The government receives revenue through taxing its citizens. By extension, any government initiative is supported through those taxes. You could argue the Tory santa claus routine on the environment essentially puts the tax burden on ordinary Canadians- classic big government. The public sector bailing out the private sector, and a very profitable one at that. Why should taxpayers pay for the reckless approach of industry? The Tories seem to rail against the idea of responsibility.
Critics argue that any "tax" on industry will simply be transferred to the consumer price, and invariably we pay anyways. The problem with this logic, Dion's clever plan is more a savings account, than an actual tax grab. The rules are clear, clean up your act and you can make a withdrawal, do nothing and the nest egg grows. Industry has options, industry can react with full knowledge that effort will be rewarded. The Conservatives give little credit to industry, their HOWLS suggest an inability to be pro-active and evolve. The private sector is constantly forced to react to a changing marketplace, and rarely does the government intercede. What is wrong with a system that rewards innovation?
Despite the HOWLs from the oil industry, we already know that the initial price tag will only be approximately 1 dollar per barrel, which at present represents less than 2% of the price. How that translates into "the biggest tax grab" in history is curious at best. Even if the cost is passed on, it seems a reasonable sum in the grand scheme- after all, everyone must take responsibility. It is simply counter-intuitive to argue you can reduce emissions substantially at no cost. Please find one example where this logic applies to the real world.
Dion has offered a serious plan, if there is a tax, its permanence is at the discretion of industry. Options exist, but the onus is where it should be, with those responsible. The Conservative response, Canadians should foot the bill, while profits continue to soar. Let's keep it real, these aren't marginal players we are talking about, these are the fattest cats in the global economy. If, as a result, of this scheme, "investment" in Canada is slowed, as is argued, that is hardly apocalyptic, given the untenable expansion at present. Is it really disaster if the oil patch only doubles output in the next ten years, as opposed to the three or four fold commitments? Isn't that a situation that still provides substantial growth, which will keep the economy humming? People should stop with the inflammatory scenarios, because the bottomline remains, others still need the oil- it's not a luxury.
A temporary tax, with a full rebate available, pushing innovation and technological advances, all the while curbing our emissions and dealing with the problem. It's all good from here.
14 comments:
First, the idea of taxing corporation is not considered a bad thing in Canada.
Second, most Canadians are going to associate this with the oil industry which is not the most popular industry in Canada.
Third, if the industries do pass along the cost, which I fully expect, it will have an impact similar to the GST cut.
Finally, and this is the brilliant part of the plan. The Liberals can deflect any "its a tax" claims by highlighting the fact the money will be going into a special fund and not to the government. That is the theme that they should focus on in their plan. It is easy to understand. Everytime someone says it is a tax ask the question how can it be a tax when the government is not getting its hands on the money and it is going to be returned when companies clean up their act?
Further to my suggestion that they will need to follow-up on this plan they can announce that part of it will be regular requests to have the fund audited by the Auditor General to ensure no government is tempted to raid the fund.
Canadians are looking for concrete action on the environment and polls have indicated that they are willing to pay a reasonable price for it. If the Liberals can demonstrate that the price of their plan is reasonable to consumers and to business then they have a winner.
"The Liberals can deflect any "its a tax" claims by highlighting the fact the money will be going into a special fund and not to the government."
Ottlib, that is a key point.
I suspect there will be more initiatives announced that focus on the consumer, which should also deflect from the predictable "picking on" kneejerk reactions. As long as the burden has the appearance of being shared, I think Canadians will see this aspect as reasonable.
The fact you have everyone, but the Tories, now rowing in the same direction, should also provide powerful cover for the coming attack lines. Look at the pariah howl.
Steve,
The earth is still flat. Just because everybody is rowing in the same direction, it soesn'r mean we are going the right way.
Who is steering the boat?
Tomm
tomm
The funny part about hard caps, it ensures you go in the right direction.
I think there is a way to bring business on side to really isolate the Conservatives on this issue.
As noted polluters will be required to pay an amount into a fund until they reduce their ghg emissions below a hard cap. Once done they get the money back.
Getting their money back is key. In most cases it will require investment of money for companies to reach their targets and the prospect of getting money back from the carbon budget fund after they have invested that money will make it that much easier to sell to them.
