Bailout is actually more than $700bn

[Kidlicious]

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by 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?

I like this summary, strangely enough.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/08/07/john-mccallum-tory-emissions-plan-is-all-pain-no-gain.aspx

John McCallum: Tory emissions plan is all pain, no gain
Posted: August 07, 2008, 12:00 PM by Kelly McParland
Full Comment, canada, John McCallum
With all the apocalyptic warnings coming from Conservative MPs about the Liberal Green Shift plan, it is eerie how silent they have been about their own plan — especially the part of their plan that will raise energy prices for Canadians.


The Conservative government’s greenhouse gas reduction strategy is included in their document, Turning the Corner. When it comes to energy prices here’s what Turning the Corner has to say: “Our modelling suggests that Canadians can expect to bear real costs under the Regulatory Framework. For the majority of individual Canadians … these costs will be most evident in the form of higher energy prices, particularly with respect to electricity and natural gas.”


That is a far cry from the Conservative backbenchers who’ve been saying they want to lower energy prices but without giving any details about how. So which one is it?


The Liberals acknowledge that any attempt to lower greenhouse gas emissions will affect energy prices. This is why the Green Shift includes substantial income tax cuts to help Canadians adjust. For instance a couple who each earn $40,000 per year and are raising two kids would save nearly $1,400 per year in taxes to help them deal with higher energy prices. Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, on the other hand, says that now is not the time for tax reductions. Essentially their approach is all pain, no gain.


Conservative MPs have also been suggesting that the Liberal Green Shift would “screw” the West because their economies, particularly in Alberta and Saskatchewan, are more carbon intensive. The Conservatives perhaps haven’t read their own plan but it clearly states, “Some industrial sectors, particularly those that are more carbon intensive, will be more affected than others.”


The Liberal plan however provides corporate tax reductions for both large and small businesses as well as allowances and credits to encourage them to invest in green technologies. This will help our industries, including those in the West, to remain competitive while they move to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Conversely the Conservative plan is all cost and no benefit for Canadian businesses.


If you happen to come across a Conservative Member of Parliament this summer on the barbecue circuit, ask him to explain how the Tory greenhouse gas emissions strategy works. If he can’t explain it to you, there’s just one question you’ll have to ask yourself: Is it because he doesn’t know the answer, or because he doesn’t want you to know the answer?
National Post

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Sush, Mexican.

[KrazyHorse]

nye: thank you (seriously), will read it when sober and respond.

[Kidlicious]

* While the Canadians sleep off their hangovers the Americans attack at dawn.

The Bush administration defends the use of bailout money to pay dividends.

Any comments NGR?

[Kidlicious]

.

[Asher]

Doesn't work, we have someone on guard at all hours.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I like this summary, strangely enough.

Not a good description. The key things I got were:

1) There was no offsetting reduction to personal taxes in Tory plan. That is fine if you believe that Canadians should undergo a net tax hike, though I don't see why. Canada is still running a fairly balanced budget, even in a poor economic climate.

2) I'm still not sure if the Tory plan is regulatory or tax-based. Tax-based plans are superior from an efficiency standpoint, because they impose a uniform carbon price across all users. Regulatory approaches (unless designed omnisciently) will impose higher carbon costs for some users and lower carbon costs for others. Depending on the exact approach they may also allow established industries to collect rents, instead of the government collecting taxes. This is a net transfer from the general public to established industries.

3) The only thing I don't like in the Liberal plan is the credits and tax breaks for investing in green technologies. The whole point of the carbon tax is to provide the right amount of incentive to reduce emissions. No need to add in extra goodies, which are inferior from an efficiency perspective.

I don't know if it's the article or if it's simply that the Conservatives have not adequately described their plan. Right now, the Liberal plan is far superior. It's the smartest thing to come out of any political party in Canada since the Liberals balanced the budget in the 90s.

[Asher]

That Liberal plan doesn't exist anymore.

[KrazyHorse]

That's because Harper decided to sacrifice truth to political expedience. My hope is that he allows a superficially different plan with a different name to pass.

He should be smart enough to realize that his criticisms of the Liberal plan (or at least the ones I've seen) were weak.

The only real criticism of a well-designed carbon tax that I can see is that the net effect of global warming on Canada is not particularly apparent. We do not have large low-lying areas susceptible to rising sea levels, we have sufficient fresh water to see us through any reasonable amount of rainfall pattern shift etc. In other words, the externality of our carbon emissions is felt entirely outside Canada. If we decide that we don't care what happens to the rest of the planet then we should leverage our privileged warming-proof position by continuing to price carbon emissions at 0 (and not implement ANY regulatory or tax changes).

[Naked Gents Rut]

If we decide that we don't care what happens to the rest of the planet then we should leverage our privileged warming-proof position by continuing to price carbon emissions at 0 (and not implement ANY regulatory or tax changes).

Smart.

[KrazyHorse]

The US is in a far more precarious position when it comes to rising sea levels. Just look at a contour map and compare with a population density map.

Though obviously it will be able to adjust more easily than the Third World.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's because Harper decided to sacrifice truth to political expedience. My hope is that he allows a superficially different plan with a different name to pass.

He should be smart enough to realize that his criticisms of the Liberal plan (or at least the ones I've seen) were weak.

The major problem of the Liberal plan were all of the exceptions. There's no point to a carbon tax if you cut taxes such that it removes the pain of the thing.

Carbon tax is a fine idea, just be consistent about it. KISS.

[KrazyHorse]

Which exceptions? There are the tax credits for research etc, but those are trimmings and do not represent a major annoyance.

There is also the exception for gasoline. Here are my thoughts on that:

The Liberal claim is that gasoline is already taxed at the final carbon tax rate, so increasing the tax on it doesn't make sense. At first glance, this makes sense. However, there are externalities other than carbon emission in gasoline use. The major one is the use of roads. This is the externality that the current tax is used to correct. If there are two externalities you need to apply a tax to each of them. If the current gasoline tax is at the correct level to pay for road use then it needs to increase if we will be pricing carbon as well. So this is a significant flaw in the Liberal plan. This exception is obviously due to political considerations. The plan would be better without the exception (especially as it's my opinion that current gasoline and especially diesel taxes in Canada are too low to even correct for road use externality).

But IF we accept that we are going to attempt to price in global cost of our carbon use, the Liberal plan still goes most of the way toward the right solution. And it's far better than the Conservative plan (at least what I've seen of it so far).

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Which exceptions? There are the tax credits for research etc, but those are trimmings and do not represent a major annoyance.

Trucking industry, fishing industry, etc. Dion kept stuffing in exceptions for vote-rich sectors.