecologically expensive activities are also expensive in the marketplace. It’s perhaps not a perfect policy, but it’s a million times better than doing nothing, or worse than nothing which is what the Conservatives are good for.
Lore_Weaver | 19-Jun-08 at 11:41 am | Permalink
===
“Well no kidding. The idea is to have people, and ultimately society rearrange itself and its priorities so ecologically expensive activities are also expensive in the marketplace. It’s perhaps not a perfect policy, but it’s a million times better than doing nothing, or worse than nothing which is what the Conservatives are good for.”
===
And when all is said and done, and Canada’s contribution is reduced, we’ll have an unsustainable income tax cut and still high world pollution.
Would it not make more sense to invest in research of alternative, cheap, clean, and safe energy that we could implement and export to the world?
Thus we’d have a solution that lowers our pollution, and the pollution of other emitters in the world. We could have a real, meaningful impact and role to play. Instead, Dion is offering a jiggling of the pocket book.
It’s of no value to think like a “pass-the-buck” bureaucrat when action is what’s needed.
Saskboy | 19-Jun-08 at 11:54 am | Permalink
“Would it not make more sense to invest in research of alternative, cheap, clean, and safe energy that we could implement and export to the world?”
You make it sound like that’s mutually exclusive to implementing a marketplace adjustment that more accurately reflects the cost of carbon products/energy use. It’s not. You can invest in research for greener technology using some of the income from the carbon tax. You can stop investing in oil field exploration and put that money into better technologies (The Greens will do that).
A federal income tax cut is sustainable, because municipal and provincial taxes need to be raised anyway to pay for infrastructure upgrades, and the federal taxes are too high, especially for people who make minimum wage for a living.
Also, a higher cost of using carbon [products/energy] will CREATE many of the technologies and the will to use them in the marketplace. It will be the stimulus for all kinds of good things, and we will be able to export those good things to the rest of the world.
What action can Dion take that isn’t jiggling the pocketbook, really? You expect him to get on a treadmill to power your TV or something? Politicians have to inspire people to act, and this law does that, while showing vision. It inspires personal action to consume less and make what we do consume more efficient.