Who did you vote for?

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You know what per capita means right?

Per capita consumption goes up with immigration.

If you have 1 million people living in existing infrastructure and all of a suddent you have 1.1 million people you need to expand your infrastructure by 10 percent.

This is why everyone loves immigration. Expansion means more money for those who own the means of production.


Even most conservatives are pro immigration.

The issue is if you care about the environment it is horridly stupid.\


EDIT: The bigger issue is it is the growth is based on debt.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

A quota system is functionally the same as a carbon price, only what you're proposing is for cattle only. Do you truly not understand this? If you're ok with carbon pricing for cows, why are you not ok with carbon pricing for things that will cost less to tax?

Because in the cause of cattle you can distribute them out equally.

So that smaller farms actually have increased revenue as the artificial shortage creates a higher sale price per cow.

The only way this could compare with Carbon would be if they carbon tax applied only to the wealthy and people in lower tax brackets actually got tax free gas.


Regardless this is an Apples to Testicles comparison.

People can source protein from other sources than beef.

Read meat isn't even that healthy(relevant when we have free healtcare) and poultry prices are quite competitive.

No one is hurt other than large scale slaughter houses(and I suppose burger king).

Carbon taxes either do nothing or they

A) Funnel money into the hands of the already well off tech industry.

B) Annihilates heavy industry forcing even more unwilling participants into the service class.

C) Or forces people on the bottom of the economic spectrum to be even more broke.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Michael Chong would of neutered the party.

Peter McKay or anyone who looks like they could survive a fight with an NHL enforcer is needed.

Truddeau is always gonna get the Zoolander vote.

LOL what a joke. Keep thinking these things and get used to losing.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Because in the cause of cattle you can distribute them out equally.

So that smaller farms actually have increased revenue as the artificial shortage creates a higher sale price per cow.

The only way this could compare with Carbon would be if they carbon tax applied only to the wealthy and people in lower tax brackets actually got tax free gas.


Regardless this is an Apples to Testicles comparison.

People can source protein from other sources than beef.

Read meat isn't even that healthy(relevant when we have free healtcare) and poultry prices are quite competitive.

No one is hurt other than large scale slaughter houses(and I suppose burger king).

Carbon taxes either do nothing or they

A) Funnel money into the hands of the already well off tech industry.

B) Annihilates heavy industry forcing even more unwilling participants into the service class.

C) Or forces people on the bottom of the economic spectrum to be even more broke.

Your total disconnect from reality is mind boggling. Somehow the beef industry exists in a complete vacuum, and carbon taxes hurt poor people the most? And crush industries?

[whatnext]

LOL, did Scheer get bitchslapped by Ford for cutting him? How else to explain this embarassing grovel:

Scheer attacks Trudeau for ‘demonizing’ Doug Ford as post-election fallout continues

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer says the Prime Minister was wrong to spend the election campaign “demonizing” Doug Ford, even as some provincial Conservatives grumble that the federal Tory campaign should not have left the Ontario Premier on the sidelines.

“Justin Trudeau should consider the fact that he just spent the last 40 days personally attacking and demonizing the Premier of Ontario. And now we have a country that is more divided than ever,” Mr. Scheer told reporters on Tuesday.

Mr. Scheer’s party failed to make the breakthrough it was hoping for in the province, especially in the seat-rich suburban belt around Toronto known by its telephone area code, the 905. The result has led to a debate in Conservative circles over whether Mr. Ford hindered Mr. Scheer, or could have helped him.

Mr. Trudeau did repeatedly invoke Mr. Ford’s unpopular spending cuts on the campaign trail. However, Mr. Scheer adopted a strategy of never appearing with Ontario’s Premier and almost never saying his name, for fear of damaging his own chances in the province....

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...post-election/

[WarrenC12]

This is a cry for help. Scheer is publicly begging for the axe. The party needs to put him out of his misery.

