Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
We are dealing with politicians!!! Of course, Mr MacNeil is jumping with joy. The federal government just made his wildest dreams come true. He is awarded tens of millions of dollars. As a politician going into an election he can talk tough and make on he is playing hard ball. At the end of the day, after the election he will take the money , regrettably of course, and say there is nothing we can do about the federal government’s actions.
Regarding Mr Lacey’s comments, I differ a little bit. His slant is that ” This article perpetuates the myth that it’s possible for a carbon tax to be “revenue-neutral”. These taxes can be revenue neutral to governments but not to taxpayers who are paying them.”
I would suggest that there in fact can be a revenue neutral carbon tax. The fact politicians chose to NOT do so does not make the concept a myth or something we should not fight for. For instance the carbon tax will add several Cents to our gasoline price/ per litre . Reducing the NS fuel tax which is buried in the per liter price by the same amount means it would be revenue neutral to the government and the taxpayer.
Remember, we are dealing with Politicians!!! They represent evil! They are generally a little light on ethics and skills. They will seize upon a tax grab at every opportunity , especially one that they can position as being forced upon them.
One tax organization said the carbon tax will cost the average household $2500 per year. For many people that is more than , or a significant percentage of what they currently pay in NS income tax.
How do I know politicians are evil. Only evil people would impose this significant tax on us and try to position it as a carbon price, not a tax. We need our version of the Boston Tea Party.
barry h | October 10, 2016 | Reply
Has anyone considered the administration cost of a carbon tax? Remember the cost of the Long-gun Registry? There’s no way this can be revenue-neutral once you take out the cost of the admin staff and environmental engineers that will be needed to measure the carbon.
Craig McCormick | October 9, 2016 | Reply
Can’t add much to what Kevin L. has said; as usual he is right on the money..
bobmackenzie | October 8, 2016 | Reply
My guess is that this is MacNeil trying to show he is something that he isn’t .
Brag all he wants , but the biomass operation at the Port Hawkesbury paper mill that was Dexter deal still lives on AND it needs 50 trailer truck loads of wood PER DAY to feed that biomass burner ,and that equates to 6000 hectares of forest being cut every year just to be burnt . Far short of the best use of the forest and not a very good reason to then justify clear cutting on crown land. Less forest is not helpful to have credits in the carbon tax schemes. We need transparency that shows what each power plant and wind farm is producing and where the electricity is going . Maybe NSP is exporting and we don’t even know it .
peter s | October 7, 2016 | Reply
This article perpetuates the myth that it’s possible for a carbon tax to be “revenue-neutral”. These taxes can be revenue neutral to governments but not to taxpayers who are paying them.
BC only returns less than 50% of the carbon taxes in personal tax relief to taxpayers. And even that is an optimistic figure because it includes measures that only apply to a few taxpayers and not others. For example the rural and homeowner benefit (you have to live outside a metropolitan area or in a Northern BC town make you eligible for this). Or the BC seniors renovation tax credit.
The other 50% or so are for things that have no impact on taxpayers or have anything to do with helping the environment. Revenue from the carbon tax is instead re-distributed to pay for special interests or for political pay offs. One example is the BC film tax credit is paid for by the carbon tax and recently contributed $3 million to the movie “The Smurfs”.
You diminish Nova Scotia’s accomplishments at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In 2015, GHGs were reduced by 58% of 2005 levels, that is one of the best reductions in the country. Those emission reductions have come at a significant cost to our provinces economy. Now the federal government doesn’t want to recognize that.
Don’t be duped in believing politicians claims that they can create a “revenue-neutral” tax. They haven’t created one yet, and likely won’t in the future.
Kevin Lacey | October 7, 2016 | Reply
You’re correct Mr. Lacey. There is a simple solution. The provincial Liberals have a majority, right? All they have to do is implement a manditory tax of, say, 8% on all Federal buildings and property in Nova Scotia and maybe, 1% on all Federal employees personal taxes and 2% on all vehicle’s registration, fees, etc. That should cover the Federal Carbon tax. Then the MacNeil government can cut them a check for this tax paid by the Federal government. Then it would be a “revenue neutral” tax.
Craig | October 7, 2016 | Reply
Creative Commons 2010 – Present