In addition, the companies will likely pass along the cost of the carbon budget levy to consumers. The amount should not be too much so the impact on the consumers will be modest. Therefore, no one will notice if the companies decide to not pass along savings once they reduce their ghg emissions below their cap. That would allow for greater profits in the medium to long-term.
The coup-de-grace in all of this is for Stephane Dion to announce at some point in the future that companies will be able to write-off their investments in reducing their ghg emissions for tax purposes. I am thinking along the line of the tax incentives currently in place for companies that invest in improving their productivity.
Most companies know that they are going to have to reduce their ghg emissions. If it can be demonstated to them that the hit they will suffer doing so will be modest, that they can write-off some of that hit at tax time, that they will be able to recoup some of that investment after it is done and that they are looking at the prospect better profits in the medium to long-term they will buy-in.
Also, according to their plan, the Alberta government is going to be fineing companies who don't meet their intensity targets, so that's pretty much a tax as well, if this is. Also again, the Tories will probably be offering something similar when they put their cards down, even it is just taxing a failure to meet intensity limits.
Tax and spend Tories.
If this is such a brilliant plan why didn't the Liberal government implement it after they signed us up to our Kyoto targets?
doug
What is your plan? Thought so, dodge and weave doesn't work anymore, didn't you get the memo.
This memo?
"Never lose sight of what we are and who we serve: Canadian families and Canadian taxpayers,"
"hard-working people who didn't have the time to stage protests or the money to hire lobbyists."
"the quiet people you don't see on the nightly news ... Canadians in the broad middle, Canadians who for far too long were invisible and overlooked by the political process,"
"Canadians see them, Conservatives see them, Conservative hear them, Conservatives are them."
Stephen Harper
doug
You mean that sweaty guy, with the bad makeup tonight? It was minus 4 in Toronto when he took the podium, which shows what alot of hot air can do. ZZZZZZZZZZ.
P.S- the best part was when drops of sweat came off his right ear, very attractive indeed.
Doug:
Simple, new leader, new priorities. The environment was not as big a priorty for Mr. Chretien and Mr. Martin.
But now Mr. Dion is in charge and he gets to decide what is a priority.
Hey Doug:
As Stephane said at Garth Turner's town-hall meeting yesterday, the only criticism you can offer is that he didn't offer it a few years ago He is willing to accept that but he wont apologize for it. He said he wished he had offered it or came up with it a few years ago, but the key is he's offering it now.
Let's see what our "new" Conservative government offers as an alternative, and if its offering intensity targets rather then hard caps,then its proof positive that the Dion plan is better, because intensity targets are a sham, and as anyone knows who has a historical perspective on things, business will not voluntarily act to be good corporate citizens unless they are regulatory forced to.
In Dion's plan, they at least have a chance to get back their money if they show they are good corporate citizens.
Steve V
I visit your site almost every day.
I find your posts to be partisan but thoughtful and therefore a good place to understand the Liberal perspective on issues.
I have a couple of hot buttons though and the way that the Liberals handled the global warming/ Kyoto issue is one that really gets me going.
How in God's name do they expect anyone to take them seriously on this? They have made us look like con men on the international stage and signed up to targets that are unnecessarily harsh as if solely to please and support Mr. Strong and his UN initiative.
When I look at Mr. Dion’s plan I see little chance of any actual reductions in the first two or three years. We might possibly slow our emission growth rate to match our population growth rate. I think most CO2 emission reduction plans will cost more to implement per tonne than the $20 to $30 fine. In my opinion the clear winners in the first two or three years of the program would be provinces with developing or potential hydro-electric generating capacity. Quebec, Ontario and BC and companies in a position to use the levies like Power Corp. What a coincidence eh?
Understand that while I accept that humanity can contribute to climate change I am not an alarmist and I believe a prudent and consistent policy that addresses all of our environmental issues would be the correct approach. We have made some progress in cleaning up our pollution in my lifetime and I am sure we will do even better in yours.
Intensity targets can work well if escalating targets are legislated with appropriate penalties. This would take some political fortitude to implement. If Mr. Harper proposes to employ intensity targets with voluntary compliance then that will be another matter for me to consider.
Post a Comment