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/10...rance-options/

First, I’d like to thank all Canadians for participating in a hard-fought election, and I’d like to thank you for coming into my office to discuss something very important for your future.

It’s time for you to get ahead on a life insurance policy that suits you and your family. There are many affordable options with generous survivor benefits.

[SpongeG]

that's the Beaverton...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

that's the Beaverton...

LOL of course it is.

My comment was meant for Scheer's real statements on Ford. He's still using his failed campaign talking points. Inexplicable.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Peter McKay or anyone who looks like they could survive a fight with an NHL enforcer is needed.

Didn't he lose his girlfriend to an NHL enforcer (and the Liberals)? lol

I don't know how a non-Westerner as leader of the Cons plays in the west. I suspect Reform 2.0 comes out of that. I like McKay but I'm thinking Rona Ambrose is more successful. I don't think that eastern Canadians (outside of Quebec) care as much about where the party leaders are from as much.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

I don't know how a non-Westerner as leader of the Cons plays in the west. I suspect Reform 2.0 comes out of that. I like McKay but I'm thinking Rona Ambrose is more successful. I don't think that eastern Canadians (outside of Quebec) care as much about where the party leaders are from as much.

I think most argue it's the complete opposite. That westerners will likely vote Conservative no matter what and that easterners not as receptive to western conservative politicians...I'd say this is particularly the case in Atlantic Canada where the Conservative party could actually be picking up more seats.

[Truenorth00]

Gawd. The whatboutism and red herrings from some conservatives on climate change is exhausting. And none of them realize how off-putting it is.

And I say that as someone who has voted blue.

Stop with the bullshit about "Canada is too small to make a difference", "immigration means we can't cut emissions", blah blah blah. People see through that bullshit. Every time you spout nonsense like that people take you and the party you support less seriously. Especially younger voters.

Accept that Canadian society considers cutting emissions a priority and has accepted that carbon pricing is one of those tools. Work inside that framework. If you want a propose an alternative to carbon pricing, it had better be serious and not handwaving nonsense. Proposing to cut carbon pricing and billions in infrastructure spending (a lot of it going to projects reducing emissions like public transit) is not the way to win over voters.

This isn't going to get any easier. Each year that goes by increases the share of millennials in the electorate. And climate change is an issue that they are sufficiently concerned about that they are willing to take economic hits on. Gen Z is now starting to vote. And if anything they are even more concerned about climate change than millennials. Just imagine what the electorate is going to look like in 2025, and then imagine how out of touch conservatives are with that.

If the CPC wants to actually want to win power, they've gotta offer a real plan. Or they can watch the electorate move further and further from them.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I think trucks and SUV's should face an upfront carbon tax beyond the vagueness of fuel taxes. At a time when we are pushing to reduce our carbon footprint there are record sales in gas guzzling vehicles, while the big car manufacturers are ceasing production of small cars and sedans.

Not sure what that would accomplish. The best selling SUVs and pickups are just as fuel efficient as mid size sedans. Ultimately, with most modern cars fuel efficiency comes down more to your personal driving habits than the car itself. An F150 doing mostly highway miles in the middle of nowhere is probably emitting less than a Civic commuting in gridlock. Better to hit people at the gas station where it matters if you want people to change their behaviours.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

LOL, did Scheer get bitchslapped by Ford for cutting him? How else to explain this embarassing grovel:

Scheer attacks Trudeau for ‘demonizing’ Doug Ford as post-election fallout continues

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer says the Prime Minister was wrong to spend the election campaign “demonizing” Doug Ford, even as some provincial Conservatives grumble that the federal Tory campaign should not have left the Ontario Premier on the sidelines.

“Justin Trudeau should consider the fact that he just spent the last 40 days personally attacking and demonizing the Premier of Ontario. And now we have a country that is more divided than ever,” Mr. Scheer told reporters on Tuesday.

