Bailout is actually more than $700bn

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
But KH is right - social and enviromental costs should always be accounted for. ´Stakeholder value´ - and when it comes to GHGs everyone is stakeholder. That the trading partner of Alberta has not yet ´bought into climate change policies´ just makes it worse, cause you know they wont do anything to account for the cost - not even socializing them. The damage will just occur - to all of us.

Take the preaching to the Chinese and the Saudis.

If they listen I'll be more charitable.

[KrazyHorse]

Why? You read it in a textbook?

Is it that you enjoy being ignorant?

The jist of it is that Dion's number of $15.3 billion in tax revenue can be arrived at by taking his tax numbers for various fuels and plugging in usage numbers from 2006. I don't think that allows for 90% of the emissions from the oil sands being forgiven due to 90% of the oil being exported to the US. Do you?

Are you retarded? Did you miss it when I said (about 30 posts ago):

The reason the border treatment wasn't specified during the campaign (probably) was because we export more carbon than we import, so adjusting border treatment properly would mean being able to claim less tax revenue (~20% lower IIRC).

?

You're in way over your head, NYE. You don't even understand the way the GST operates, let alone the way a carbon tax would operate.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Take the preaching to the Chinese and the Saudis.

If they listen I'll be more charitable.

I've already explained that any reasonable carbon tax plan would neutralize carbon arbitrage via the same system currently used for the GST to neutralize tax arbitrage.

You don't even know how your country's national sales tax operates (in mechanics it is a production (value added) tax plus an import tariff plus an export subsidy which means that in effect we can talk about it as a sales tax).

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Why? You read it in a textbook?

Is it that you enjoy being ignorant?

No. Do you enjoy being an ass?

I always thought that if you could not use plain English, you probably don't understand the topic.

The jist of it is that Dion's number of $15.3 billion in tax revenue can be arrived at by taking his tax numbers for various fuels and plugging in usage numbers from 2006. I don't think that allows for 90% of the emissions from the oil sands being forgiven due to 90% of the oil being exported to the US. Do you?

Are you retarded? Did you miss it when I said (about 30 posts ago):

The reason the border treatment wasn't specified during the campaign (probably) was because we export more carbon than we import, so adjusting border treatment properly would mean being able to claim less tax revenue (~20% lower IIRC).

And so that is why he projects income with zero reduction in use and zero considerations for export exactly how?

You're pulling this **** out of your ass, because you sure aas hell are not getting it from anything that Dion ever said.

?

You're in way over your head, NYE. You don't even understand the way the GST operates, let alone the way a carbon tax would operate.

Instead of an attempt at dominance, you might actually discuss the topic.

I understand perfectly how the GST works, having been someone who argued for it ever since it was an idea and having been familiar with its predecessors.

'But, but, but... it's the same as a sale tax...' is a line line of crap that would get laughed out of Washington in a New York minute.

It's you who seem hoplessly out to lunch, as if the US Congress would have any qualms at all about imposing tariffs of their own based on your lame-brained ideas of how Canada can go it alone without our major trading partner.

And I think I'm doiing just fine, thanks.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I've already explained that any reasonable carbon tax plan would neutralize carbon arbitrage via the same system currently used for the GST to neutralize tax arbitrage.

You don't even know how your country's national sales tax operates (in mechanics it is a production (value added) tax plus an import tariff plus an export subsidy which means that in effect we can talk about it as a sales tax).

Try it in English, and shove the rest of the attitude.

[notyoueither]

What you have not explained is why a country that has not yet accepted that action due to climate change is justified would accept its exports being tariffed on the subject while they accept our products discounted of our very own climate change policies.

Get it through Congress, and then come and lecture me, blowhard.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


No. Do you enjoy being an ass?

I always thought that if you could not use plain English, you probably don't understand the topic.

And I always thought that knowledge should be celebrated, not denigrated with snarky comments about textbooks. But maybe that's just me.

And so that is why he projects income with zero reduction in use and zero considerations for export exactly how?

Because his revenue projections are nonsense. As I said, there are two issues:

1) His plan completely skips the border issue. Why? Because he'd like to claim that the revenue raised will be higher than it really will be while not exposing himself to the immediate criticism that the proposal would lead to carbon arbitrage (movement of identical production out of canada to take advantage of more favourable carbon tax climate). For the same reason that when we implemented the GST we implemented the current import tariff/export credit system (to avoid tax arbitrage) we would implement a similar tariff/credit system to avoid carbon arbitrage.

