Under the weather
Posted April 30, 2009 by Sacha Peter - Link
Category: Irrelevant and Irreverent
Comments (33)
The federal Liberals are going to have their convention in Vancouver this weekend which may take some of the limelight from the media. They will be having it at the new downtown convention centre.
I had originally intended to post an analysis of First Nations and polling stations in the 2005 elections (for the purposes of later comparing it with the 2009 election results) but I seem to have caught food poisoning (not the swine flu!). I don’t want to explain the symptoms on this post in case if you are eating, but suffice to say, it has immobilized me and I hope it will last no longer than a day. It has been nasty since 3am this morning and I haven’t been able to sleep for more than half an hour without having to return to the bathroom. As I write this it is ever-so-slightly better, probably because there’s nothing left in my digestive system at all.
Feel free to use this post to comment on anything in the BC Election – I won’t moderate anything except outright spam. I did notice that two of you (Glass and Quimby) were throwing insults at each other, and I have removed them. Thanks.
Where do we vote?
I have not gotten a card?
I cant find where to vote in advanced polls or regular polls?
WHERE CAN I VOTE????
Rav,
Contact Elections BC.
There are stomach illnesses going around. I had one during much of March and April and I thought it was food poisoning at first.
I hope you’re feeling better now.
A new poll by Robbins Sce. It’s about the carbon tax. Good reading; good regional breakdowns; seems that the BC Liberal wedge issue isn’t working the way it should.
http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_586.html
Again P. Kelly, Robbins is rubbish.
Hope you get better Sacha.
I guess thats your opinion, Mike. But even Angus Reid polling shows that the NDP lead in the north; so I think there is some truth to Robbins too – that the gas tax is DOA outside the lower mainland. But, refuse to believe it if you so wish.
Get well soon Sacha – this is the best election blog – thanks for the hard work. But please relax on personal criticism of quimby.
I hope you get better too Sacha! I saw your name on the guest list to an event yesterday here in Chilliwack, but you couldn’t make it. But eventually maybe I will see you out and about.
p kelly – you mean up in the North they rather pay $1.50 a litre for gas with no 2 cent carbon tax, rather than $0.99 for gas today including a 2 cent tax?
I am not sure why lefty socialists have such a hard time with textbook economics. Has it something to do with zero value for capital and 100% value for labour?
And the tax is neutral. So what exactly is the complaint?
It’s hard to put a lot of weight on a poll that is released in complete incoherent twaddle with no graphs to help anyone even understand the message. The poll may contain some information, but it is not as you say “good reading.” Based on the last poll though, Robbins appears to be partial and/or incompetent.
The BC Liberals know that the majority in the province opposes a carbon tax. It should be clear from the federal election in the Fall. But it’s good policy. We’ll see if Carole James can defend her position in the televised debate against both the Premier and Jane Sterk. (Wilf Hanni won’t be there.) If environmental support bleeds from the NDP to the Greens and the BC Liberals pick up seats on May 12, then it will have worked just fine.
Thanks, Glass for your rhetorical swipe at me, but I didn’t do the poll…and I hardly think that the pollster is a left-wing radical that you allude to.
Northern and interior residents have born the brunt of the foestry meltdown (even before we slid into recession) and NOW the government wants to impose another new tax (that will triple in a couple years)…no wonder the BC Liberals are seeing a revolt in the place they referred to as ‘the heartlands’…well the BC Liberals either deliberately broke that heart – or stabbed it in the back.
Northern costs are just higher…higher heating costs, more in travel expenses, and they cannot help it…and the gas tax program offers no alternatives. The tax cuts they offer are pointless when you don’t have a job to get that tax cut on.
Fine…swipe away…insult me or the pollster if that somehow makes you feel better inside…i could care less.
A carbon tax with a corresponding income tax makes sense. Why are we taxing enterprise and wealth generation when we could be taxing environmental harm? Keep more of the money that you make, but pay extra for harming the environment. Find ways to pollute less, and you can keep more of your money.