Mr. Scheer’s party failed to make the breakthrough it was hoping for in the province, especially in the seat-rich suburban belt around Toronto known by its telephone area code, the 905. The result has led to a debate in Conservative circles over whether Mr. Ford hindered Mr. Scheer, or could have helped him.

Mr. Trudeau did repeatedly invoke Mr. Ford’s unpopular spending cuts on the campaign trail. However, Mr. Scheer adopted a strategy of never appearing with Ontario’s Premier and almost never saying his name, for fear of damaging his own chances in the province....

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...post-election/

This is rich, coming from the party that used Kathleen Wynne as a pinata when they were running against Trudeau in 2015.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by theman23

Not sure what that would accomplish. The best selling SUVs and pickups are just as fuel efficient as mid size sedans. Ultimately, with most modern cars fuel efficiency comes down more to your personal driving habits than the car itself. An F150 doing mostly highway miles in the middle of nowhere is probably emitting less than a Civic commuting in gridlock. Better to hit people at the gas station where it matters if you want people to change their behaviours.

I thought there was already some kind of tax applied to SUVs and trucks since the 90s

[misher]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

I thought there was already some kind of tax applied to SUVs and trucks since the 90s

My problem with the carbon tax is that the person who lives in the downtown core and bikes or skytrains to an office job is going to do a lot better under it than someone who develops our north and has to carry their tools in a truck with a hour long commute each way.

The guy in the office probably makes more, but the guy in the north works is much more useful at developing Canada. Plus the guy in the North is paying taxes towards the transit the city dweller is using.

Yet we are taxing the guy who works in the North and thus pushing him away from that career, while pushing more people into the already overcrowded cities. Meanwhile we're saying (Especially in Vancouver) that we don't want to build more housing in our major job centres for people to reduce their commute. It was the saddest thing yesterday when the mayor had to threaten Council to proceed with the Broadway plan for development or the feds and province would likely cancel skytrain funding as the city couldn't get its act together. And yet some Councilors were still against it because in the end Vancouver doesn't want to build more transit or housing. We're saying at the federal level we want to increase transit use and reduce commutes but at the municipal level they hate transit development and don't want to build more density near job centers.

I just feel like the carbon tax is a bad idea out in our relatively low population density regions where we want people to be working/living. I think it would work better if we only applied it to cities.

Also I think we need to get our cities onboard with Transit and density. There is a lot of NIMBYism both among the people and their elected government that is rejecting any change. Vancouver is actually incredibly Conservative when it comes to urbanism, they want things to go back to 10-20 years ago. Its crazy. I think Horgan must have had a strong conversation with the Mayor because he was very certain that the government would cancel skytrain funding should they not go forward with the Broadway Plan (which is supposed to lead to upzoning).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by theman23

Not sure what that would accomplish. The best selling SUVs and pickups are just as fuel efficient as mid size sedans.

This is a myth. I looked up the most popular truck, SUV and midsize sedan in Canada, according to driving.ca and then used the EPA fuel economy website to see their fuel consumption. Here's the numbers:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...id=40609&#tab1

The best we can say is that fuel consumption is closer than it has been in the past. Especially on SUVs over midsize sedans (about ~15% more gas). But this ignores the fact that fuel prices are low enough that people consider the choice of vehicle class as discretionary. You don't go shopping for a car thinking, "what's the most fuel efficient car I can get." You think about how much space you need, what you can do with it on the weekends, etc. Fuel consumption is pretty damn low on the list for most people. The idea that you buy the optimum vehicle for your commute and then rent a truck or SUV as needed is entirely foreign to most people. If we paid even $1.50/L, I bet that thinking would change very quickly.

Originally Posted by theman23

Ultimately, with most modern cars fuel efficiency comes down more to your personal driving habits than the car itself. An F150 doing mostly highway miles in the middle of nowhere is probably emitting less than a Civic commuting in gridlock. Better to hit people at the gas station where it matters if you want people to change their behaviours.

