Bailout is actually more than $700bn

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


a) I'm not a commie, nor have I ever been one. I'm not a socialist any more either, if you'd like to know.

That's fantastic. I figured as such once you actually displayed a solid understanding of economics.

Are you a Liberal now?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


a) I'm not a commie, nor have I ever been one. I'm not a socialist any more either, if you'd like to know.

I had a suspicion.

We'll make a good Red Tory out of you yet.

b) I don't have a problem with redistributing the tax as a lump-sum payment per capita. Would take the sting out of regressiveness. GST is a better tax than income tax is, expecially as currently implemented.

I don't entirely disagree. However, it was good politics and Harper needed every bit of good politics he could muster. It was especially choice given his opposition and their history on the topic.

I have no problem with him cutting the GST. I would have disagreed with abolishing it.

NYE, there is good reason to believe that carbon emissions contain an externality (global warming) which is currently priced at 0. The efficient solution is to internalize this externality by use of a Pigovian tax. If you want to alleviate supposed regionality then you should suggest decreasing transfer payments in coordination with introducing carbon tax. Most reasonable economists who have weighed in on the issue believe that such a tax is the optimal policy solution to global warming.

I would give those economists more credence if they had other oil producers lined up to tax the **** out of their petroleum industries with the goal of reducing GHGs. They don't, so all I'll say is that equating Canada's situation with that of Sweden is hooey, to use a technical term.

It might play well in Central Canada (no ****! Free cash from those ******* cowboys in Alberta!) but what Harper campaigned against was monumentally stupid policy.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kidicious
NYE,

No. They aren't saving any money. They're just pouring it on as fast as they possibly can. This is ****ing unbelievable.

You have an analysis that shows taken over banks would not have received more bailout dollars than the tax breaks?

It's a little early for that, no?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

That's fantastic. I figured as such once you actually displayed a solid understanding of economics.

Are you a Liberal now?

I'm ambivalent. In the most recent election I didn't vote, though if I had I would have been stuck between Grits and Tories. Grits for tax policy, Tories for foreing policy.

[KrazyHorse]

I would give those economists more credence if they had other oil producers lined up to tax the **** out of their petroleum industries with the goal of reducing GHGs.

Producers have a vested interest in not seeing the efficient solution. By the way, I would suggest a end user carbon tax. Such a tax would, on its own have little impact on global petroleum pricews (sincc Caanada is a minor consumer). WQe would not be ****ing oil producers on our own. Just incentivizing our consumer s to be more efficient.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by notyoueither


You have an analysis that shows taken over banks would not have received more bailout dollars than the tax breaks?

It's a little early for that, no?

Well the tax breaks are estimated over $100bn and up to $140bn. It's pretty hard to imagine that they will save anywhere near that much in bailout dollars.

But my point is that the authorities aren't trying to save money. They're trying to pour as much on as possible. In fact, I said it earlier that they aren't printing money, but now after thinking about it, it seems unrealistic to think that they are able to add this much debt.

The amazing thing about this is that the fed was set up as a private secretive organization because it was assumed that bankers are prudent, resonsible people that could be trusted without oversight. That idea has certainly been blown out the window. I can't see how anyone can possibly believe that at this point. Just think about what all this is doing to investor confidence. There are serious conscequences to all this.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I would give those economists more credence if they had other oil producers lined up to tax the **** out of their petroleum industries with the goal of reducing GHGs.

Producers have a vested interest in not seeing the efficient solution. By the way, I would suggest a end user carbon tax. Such a tax would, on its own have little impact on global petroleum pricews (sincc Caanada is a minor consumer). WQe would not be ****ing oil producers on our own. Just incentivizing our consumer s to be more efficient.

That's a good plan. That was not the plan that Harper campaigned against.

Here's a good riddle for you though. Come up with the answer to how a Conservative party can win a national campaign based on taxing the hell out of gas guzzlers.

Now tell me why the Liberals would ever even try. Campaigning on pain for Ontario and Quebec consumers has never been a winning plan federally.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I'm ambivalent. In the most recent election I didn't vote, though if I had I would have been stuck between Grits and Tories. Grits for tax policy, Tories for foreing policy.

You'll tire of a lack of spine from the Grits. But if you want power, no matter how you have to get it, then they are for you.

If you are serious about market economics, responsible fiscal policy, and balanced social policy you'll come over here and sit with us..

[KrazyHorse]

The plan that Dion proposed was pain for QC and ON consumers. He just couched it in terms which made it seem like it wasn;t for people who have not htought about tax incidence.

The difference between an end-user and initial producer tax lies solely in countires who are net exproters and who are net importers of carbon emitting products. AFAIK the DIon plan appeared to be an initial producer tax but acutllaly looked like a user tax in terms of incidence. YOu are fere to proove me rong here (I did not pay sufficient attention to the election, which is the major reason I diddn;t vote)

[KrazyHorse]

If you are serious about market economics, responsible fiscal policy, and balanced social policy you'll come over here and sit with us..

a) Both the Grits and Tories have demonstrated a balanced social policy and a resposible fiscal policy. Unfortunately, Haprer surrenderd to populist anti-tax rhetirci hsi last time around

b)( There is no b. I would have boted with the tories if harper had been as astute on GST and carbon tax as his resume suggests he should be.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

If you are serious about market economics, responsible fiscal policy, and balanced social policy you'll come over here and sit with us..

a) Both the Grits and Tories have demonstrated a balanced social policy and a resposible fiscal policy. Unfortunately, Haprer surrenderd to populist anti-tax rhetirci hsi last time around

b)( There is no b. I would have boted with the tories if harper had been as astute on GST and carbon tax as his resume suggests he should be.

The Liberals are fiscally responsible only because they have to be to be in the centre and get votes. You know this. They will do whatever gets the votes, even if that means campaigning against a gas tax and then imposing one, or 'axe da tax' and then nothing, or 'we'll do better than all you *****es under Kyoto' and then nothing more than naming a dog to live up to it.

Harper does have an emissions plan, incidentally. It just doesn't involve killing off one of the only strong industries in the country to give tax breaks so people in Ontario and Quebec can buy more SUVs.

[notyoueither]

Incidentally, I claim this thread in the name of the Governor General!

[Kidlicious]

[notyoueither]

If you play your cards right we'll let you be a serf, Kid.

[KrazyHorse]

Harper does have an emissions plan, incidentally. It just doesn't involve killing off one of the only strong industries in the country to give tax breaks so people in Ontario and Quebec can buy more SUVs.

Can you either summarize it or link me to it?