Harper's tactics mislead voters.
DerbyX @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:11 am
http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/511652
$1:
All five leaders agreed in last week's televised debates that climate change is a major threat facing Canadians and the world. And in a rare moment of unanimity, they all called for action to reduce carbon emissions in this country.
Unsurprisingly, they disagreed on how to attack the problem.
Unpardonably, Stephen Harper made himself disagreeable with an unchecked attack on reality.
Under wilting criticism from the four opposition leaders for the government's lacklustre environmental plan, the Prime Minister lashed out at the Liberals' Green Shift by dipping into his playbook of cheap debating tricks that insult the intelligence of voters.
Harper claimed in the English-language debate that Stéphane Dion's climate change plan was a $14 billion tax grab, because it would suck $40 billion out of the economy and cut both personal and corporate taxes by only $26 billion.
What he neglected to say was that the "missing" $14 billion would be returned to Canadians in direct tax credits, benefits and deductions – adding up to the promised $40 billion. This is no secret. It is spelled out in the Liberals' Green Shift, and in their party platform, both of which supply far greater precision and policy substance than the so far invisible Conservative election plan.
The Liberal plan details items such as a $465 million hike in the Working Income Tax Benefit; a $2.9 billion boost to the Universal Child Tax Benefit; a $750 million Green Rural Credit; a $600 million boost to the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance for environmental investments; and $400 million in other science and research credits.
Harper opted to ignore these and other tax breaks. Yet, as the Liberals point out, these are precisely the kinds of tax benefits that the Conservative government has described as "tax relief" in previous budgets.
Why would the Prime Minister pretend that these Liberal tax breaks don't count – that these funds would somehow be retained by the treasury – when the reductions are spelled out in publicly available Liberal documents? Doubtless the best defence is a strong offence, and Harper is going out of his way to camouflage the government's weak environmental policy, which has been shredded by environmentalists and economists alike for failing to set attainable targets.
The Liberal plan will raise taxes on polluters and reduce taxes for others. The Conservative plan will only succeed in raising pollution.
In fact, the Liberals have been crystal clear from the outset that their planned tax shift – making pollution costlier while turning energy savings into money savings – would be revenue-neutral. To add credibility to their claims, they have specified that the auditor general would verify that pledge was being carried out annually.
For better or for worse, debates offer the party leaders a chance to inform – or misinform – voters about a campaign's key issues. Whether a politician chooses to do the former, or the latter, speaks volumes about their character and trustworthiness.
"Don't believe this man," Dion said after hearing the disinformation. "Mr. Harper, it's a lie. I see the game you are playing. It's not true at all. For every dollar that we will raise, you will have a tax cut."
By wilfully distorting Dion's written program, Harper deliberately misled the Canadians whose trust he is seeking in this campaign.
Unsurprisingly, they disagreed on how to attack the problem.
Unpardonably, Stephen Harper made himself disagreeable with an unchecked attack on reality.
Under wilting criticism from the four opposition leaders for the government's lacklustre environmental plan, the Prime Minister lashed out at the Liberals' Green Shift by dipping into his playbook of cheap debating tricks that insult the intelligence of voters.
Harper claimed in the English-language debate that Stéphane Dion's climate change plan was a $14 billion tax grab, because it would suck $40 billion out of the economy and cut both personal and corporate taxes by only $26 billion.
What he neglected to say was that the "missing" $14 billion would be returned to Canadians in direct tax credits, benefits and deductions – adding up to the promised $40 billion. This is no secret. It is spelled out in the Liberals' Green Shift, and in their party platform, both of which supply far greater precision and policy substance than the so far invisible Conservative election plan.
The Liberal plan details items such as a $465 million hike in the Working Income Tax Benefit; a $2.9 billion boost to the Universal Child Tax Benefit; a $750 million Green Rural Credit; a $600 million boost to the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance for environmental investments; and $400 million in other science and research credits.
Harper opted to ignore these and other tax breaks. Yet, as the Liberals point out, these are precisely the kinds of tax benefits that the Conservative government has described as "tax relief" in previous budgets.
Why would the Prime Minister pretend that these Liberal tax breaks don't count – that these funds would somehow be retained by the treasury – when the reductions are spelled out in publicly available Liberal documents? Doubtless the best defence is a strong offence, and Harper is going out of his way to camouflage the government's weak environmental policy, which has been shredded by environmentalists and economists alike for failing to set attainable targets.
The Liberal plan will raise taxes on polluters and reduce taxes for others. The Conservative plan will only succeed in raising pollution.
In fact, the Liberals have been crystal clear from the outset that their planned tax shift – making pollution costlier while turning energy savings into money savings – would be revenue-neutral. To add credibility to their claims, they have specified that the auditor general would verify that pledge was being carried out annually.
For better or for worse, debates offer the party leaders a chance to inform – or misinform – voters about a campaign's key issues. Whether a politician chooses to do the former, or the latter, speaks volumes about their character and trustworthiness.