Do both. Carbon tax and vehicular surtax based on fuel consumption.

What do you think would happen to the auto sales mix if there was a $1000 surtax per litre/100km of fuel consumption at the time of purchase?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by misher

My problem with the carbon tax is that the person who lives in the downtown core and bikes or skytrains to an office job is going to do a lot better under it than someone who develops our north and has to carry their tools in a truck with a hour long commute each way.

The guy in the office probably makes more, but the guy in the north works is much more useful at developing Canada. Plus the guy in the North is paying taxes towards the transit the city dweller is using.

If the guy in the North is truly doing something valued by the economy, he/she would be getting paid more. That's the free market at work. You don't get to claim that your job is more valuable just because you say so.

Also, rural/northern residents get a higher rebate, and they get other tax breaks. So stop with the sob stories about how it's so hard for them. If it's that bad, they can move.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by misher

My problem with the carbon tax is that the person who lives in the downtown core and bikes or skytrains to an office job is going to do a lot better under it than someone who develops our north and has to carry their tools in a truck with a hour long commute each way.

The guy in the office probably makes more, but the guy in the north works is much more useful at developing Canada. Plus the guy in the North is paying taxes towards the transit the city dweller is using.

Yet we are taxing the guy who works in the North and thus pushing him away from that career, while pushing more people into the already overcrowded cities. Meanwhile we're saying (Especially in Vancouver) that we don't want to build more housing in our major job centres for people to reduce their commute. It was the saddest thing yesterday when the mayor had to threaten Council to proceed with the Broadway plan for development or the feds and province would likely cancel skytrain funding as the city couldn't get its act together. And yet some Councilors were still against it because in the end Vancouver doesn't want to build more transit or housing. We're saying at the federal level we want to increase transit use and reduce commutes but at the municipal level they hate transit development and don't want to build more density near job centers.

I just feel like the carbon tax is a bad idea out in our relatively low population density regions where we want people to be working/living. I think it would work better if we only applied it to cities.

I can sympathize with both the north (where I currently work) and the city which is home. At least we have options to get places in a city.

As for Vancouver council they have that nutbar Swanson who doesn't want to see any development of any kind cause it won't benefit her people of the DTES.

In the case of Ms. Swanson, the sole councillor elected from the Coalition of Progressive Electors, it’s easy to understand. She’s a lifelong, anti-poverty activist who has proudly voted No on all 11 rental projects that have come before council this year because she believes gentrification is evil and the units are unaffordable to her key constituents.

One senses she won’t rest until the revolution happens, capitalism falls and the only buildings going up are for social housing. Not Soviet brutalist-style towers, of course, but “thousands of units of nice social and co-op housing,” in Ms. Swanson’s words. The middle-class folks who want to live in spiffy, new market rentals aren’t her people and she finds it difficult to care about them. “Basically, for me, my care coefficient goes up as income goes down.”

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...evelopment-in/

[misher]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If the guy in the North is truly doing something valued by the economy, he/she would be getting paid more. That's the free market at work. You don't get to claim that your job is more valuable just because you say so.

Also, rural/northern residents get a higher rebate, and they get other tax breaks. So stop with the sob stories about how it's so hard for them. If it's that bad, they can move.

The supplement applies only to residents of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick whose primary residence is outside a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA), on December 31, 2018

This doesn't apply to most of the nation.

You qualify if you have lived on a permanent basis, in a prescribed northern zone (Zone A) or a prescribed intermediate zone (Zone B) for a continuous period of at least 6 consecutive months.

And most workers are in work camps or just on site for the work. This includes all our tree planters. Its in our constitution that we have freedom of mobility and I think this goes against the spirit of that.

[SpongeG]

I get the Northern Allowance cause I live where I work in camp when I am working. (I go home on my weeks off) They once questioned it on my tax return and my employer sent a standard letter and it was accepted and never been asked about it again.