If rural people pollute the most, they also have the most to gain by reducing their energy consumption. If people in rural areas are consuming significantly more energy than urban and suburban citizens but are not demanding cleaner and more efficient technology, then energy is too cheap. Taxing pollution creates demand environmentally friendly alternatives, and people will step in and fill that market. Carbon taxes with corresponding income tax cuts creates a very attractive business environment for environmentally friendly enterprise. Implementing this tax now gives us head start with the inducement of an efficient and sustainable economy and society. It’s smart economics, and a more ethical way for the government to collect revenue.
Sick???
Where’s your boot straps?
Wishing you a speedy recovery Sacha. I’ll wait patiently for your unique
data/info.
Mike, I hear what you’re saying, but the carbon tax doesn’t do what its supposed to. If it was a real carbon tax, then its revenue would be used to expand transit, supply/subsidize alternatives for people to lower their own personal carbon footprint…that could include a rebate to buy a lower-polluting car (non-fuel car), tax incentives to retrofit homes for higher efficiency, subsidize flourescent bulbs (lower hydro usage), supply non-plastic grocery bags for everyone…etc etc etc…
But the BC Liberal version doesn’t do that. It takes money from the average driver and returns it in the form of a tax cut. Techinically, its a tax shift (or a reverse Robin Hood tax). A disproportionate amount of this gas tax revenue will come northern residents, and the tax savings will largely benefit the higher income earners that typically live in the west side of Vancouver or the British Properties (West Vancouver). That’s why its not a real carbon tax – its a tax grab…and northerners know it.
PKelly, thanks for your partisan NDP socialist pessimist’s assessment of the carbon tax.
Of course you deride the “West” Vancouverites as the primary beneficiaries. High income earners also tend to consume the most. And they will have to pay for their extravagance at the expense of the environment. But the equal climate action dividends that we all receive are essentially like income tax cuts from the bottom, so they are proportionately more beneficial to low income earners. Your reverse Robin Hood assertion is total crap.
We cannot afford to rape the environment anymore and bicker about the best way to do it. The government should invest in public transit, but they aren’t going to implement cost inefficient public transit in Vanderhoof. They aren’t there to wipe everyone’s ass. And your proposed rebate program is extremely complicated, subjective, and requires massive bureaucracy. What qualifies for a rebate and what doesn’t? It isn’t as simple as you seem to think. There is also potential for huge corruption and misinformation if you try to classify goods in that way. People know that the tax is in place. They have to make these choices about what they buy and how to adjust for themselves. The government can’t do that for them.
A carbon tax isn’t supposed to be a tax hike; it’s a tax shift. People who make ethical choices can save money. The problem is the socialist view that making money is itself unethical. A carbon tax with a corresponding income tax cut is smart economics. It creates green jobs because the cost of having a green company will be comparatively lower here than anywhere else. It generates wealth and jobs, but not at the expense of the environment.
People who already spend a lot on energy will have to become more efficient. They have to bear the cost of the pollution. You might argue that rural people will end up bearing the cost. It won’t be so much the residents as the agricultural, mining and forestry industries themselves. Prices for food and materials will go up. And these costs indirectly trickle down to people in urban areas as well in the form of increased prices. So ultimately people in urban areas will pay more for goods that come at greater environmental cost.
Rural businesses that cannot adjust will close. Those that do adjust will thrive. People may end up switching from traditional industries to the new green businesses that have developed here or move here to take advantage of the tax system. But ultimately we have a more sustainable economy, and we will be first movers in doing so.
Easy there Mike; your partisan rhetoric comes beaming through in your dismissal of my comments using ’socialist’, ‘rape’, etc…and it doesn’t help your arguments either.
Wealthier residents might consume more, but the effect of the tax is less in comparison to their income levels; but the income tax cuts are more significant at the higher income levels than they are for middle and working class people. Paying $500 in a tax is less of a problem for an income earner thats over $500k compared to the fella getting $55k a year, and the tax cut clearly is a benefit to the half-millionaire.
As for a system that opens the door to corruption, its no different than anything else out there that government gets its hands on.
If ‘my’ version of a carbon tax chopped transit fares (and purchased more busses/built more trams, etc) AND increased gas prices, I would be tempted to leave my car at home…but this government imposes the gas tax and permits the highest transit fares in the nation…unthinkable.
