...
written by ape , July 03, 2008 (07:22:58 AM)

Very well put for a card carrying liberal supporter.

...
written by Mike S , July 03, 2008 (07:56:50 AM)

I think one of the problems of living in a society is that we.. well, live in a society. Human nature still often tends to think of how everything applies to 'me' as the writer has in this case, and not what will work for the majority. Here are some examples:

" It will directly benefit my family."
" We just had an air-source heat pump installed "
" our next vehicle will probably be a hybrid."

All very nice, but hardly affordable for most people. Then some ridiculous statements:

"These investments cost money -- that’s where our Climate Action Dividends have gone"

And then he claims the income tax reductions will also fund these rather expensive items. As pointed out in another thread by Dr. Whitcombe of UNBC, a "40k earner will see a whole $33.89 decrease in their provincial income tax for this year. And a further $55.46 the following year for a total of $89.35 per year."

Please, Mr. Egger, show me how you can do all you are, Hybrid purchase included, on a one-time $100 dividend/person, and those kind of income tax savings. If you are doing what you say then .. fantastic. You are helping the environment. Just don't claim you are doing it in a financially neutral way.

I agree fully if the tax was truly revenue neutral that it would be a terrific idea to shift it from income tax to a carbon tax. Sadly the only thing 'neutral' will be what cars are stuck in as no one will be able to afford to go anywhere.

...
written by Shannon7 , July 03, 2008 (08:21:41 AM)

That is nice that you are 100% for this carbon tax. I, myself, agree with it in theory but when you have no means to cut your costs then it becomes very expensive. I rent my home and it uses natural gas to heat and I live in town but work slightly out of town so I am not able to change how I get to work.

Also, Egger, it is quite obvious that you have a fair share of money with that fancy "air-source heat pump" and future hybrid vehicle. The majority of the population cannot afford these luxuries!!!

And if you are so "environmentaly friendly" have you quit using plastic bags when shopping, buy organic clothing, compost, recycle, walk or bike to work, etc....? My guess is that you are probably too busy making all this money to take the time to do the majority of these other "environmental" things. There are a lot more problems on this earth other than just the carbon levels.

Egger
written by dhood , July 03, 2008 (10:50:50 AM)

Where are your solar energy panels? I know people who use solar energy for everything. Why can't the city use it for there heating problem instead of wanting us to breath in more filthy air than we already are. Between the hydrogen plant and the pulp mill and all the semi tractor trailors and the sawmills and all the cars in town who don't believe in the bus or pooling to work, you would think more people would have solar power. You could probably even use solar power to grow pot instead of gas powered generators like most of the grow-ops use out in the boonies. Right? (dudes on Isle Pierre road?) Come on now every little bit helps!

...
written by RUEZ , July 03, 2008 (11:31:43 AM)

Slapping a tax on fuel is no solution to anything. It's actually a cop out by the Liberals. Now they can sit back and pretend they are helping the environment. Why would they tax gasoline and propane the same if they wanted to help the environment. It's a fact that propane fuel is a cleaner vehicle fuel with lower emissions. Why not try to steer the province towards cleaner fuels rather than just throwing a tax on it and sitting back. Good riddance Gordon Campbell. You're forcing me to vote NDP.

Egger's B,S,
written by Vogel , July 03, 2008 (11:49:14 AM)

If I'd known I could of done all that for a hund,I probably would'nt have spent the whole dividend on beans so I can fart on all the B,S, politicians I can get close enough to fart on, liberals or the likewise, oh yea insurance salemen and lawyers too, they all smell the same,,, like B,S,.

...
written by btls , July 03, 2008 (02:49:23 PM)

I think Egger needs to to think about how many trucks it takes to fill Walmart alone. Truckers are the ones paying the price up front, and with the ever increasing fuel prices it will have to start hitting everyone. Is Egger ready to pay extra for anything and everything shipped into province. Wages don't increase like like the price of living, so when you get down to it Egger's daughter will be paying more. Maybe not so prosperous...
Oh by the way, got my $100 cheque. I used to cover the increase in fuel, lasted 2 days.

Hyperbole
written by tombstone81 , July 03, 2008 (05:06:06 PM)

Come on now, btls...I don't agree with the carbon tax either or the phony bribe checks...and I'm all for a little exaggeration to make a point...but TWO DAYS?! Give us a break.