2) He does a STATIC analysis (assuming behaviour does not change) because the DYNAMIC analysis (assuming behaviour does change as we might expect it would given observed elasticities of demand of carbon-emitting products) would lead to lower revenue estimates.

I am not defending those numbers. In fact, as I quoted myself saying, I have already criticized them as disingenuous. The actual revenues raised would be lower (~20% lower due to the fact that we export more carbon than we import plus some other amount due to changes in behaviour)

You're pulling this **** out of your ass, because you sure aas hell are not getting it from anything that Dion ever said.

In any public policy or economics textbook if you open to the chapter on tax incidence and design you will find the relationship I've been talking about. Avoiding tax arbitrage (AS I'VE NOW DEFINED IT IN ONE SYLLABLE WORDS) is the FIRST thing that any leader of an open economy (like Canada's) worries about. No politician is going to enact a tax which favours US producers at the expense of Canadian producers of ANY product. If Dion avoided talking about border issues then he could attempt to have his cake (overly high revenue estimates) and eat it too (no charges of tax arbitrage). I mentioned this, as I said, 30 or 40 posts ago. It is disingenuous, which is why I ignored his exact revenue figures, and have not used them in this discussion. Just as it is disingenuous to do a static revenue analysis (this is standard practice among politicians, I might add)

I understand perfectly how the GST works, having been someone who argued for it ever since it was an idea and having been familiar with its predecessors.

'But, but, but... it's the same as a sale tax...' is a line line of crap that would get laughed out of Washington in a New York minute.

These two statements are wildly inconsistent. The GST is collected for imported goods in the EXACT SAME WAY that a carbon tax would be collected for imported goods. Unless you can point me to the section of NAFTA which differentiates between the GST and the carbon tax I'm going to assume that you don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about.

And I think I'm doiing just fine, thanks.

Nope.

Anybody who has thought at all deeply about this issue is now completely bored with this conversation because I'm plodding through extremely basic issues for you here.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What you have not explained is why a country that has not yet accepted that action due to climate change is justified would accept its exports being tariffed on the subject while they accept our products discounted of our very own climate change policies.

Yet this is EXACTLY the way the GST operates. Their products pay the GST at the border while our products have the GST previously paid in their production rebated at the border.

[KrazyHorse]

If you just continue to keep raising the same objections which I've already dealt with then I'm going to assume that you're incapable of learning even when led by the hand.

[notyoueither]

Well there you go.

English did not hurt all that much, did it? Now we can talk about the ideas.

How do companies with greater distances for transportation recover the higher transport and other costs when they export?

A touque made in Montreal from local materials would get less back at the border for carbon tax on transport than one made in Lethbridge from yarn made in Ontario?

Exporting companies on the Prairies get extra back at the border due to coal fired electricity and natural gas heat than companies in Quebec that have hydro for power and electric boilers?

I don't think this can work like the GST.

[notyoueither]

The GST works because it is simple.

It appears as an item on every commercial document. Business tote up the amoiunts collected, deduct the amounts paid to suppliers, and remit the balance. If they pay more than they collect (exporters) they get a cheque from Ottawa.

The carbon tax idea is no GST.

I also severely doubt the US Congress and Federal departments would see it that way either. They don't seem very reasonable at all, FWIW.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If you just continue to keep raising the same objections which I've already dealt with then I'm going to assume that you're incapable of learning even when led by the hand.

I don't have the terminology of academic economics down.

If that makes me deficient, the deficiency is one of your mind.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The GST works because it is simple.

It appears as an item on every commercial document. Business tote up the amoiunts collected, deduct the amounts paid to suppliers, and remit the balance. If they pay more than they collect (exporters) they get a cheque from Ottawa.

The carbon tax idea is no GST.

I also severely doubt the US Congress and Federal departments would see it that way either. They don't seem very reasonable at all, FWIW.

Apparently the English didn't help so much, either, since you still can't actually understand it.

[notyoueither]

Don't you have a toilet seat to polish?

Or maybe you can tell me how commercial exporters who do not know what they have paid in carbon tax can recover said tax at the border on the way out.

[notyoueither]

And, was this toilet made (sold) by Standard General fired with coal, natural gas, or was the process powered by nuclear for the imports.

You're an expert on toilets. You tell me.