My reverse Robin Hood argument is totally valid when it comes to the interior and north. The government takes from industry, business, and individual taxpayers and ends up closing hospitals and schools. They impose this gas tax and it hurts the north unfairly. Urbanites can walk or take the bus/skytrain without to much discomfort. In the north, LIFE is via the car and truck; and heating isn’t an option.
This so-called Carbon Tax is a enviro-marxist experiment on social engineering. By punitively imposing higher costs on essential activities as an attempt to change human behavior (without offering alternatives for northern residents), it naturally forces a backlash. How can you tell someone to change their lifestyle without offering ways to change it? Maybe these enviro-marxists would prefer that everyone move to the city and shut down all industry and leave the forests alone. A fine vision of a socialist environmental utopia, but unrealistic in BC.
Oh yes, we can tackle climate change, but not through this farce of a carbon tax. If it used some of the mechanisms that you dismiss as complex, then I’d support it; but until then, its a politician taking money from hard working people just trying to get by and giving it to the west sides “creme de la creme”.
And that’s how its seen too. Northern and interior voters are seeing this gas tax as another idiotic “government program” invented by ivory tower insiders with no clue about reality beyond their board rooms and yacht clubs.
You know what kills me though? If it was the NDP in power and they proposed this carbon tax, the BC Liberals would be on a war path; shredding the NDP for proposing a new tax and a new government program…the hypocracy from the BC Liberals is breath taking…they’re a bunch of pseudo-environmentalists taking advantage and being crass opportunists on this matter. This time, the voter’s are watching and won’t be fooled.
To p kelly:
That is exactly how people with right wing ideologies try to support their arguments when they clearly have nothing logical to do so; they start using words like ’socialist’ ‘rape’, ‘crap’, etc. Instead of providing ‘constructive’ arguments, they go for ‘destructive’ avenues to make your ideas sound scary.
I enjoy reading your comments. Keep up the good work.
To Mike:
Dude, what p kelly is saying makes complete sense. Try to think about kelly’s argument before you dismiss it.
What is the point of a tax shift? What is the point of taxing people when you are going to return it to them? They would just spend the returned money on gasoline again. This tax just makes it ’sound’ like we are doing something to help the environment. But are we really? It is so small, that it won’t really effect your decision on driving or not driving. However, if you make greener avenues ‘available’ and cheaper, of course everyone would start being greener. Right now, taking the bus is more expensive and a lot less convenient than driving. Trust me, if better and cheaper public transportation was available, I would rather take the bus and save myself the headache of driving. Now, which do you think is better for the environment? I pay 2 cents more, which I will get back in another form, and drive OR I don’t drive at all?
You say “And your proposed rebate program is extremely complicated, subjective, and requires massive bureaucracy.” Doesn’t this tax shift require bureaucracy?
You say “What qualifies for a rebate and what doesn’t? It isn’t as simple as you seem to think.” What is your argument to prove that? We landed a spaceship on Mars and we can’t figure out how to qualify people for a rebate?
You say “people know that the tax is in place. They have to make these choices about what they buy and how to adjust for themselves. The government can’t do that for them.” First of all, if the government isn’t supposed to do anything (right wing ideology), then why taxing people on gasoline? If the government IS supposed to do something, then why not making greener alternatives available instead of a useless tax shift? Maybe because oil companies don’t want that to happen…
This tax has simply no effect, if there are no better and cheaper transportation alternatives. It will only result in higher transportation costs and as a result higher prices for everything.
There are much better ways to encourage green engineering and changing people’s lifestyle than to increase the price of gasoline by 2 cents and then return that money back to people.
Since you brought up partisanship, I’d like to point out that while I am a member of the Federal Liberals, I am not affiliated provincially.
The reason I used strong language is because I am sick of your rhetoric deriding the supposed “creme de la creme” who live in “the British properties,” and spend all day at “yacht clubs,” scheming how they are going to squeeze more money out of working families. In fact, I am sick of all the negative attacks from the NDP. The BC Liberals aren’t perfect, and they are a bit more conservative than I would like, but I can’t stomach the NDP because they are so negative and they don’t have any real solutions. By the way, rape means “the wanton destruction or spoiling of a place or area.” Admittedly, that might be a strong word, but I think it’s fair if you look at open pit mining, clear cutting, or tar sands.