At 30 degrees since you got your cheque I can GUARANTEE you haven't been using home heating oil. So that means the only thing you've paid the carbon tax on so far is gasoline for your truck. With a 2.4c per litre increase...you would have had to burn almost FIVE THOUSAND litres of gas since the carbon tax kicked in to use up your entire dividend cheque.

Assuming your vehicles holds 100L of fuel, you're going to get almost 50 fillups before your $100 dividend cheque is used up. For a lot of people, 4 fillups per month is more than enough (many people use less), meaning your free $100 would cover the cost of the taxes on those 48 fillups over the year.

It's on the heating fuel where we're really going to get burned, not on gasoline for our vehicles.

tombstone
written by btls , July 04, 2008 (02:27:34 PM)

Assumed wrong, my internationals hold 950L each, all 3 of them, and thats diesel not gas. My best truck and driver combo burns 1650L a week, approx $2400. Ownerops, like myself are already trying hard to make it work. But after doing the math I did overexaggerate. $12 a truck per day..3 days instead of 2. My apologies

...
written by allniter , July 04, 2008 (02:39:10 PM)

Tombstone's right about the heating fuel, especially with the approved increases, but, as we know, the cost of everything that gets here by truck will rise, so we are going to get burned with the vehicle fuel in that way especially.

Keith Egger dropped the ball with his letter big time, and Colin Hansen grabbed it and fumbled with HIS letter. The only true purpose of this punitve and regressive tax is for keeping up appearances on the world stage in 2010.

...
written by Mike S , July 04, 2008 (02:45:27 PM)

Allniter you are almost 100% correct. The only thing I would alter is your last statement. Your reason (Olympic appearances), may be right, but it is not the only reason. I think the additional tax will help with budget surpluses, allowing the government to puff up their collective chests and strut around.

Also very true.
written by allniter , July 04, 2008 (02:54:59 PM)

Point taken, Mike S. Thanks and HAGD!

btls
written by tombstone81 , July 04, 2008 (07:33:39 PM)

Thank you for clarifying that you are an owner-op fueling not one but three massive tractor-trailer units. I stand corrected, but in the context of the conversation to that point (average Joes talking about their commuter vehicles and how the carbon tax will affect them) you can probably see how your comments could be confusing. Despite the fact that you mentioned the additional costs of trucking, I didn't really make the connection that you were speaking about your business costs as opposed to your personal costs. I'm sure you will agree that the vehicle you drive your kids to Wal-mart in is not going to suck up that $100 dividend in 2-3 days at 2.34 cents per litre.

In any case, I feel for you and all of us. I'm sure I (the consumer) will be paying more for my "stuff" in the near future as you pass along the additional fuel costs to your customers and they pass it along to me.

Shifting taxes from income to pollution is a great idea.
written by Sojourn , July 04, 2008 (08:48:07 PM)

I, also have an idea. Since pollution is the result of mass consumerism, we simply need to reduce the population of Canada to oh, lets say a few thousand. That way that many people in a country this large certainly wouldn't be able to create much pollution in the world.

Come to think of it, if it's more people and more industry etc. creating the polution why do the governments want to keep increasing the population of Canada which in turn fuels more pollution?

Government, all hypocrites me thinks.

...
written by maverick , July 05, 2008 (07:52:27 AM)

Just another tax that reminds me of the fact that I'm working for more nothing. We just saw "tax-free day" come and go, half the year goes to paying taxes...how depressing. Call it what you want (carbon tax, fuel tax, your money is not your money tax), it's nothing more than a coffer filling revenue machine.

yoke on our face if carbon it ain't
written by gsjonuk , July 05, 2008 (02:14:42 PM)

25 years-ago, we will look back at our current carbon fighting initatives and be able to evalate them with greater clarity. It will be interesting if consensus science handed us the wrong culprit or even if a culprit ever really existed.

Having said that, I am divided on the carbon tax. I think hard calls are needed to reduce our waste and polution culture but I also think the one size fits all - our way or the highway approach, seems unfair to northerners. I suspect the government assumed that lower mainlanders and islanders would cry hard if they had to pay more carbon tax than us and didn't have the intestinal fortitude to impose a two-tiered taxation sector.