Big ponies mean more jobs in Windsor

57 posts / 0 new
Log in or register to post comments
Last post
Fri, 2010-01-01 20:53
Tommy_Paine

 

We have two governing parties whose basic idea of what government is for is to shift money from us to them and thier friends first and foremost.  

 

I don't "feel" taken by things like a billion spent on E-Health with little or nothing to show for it.  I know I was taken.  And, with these incremental shifts away from a graduated income tax to regressive flat taxes is just another way of government facilitated theft.

And we embrace it, making poor people poorer all the time, and exacerbating the very behavoirs the tax system is suposedly rectifying before our very eyes.

Top
Sat, 2010-01-02 00:21
autoworker autoworker's picture

Tommy_Paine: 

I don't disagree with you about the bungling and cynicism that you correctly point out.  Some semblance of propriety and fairness needs to be restored to the tax system. 

Tax shifting, I believe, provides an opportunity for voters (taxpayers) to reclaim their stake in the system by replacing the status quo with a new set of priorities that they, themselves, establish through their economic choices.

Some may argue that the idea is flawed because it allows the beast to re-establish itself through market mechanisms that favour capital.  I say that tax shifting offers the best hope of diffusing the leviathan aggregations of capital, now concentrated in the energy sector (tar sands), into myriad alternatives of a more human scale.

Top
Sat, 2010-01-02 02:25
KenS

Tax shifting is a concept for political junkies to talk about. And as such, a guidepost for more concrete policy discussions.

Its worthy of discussion, but 2 steps removed from presenting something the public can consider. Its a high order generality about softening the blow of carbon pricing. Talking about it will not in itself soften the sticker shock. Thats the minimum point. The maximum point being that it may not be the path to overcoming sticker shock.

Smaller point: if we are going to have general discussions about policy options, whic is what is going on here, then carbon pricing is the term. The distinction is not just being picky. Because while carbon tax is one form  of carbon pricing, people understand it as synonomous with carbon pricing in general. Which makes it difficult from the get go to have a discussion whether the carbon tax in particular is the best way to go about getting a price on carbon.

Its one way or another getting a price on the dumping of carbon in the atmosphere that we have to do. Carbon tax is just one way to do that.

Top
Sat, 2010-01-02 08:42
Tommy_Paine

Some may argue that the idea is flawed because it allows the beast to re-establish itself through market mechanisms that favour capital.  I say that tax shifting offers the best hope of diffusing the leviathan aggregations of capital, now concentrated in the energy sector (tar sands), into myriad alternatives of a more human scale.

 

I think our different views on this relate back to where we are argueing from.   I don't dissagree that in a perfect world, the tax laws are a handy dandy mechanism for modifying societial behaviors.   And, even in a less than perfect world, one could accept a certain percentage of loss through corruption and unavoidable inefficiencies.    What has to be looked at is what percentage of a tax dollar collected actually goes to the use it's popularly intended for.    It's my view that the system is irrepairably damaged, and that we'd be shocked to find out what percentage of our tax dollar is actually put to the intended use.   After paying the overburdens of administration, corruption, bankergeld, I bet we are lucky if 15 cents on the dollar makes it to the intended purpose.  No matter what issue we are talking about, whether it's issues of social housing, health care or environmental issues this surely has to be addressed.   I may sound too far to the libertarian end of the scale, or even Thatcheristicly implying "starve the beast", but as socialists it has to start deeply disturbing us that even when we get social spending, very little of it ends up where it's supposed to.   And, I don't see any particular magic where environmental concerns are going to be somehow different in the maw of that mechanism.

If I understand KenS' point about carbon tax vs carbon pricing-- that pricing means the government regulates but does not administer the monetary transactions, then pricing is the way to go-- for now.

 

I say for now, because I fear that the only real choices facing us now is to either come to grips with a world that's going to be substantially different-- plagued with great shifts of population, economic and political turmoil, or a system of carbon rationing.

Top
Sat, 2010-01-02 08:43
Farmpunk

I'm sorta with TP on using taxes as a lever for social engineering.  People say that "sin" taxes work on cigarettes and alcohol, but I'm not sure that they work as well as people believe.  They're undedicated taxes to start with - the money just goes into general rev.  So the tax may be there but the money has no home: a dedicated tax with no set purpose.

The thing with taxes, and I say this from a busines standpoint, is that a sharp accountant and investment person can help a person earning a strong income, or a business making money, keep more of it than probably a majority of Canadian would feel is fair.  So any kind of general consumption tax, like sticking another five cents per litre on fuel, ends up hurting the people who are just buying gas to get to work, and not a business's F150s. 

Luxury taxes, perhaps?  The 5.0 Mustang comes with a ten percent luxury tax that goes straight into high end Green RandD.

Top
Sat, 2010-01-02 09:24
KenS

Tommy_Paine wrote:

If I understand KenS' point about carbon tax vs carbon pricing-- that pricing means the government regulates but does not administer the monetary transactions, then pricing is the way to go-- for now.

No. Carbon pricing just means you make sure there is a cost for emitting carbon. Its a general term. Carbon tax and cap and trade are two particular forms of carbon pricing.

You are right that carbon rationing is different. But when people say they prefer it because it is not a market mechanism, they are misguided.

Top

Pages