You are so partisan that you are even complaining about what the BC Liberals WOULD do in the hypothetical situation that you guys did come up with a carbon tax, which you didn’t. Haven’t the dippers complained enough about things that the BC Liberals actually did or didn’t do to without complaining about what they WOULD do in hypothetical situations. Seriously, give it a rest!
And please stop touting polls from Robbins, that in 2007 released a poll called “ROBBINS declares BC NDP leader Carole James winner of 2009 BC election.” They’re rubbish. That’s why they are never mentioned in mainstream media. If they were real, we wouldn’t need to have them brought to our attention in your blogs. And please don’t lecture me on partisanship.
Back to the discussion on carbon tax. As I already pointed out, the carbon tax SHOULD be accompanied by corresponding income tax cuts FROM THE BOTTOM, meaning that whether someone is making $35,000 a year or $350,000, they would still get $XXX back a year. The current provincial one gives people money back directly, so it’s essentially the same principle because it’s the same amount whether you are making $35,000 a year or $350,000. Yet the guy making $350K is consuming much more, and paying more carbon tax. So if he can cut carbon consumption down to as low as the person making $35K (unlikely), s/he will save the same amount. It isn’t enviro-marxism (as you call it) any more than an income tax is economic marxism.
As I already explained, there is, and there will continue to be economic and demographic adjustment in the North and Interior. The economy is suffering due to a global recession and a mountain pine beetle, which due to climate change, has managed to survive the warmer winters in BC. (I actually worked for Natural Resources Canada researching the pine beetle.) So maybe it’s about time we start to change the way we treat the environment already. Commodity prices are volatile, and it is inefficient to have an economy that is so reliant on the unsustainable harvesting and mining of commodities.
As I already said, rural business will have to become more efficient and/or pass the cost onto the customer. Some will fail. In fact, some already are irrespective of the carbon tax. Those that become more efficient will have a comparative advantage and will be more sustainable. If you take business strategy or operations management, you learn that making operations more efficient and reducing consumption help companies to develop processes and operations that make the company stronger as a whole.
If rural living becomes more expensive, then that too will drive up the cost of industry, and thus prices, which will be borne by consumers in the cities and suburbs as well. If industries fail because they can’t adjust, then that’s life. Rural living doesn’t necessarily need to be unsustainable or inefficient. But people need to feel the impact that they are having on the environment in economic terms or they will not change their behavior.
As for your assessments of the BC Liberal’s implementation of the carbon tax, it’s the same old NDP rhetoric. Waa waaa waaaaaa!!! It doesn’t matter if the BC Liberals are actually trying to do something to make BC more sustainable and environmentally aware. The NDP just assume and complain that they are doing it for all the wrong reasons. Could it be that Gordon Campbell actually cares about the environment? No. Cuz he’s a fat cat and his friends are all rich and live in west van and sail in yachts all day. Hmmmm, I wonder then why environmentalists like David Suzuki, Andrew Weaver (who endorsed the BC Liberals), and the whole of the Green party support the tax.
M Sa: It makes more sense to me for the government to collect tax revenue on pollution than enterprise. The carbon tax needs to be implemented gradually over time so that people can adjust.
I would agree with you that the government needs to invest more in public transit. They are. Although, I’m sure you’d just complain that they’re just doing it for the Olympics, or that they sold BC Rail. The new sky train lines in Vancouver will allow people to cross the city north to south while avoiding traffic congestion. The new bus routes in Victoria along Bay Street will help make it easier for me to get to work. I guess I would even say that perhaps BC Rail should not have been privatized. Hopefully the private company will be able to respond quickly to demand for cheap and economical transit.
Deciding which of hundreds of thousands of goods qualify for a tax rebate is not going to be easy. Some are clearly environmentally bad, some are clearly good, but most are in between. Someone has to make a lot of tough calls. And when you give the government that kind of discretion and power, mistakes happen. Corruption happens. Waste happens.
The US government may have been able to land an unmanned spacecraft on Mars, but that was NASA and they spent billions. The NDP government cant even build ferries that work for $300 million, so I wouldn’t trust them to classify hundreds of thousands of consumer goods for rebates.
And I am sorry that your eyes glazed over when faced with logic, but yeah, I do believe in the free market. Not to the same extent as Ronald Reagan, but moreso than the NDP. But don’t try to associate crass language with ideology. Your buddy PKelly has clearly alluded to the bourgeoisie over and over. And when I do use words like “crap,” its after I make a logical argument that something is in fact “bogus” or whatever.
Sacha, I hope we are keeping you entertained while you recover. ;-)
Mike said: “The carbon tax needs to be implemented gradually over time so that people can adjust.”
Wouldn’t that defeat the purpose? History has shown that when gas prices rise slowly, no one changes their habits. They suck it up and pay higher prices. When prices jump sharply, people abandon their cars. I thought the whole point was to change habits?
The problem is no one notices the carbon tax in its current form (and I don’t buy the argument that the poor or Northerners are suffering). Gas prices have varied so much in the past year, how could you notice an extra 4 cents? If the government really wanted to make a difference, instead of pretending to be green, it would crank up the carbon tax and invest that money in alternatives. 50% would go back to income tax reductions and 50% would go to fund carbon-reducing activities throughout BC.
Sorry, the gas prices link was meant to go to this chart.
Mike, your partisanship colours your argument; and your membership in the Federal Liberals reveals a lot about your views. Were you also in favour of Stephane Dion’s “Green Shift”? The federal version of the carbon tax that also did little?
The NDP is no more ‘negative’ than the BC Liberals; and if their ads that take a swipe at the Campbell record and legacy seem ‘negative’ then so be it. But I can’t apologise for the NDP when they shine a light on the fact that there are 10,000 NEW homeless in BC (and thats before the recession kicked in)…I mean, for all of the economic bragging the Campbell Liberals do, why – in a economic boom – do you close schools or hospitals? And now that we’re into a recession, what is he going to cut now that he hasn’t cut already?
So if putting a spotlight on Campbell’s failed policies upsets you, then too bad. I seem to remember when Mr. Campbell was opposition leader, he travelled the world to warn investers that BC was a bad place to invest. I remember his constant attacks and negativity against the NDP. Few at the time had sympathy for the NDP; and it is the job of the opposition leader and party to attack failed governing policies…but now that the shoe is on the other foot and your boy is the Premier – its not OK to be critical of the government? That kind of thinking though is entirely consistent with Liberals (federal and provincial) where the rules apply to everyone else, but themselves.
Now, back to this carbon tax fraud.
You confuse business efficiency with the desire to reduce one’s carbon footprint. I suggest that every business wants to be efficient – or their competition will crush them…but the desire to reduce one’s carbon footprint is an entirely new challenge for businesses and consumers when there’s no alternatives out there to change to.
So when the government passes a new law to create a new tax on the basic infrastructure of living in northern and remote communities without offering alternatives, then it a slap in the face.
What these people and businesses are facing, is a new tax and a commandment from an ivory tower insider to ‘change your behavior’ if you want to save taxes…to what? What they get is a higher cost of living, higher taxes, and less services.
And when a government tells its citizens to change their behavior, its social engineering; and its something that every free society should avoid at all costs (as long as we still have a democracy at least).
Enviro-marxism: Under the guise of pretending to save the environment, government wants everyone to change their way of living and thinking; and will financially penalise anyone that disagrees.
Its not as if the NDP have no alternative…they propose the cap-and-trade system. It works; its been proven already. And here’s the good thing: it would be continent wide. President Barack Obama, PM Stephen Harper, and many other mainstream environmentalists and scientists back the system too.
Cap and trade create business opportunities and increase the profits of the greenish businesses, and because its done on a large regional scale, its effect is multiplied…you won’t have an industry flee the jurisdiction because they want to avoid it.
And no, I do not feel the BC Liberals are doing something right for the environment. Every act they have done has had a back door benefit for the industrialist friends and insiders that fund the BC Liberal party so that they can maintain that fruitful friendship.
Even the latest – the great bear rainforest has provisions in its enabling documents that will STILL allow logging and mining. The so-called carbon tax doesn’t tax most of the things that spew out the most GHG’s (because they fund the BC Liberal party through campaign donations). So as you’re paying the gas tax for fuelling up you car, the heavy industry gets the tax cut – and they’re the ones doing the “rape” on our air, oceans and land.
BC Liberal environmental protection policies are a contradiction in terms and hypocracy in motion…so the sooner they’re removed from power, the sooner we can save BC from the corrosive stain they’re leaving behind.
Chris: the reason that gas prices dropped is because of a global recession. It is supposed to be significant enough that people will eventually feel it when making decisions about what car to buy, how fast to drive, etc, but implemented gradually enough that it doesn’t create an immediately unfair situation. It takes time for people to adjust.
Yes I am a federal Liberal, as I said, and I supported Dion’s policy. He couldn’t communicate it effectively, but that doesn’t meant that the policy didn’t work.
Good for you that you stand behind the NDP 100% and refuse to apologize for anything they do. Just don’t lecture me on partisanship. I am not a BC Liberal. But I have seen positive change under their government.
As far as school closures, and new homeless, the NDP never mentions NET NEW anything because it never suits their purposes. Thousands of British Colombians died under Gordon Campbell (oooh), yet there are more people in the province now than in 2001 (huh?). Same logic.
Last election, the NDP complained about post secondary education, but this time they aren’t because BC has below average tuition, and UBC, UVic, SFU and UNBC are ranked 4th, 1st & 1st (tie), and 2nd in the country by MacLeans in their respective size categories.
Now some things are better under the BC Liberals. Others, not so much. You have to vote with your perspective though, not partisan and biased misinformation. For my mother, a teacher, things were tough either way. In the late 1990s, Carole James personally made the decision to close Warehouse School in the Quadra village. This was under an NDP government. Warehouse was an alternative school for kids who couldn’t function in the regular school, or even the large alternative school environment. When Carole shut warehouse down, many of the student’s didn’t end up going to school elsewhere, but they ended up on the street.
Back to the carbon tax. I am not confusing business efficiency and one’s desire to reduce their carbon footprint, but I am not necessarily differentiating them. There’s a difference between confusing and not differentiating.
As far as social engineering, I find it funny that the New Democrat is saying that we should avoid it at all costs. Tobacco tax is social engineering. Yet tobacco should be expensive and should be taxed because people rely on an expensive health care system paid for with taxes. People might disagree, and feel that they should be able to smoke if they want. But their behavior costs everyone, so they should have to pay more for it. Same thing with taxing pollution. It’s accepting that our impact on the environment has a cost. The environment is already sick. We shouldn’t wait until the environment is even more sick before making the change. Before you go ahead an say that there’s a difference between tobacco and carbon tax, I want to remind you that I am responding to the social engineering argument. We have already debated the effect of the carbon tax to death.
I disagree with the cap and trade. Carbon should be taxed when it is consumed. (i.e. purchased) Every time. I wouldn’t cite Harper’s support when you want to argue the effectiveness of an environmental policy. As for Obama, I am a huge supporter. I volunteered on his campaign in New Hampshire during the election. But he isn’t right all the time either. His country is so incredibly dependent on oil. He also has unions backing him like the NDP do in BC. He also supports bio diesel, “clean coal.” etc. I don’t think he has been bold enough on the environment.
And I am sure that some environmentalists somewhere support the cap and trade. Here in BC, the more prominent ones seem to be supporting carbon tax, and opposing the NDP for their opposition to it DESPITE the cap and trade policy. I think we have beaten this whole argument to death. I look forward to the debate when Carole James has to defend her opposition to it to the premier, to Jane Sterk, and the whole province. Let’s see how that goes.
Take care.
I’m a BC Liberal member/voter with a different view: Let’s scrap the carbon tax altogether. Why? We don’t need it.
Call me what you will, but I believe the climate change hype is a hoax.
If not for Gore and his cronies, people would be realizing that the global temperatures have been falling in recent years.
Click the link: http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
How about this? Let’s save all the money we spend on the climate change agenda, and funnel that cash into fixing the health and education systems?
That’s my $0.02
Sigh…
1. Gas tax vs. Tobacco tax: You can choose not to smoke (not pay the tax) and it won’t impede your daily life. You can’t choose not to drive a car (buy gas, pay the gas tax) unless you want to be a hermit and never leave the house. That sort of comparison is not even in the same league.
2. Just because BC’s average tuition is below the national average doesn’t make it acceptable…its still financially prohibative for young people to get an education thanks to the BC Liberals. We used to have the cheapest tuition in the country and still managed to graduate highly trained professionals…the only difference now, is that no one can afford it.
3. You comment on Carole James making a personal decision to close a school in Quadra village: would that have anything to do with cuts imposed on them by the province? School boards are forbidden by law to have a deficit budget, and regrettably, had to enforce this at the local levels. The net effect is rationed education. Idiotic because we could have made progress on class sizes by keeping these schools open. But, that was a political decision by a government that had a ideological hatred of the BCTF and closing schools was a way to punish them. The worst thing about this was that the schools were getting shut at a time when the economy was improving and money could have been made available….choices.
4. Gas tax vs Cap and Trade: I guess this is the core of the dispute; I believe that carbon ought to be taxed at its source (where its extracted/produced, etc)…because it will get consumed no matter what, but if measures can be in place to discourage the initial production of carbon intensive products/services, then those products will never be produced or consumed…by this logic, eventually, new cars and trucks will be made from products that are less carbon offensive, and use far less gas (if any at all)…instead of a 20cent /litre carbon tax (suggested tax rate if Marc Jaccard had his way) that offers no incentives for northern and interior drivers a way of changing their remote lifestyles.
I too look forward to the debate: so Carole can finally unmask this gas tax for what it really is; demand that Campbell admit that he lied about BC Rail and expain how Kinsella got $300k from taxpayers on this whole deal; rip him a new one for his secretive way of governing; spotlight his special deals for friends and insiders…etc
Mike, I respect your allegence to the Federal Liberals; there are some things I like about that party and some things I clearly don’t. An upcoming federal campaign should be a good platform to discuss all that. ;)
1. Sigh. As I said, I was responding to the social engineering argument. Tobacco tax is social engineering too. That’s all I was trying to say. In fact, I preempt the exact rebuttal you gave by saying that was the extent of my point, but you ignored it and pointed out the obvious difference. Good job!
2. If tuition is too far below the national average, it costs taxpayers more. People from other provinces come to study in BC, then work elsewhere where taxes are lower. Simple economics. Also, if tuition is too cheap, then people don’t have to make as much of a sacrifice to attend. Again simple economics.
I studied in Austria where they had free tuition, and only a 400 EUR fee to remain a student. The Austrian government spends $200K (CAD) to produce a post secondary degree. Combine federal funding, provincial, donation and tuition and its only about $70K in BC. Why so much more efficient? In Austria, people didn’t respect the system. The dropped classes half way through. They took years to finish their degrees. In fact, people moaned and groaned and protested about the 400 EUR fee, but in the subsequent 3 years, graduation rate soared as people finished up their degrees after years of educational welfare. But it’s still cheap and still 3 times as inefficient. And who pays for this abuse of cheap post secondary education? Tradespeople.
3. Sure, that’s my point. It was Carole James under a Glen Clark government. Carole could have decided to not have a full time plumber or full time electrician on staff. But she chose to close warehouse instead. Blame Carole or blame Glen, but don’t pretend that school closures are unique to BC Liberal governments. And I don’t think it’s fair to say that the BC Liberals are punishing students because they hate the BCTF. The BCTF clearly hates the BC Liberals though, and their interests get priority under the NDP, as do the interests of other big unions. Its hard to negotiate with unions when all they want to do is throw you out so their political wings (NDP, COPE (Van), VCE (Victoria) etc.) can take power.
4. You are proposing a manufacturing tax instead of a consumption tax. Manufacturers that consume carbon pay the carbon tax. But people who consume carbon should pay it too. We clearly disagree.
The debate should be good. Ultimately Carole can attack Campbell all she wants on a number of issues. He and Jane Sterk will attack her on the carbon tax. But what Carole really needs to do is convince BCers that she is a viable alternative and has real solutions. If she goes negative the whole time, then I don’t think she will really change anyone’s mind at this point. We’ll see how it goes.
Cheers!
Al: You need to be careful, because climate change is happening. The Earth goes back and forth in cyclical periods between global warming and global cooling, this has been shown over the planet’s history. A great example is the post-WWII years when pollution was very huge with all the factories producing new technology and such during the baby boomer days. Pollution and emissions were very high, yet the world was on a brief cooling period at the time, then in the early 70’s things began to go back up and in 2001 they peaked I believe. Following that we have seen a gradual decrease in temperatures as we go back into a cooling period. The green movement has become a leviathon unto itself attacking anyone who would dare say this as blasphemic, and it is scary. It has taken the hypothesis that “man-made global warming is the problem” and tried to twist it into fact. There is no fact or proof that man-made global warming exists, and it remains a hypothesis. However this cyclican shift between global warming and global cooling is a trend that history shows has fluctuated back and forth over time. This is much more reasonable.
Nonetheless, I think it is a good thing to clean up our environment and be good stewards to the world in which we live, because it is all we have. We must take care of the things that are vital to life, and a healthy environment can ensure sustainable, quality lives, as well as a good economy. Having a great environment can help us have a great economy. Just lets focus on our facts rather than sensationalizing hypothesis and trying to turn them into fact when they are not.
For others:
BC Liberals are introducing a cap-in-trade system on top of the carbon tax, to go after those who pollute more, so they can pay more proportionally for the amount of pollutants they release – those releasing more volatile toxins, obviously paying more because they are more harmful. So a mixed carbon tax, with a cap-and-trade system would be the best way to go, and many environmentalists or environmental groups I have talked to think that is a good way to do such.
NDP’s Purewal says he supports death tax. Bruce Ralston says he didn’t say it. Here’s the video. http://tinyurl.com/cppk9c
Thank you for your well-wishes people. Also thank you for not keeping the attacks on each other personal!
Excellent points Mike – good grasp of economics.
The socialists believe social wealth is created by committees of overpaid bureaucrats – planning idealistic rubbish that will never work. You see, the socialist doesn’t understand production. Wealth just bubbles up they say – its the regulator, compassionate planner and the taxman that is really creating wealth.
From the sound of it, none of these socialists that are debating Mike seem to have had a real productive job – where you have to earn what you get paid – and where you have to compete in the marketplace. Typical petty bourgeois dreaming of one day becoming a monopoly capitalist – the easy way through government control.
Productive work – nah that is for the working class – the socialist is just too smart for that.
Glass, your attempt at red-baiting is laughable at best; insulting at worst. The system you defend that the BC Liberals govern over is hardly capitalist. If we were in a pure capitalist society, there simply wouldn’t be any social programs; no healthcare, no welfare, no nothing…everything would be market controlled. Western society is very much a mixed system where there is a level of free enterprise, but a socialist inspired social safety net to try to catch anyone that falls through. The lesson there was that when there isn’t a safety net, it has the potential to breed extremism (like the kind that appeared in Germany in the 1930’s).
Calling opponents of the BC Liberals “socialist” the same as those very opponents comparing liberals to “fascists”…and its idiotic and infantile. I do not believe that Campbell or the BC Liberals are facist, nor should you realistically believe that his opponets are socialist. Both are extremes that our society would not survive.
Enough of that insulting, divisive, and uninformed name calling…it doesn’t do you any favours and it brings the level of debate (thats been otherwise very respectful) to a far lower and childish level.
Glass,my friend,
I have a very honest suggestion for you; read some books and don’t comment about things you don’t understand. It’s like me talking about astrophysics or medicine. I wouldn’t do that to avoid making a fool out of myself.
Read some unbiased books that help you understand what terms like ‘economics,’ ‘value,’ ‘capital,’ ’socialism,’ ‘capitalism,’ ‘production,’ ‘wealth,’ and ‘productiveness’ actually mean.
If you can’t find unbiased books, read books that cover both sides of the story and then make your own conclusion. Have a look at Das Kapital (Capital) on wikipedia