"Don't believe this man," Dion said after hearing the disinformation. "Mr. Harper, it's a lie. I see the game you are playing. It's not true at all. For every dollar that we will raise, you will have a tax cut."
By wilfully distorting Dion's written program, Harper deliberately misled the Canadians whose trust he is seeking in this campaign.
DerbyX @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:17 am
We all saw this during the debate. Harper offered no platform of his own and no answers of his own. All he did was attack, lie about, and distort the plans of others.
ridenrain @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:21 am
I guess it comes back to trust and the Liberals still proved their word is good.
Apollo @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:26 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
We all saw this during the debate. Harper offered no platform of his own and no answers of his own. All he did was attack, lie about, and distort the plans of others.
Derby, you must be very naive.
Dion promised that for every dollar the government takes it in, it will give a dollar back. Explain to me how this is even remotely possible.
Do you not think that there will be a cost to set this program up? A cost to administer the program? A cost to oversee the program?
I guess the Liberals plan on hiring people that are going to work for free and all the costs associated by this program will be picked up by the Liberal party.
There's a sucker born every minute.
Don't take my word for it. Show me one single example where a government said that their plan was revenue neutral and it really was.
Liberal support in BC is collapsing to historic lows. I guess they haven't appreciated all those tax refunds they have been getting from the provincial Liberals.
DerbyX @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:37 am
Unlike you, I am not some kool-aid drinking lifetime vote only con supporter.
You must truly be brainwashed if you can't see the truth when its right in front of you.
You cry about Dions plan yet what is the cost of Harper's? Billions in non-returned taxes that will do nonthing? The carbon tax has been shown to work in other countries including oil producing countries like Norway.
The entire program works by shifting income taxes to consumption taxes on carbon emitting sources. Anybody reducting their carbon emissions one way or another save money because they get those saving plus the tax breaks.
Of course just like ridenhack above and Harper in the debates you don't post any substance of your own but simply attack what you don't understand.
Pathetic really but I expect nothing less then somebody who is a vote only con.
Reverend Blair @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:38 am
$1:
Do you not think that there will be a cost to set this program up? A cost to administer the program? A cost to oversee the program?
Last I heard the tax department was already up and running.
By the way, Harper's plan does require setting up a new agency to keep track of GHG outputs, tracking credits, etc.
ridenrain @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:43 am
No tax, program or plan can be 100% efficient and that's what Dion is expecting Canadians to believe. Comming from the same party that brought us the Gun Registry, I can't see Canadians believing this one either.
DerbyX @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:44 am
Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
$1:
Do you not think that there will be a cost to set this program up? A cost to administer the program? A cost to oversee the program?
Last I heard the tax department was already up and running.
By the way, Harper's plan does require setting up a new agency to keep track of GHG outputs, tracking credits, etc.
Its like talking to children isn't it? They don't respond to intelligent posts in favour of simply crying non-stop.
Pathetic isn't it? I may not vote NDP but at least when I debate you guys you actually make counter-points rather then just crying about me not agreeing with whatever you say.
DerbyX @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:46 am
ridenrain ridenrain:
No tax, program or plan can be 100% efficient and that's what Dion is expecting Canadians to believe. Comming from the same party that brought us the Gun Registry, I can't see Canadians believing this one either.
No, he is saying that the carbon taxes enacted will be cancelled out by the income tax cuts everybody will get.
He doesn't say the program won't cost money that we pay the govt officials salaries to run it.
Dishonest tactics from a dishonest party.
What is the cost of Harpers plan or will that be free?
mtbr @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:49 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
We all saw this during the debate. Harper offered no platform of his own and no answers of his own. All he did was attack, lie about, and distort the plans of others.
The platform you've been crying for will be announced on Tuesday. You must have watched a different debate he was interrupted by the other 4 parties who were lying and attacking him.
Apollo @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:53 am
$1:
Unlike you, I am not some kool-aid drinking lifetime vote only con supporter.
I voted for Chretien twice so you are wrong right of the bat.
$1:
You cry about Dions plan yet what is the cost of Harper's? Billions in non-returned taxes that will do nonthing? The carbon tax has been shown to work in other countries including oil producing countries like Norway.
Are you taling about this carbon tax?
National Post
Published: Thursday, July 31, 2008
Have carbon taxes really reduced Denmark's emissions by 15%, as claimed by B. C.'s NDP government? Not according to the David Suzuki Foundation's Web site, which shows that, in spite of all the carbon taxes since 1992, Denmark's 2003 emissions were 6.3% above the 1990 level and 34% above its Kyoto target reduction of 21%. This was even worse than Canada's Kyoto deficit at the time.
And not according to an official 2008 Danish report, submitted to the European Commission, which shows that Denmark's greenhouse gas emissions in 2006 were still 2.1% above the 1990 level. Notably, between 1990 and 2006, the consumption of gasoline and diesel fuels for passenger cars increased by 17% and 300% respectively.
This proves that Denmark's carbon tax, which has already cost taxpayers and industry millions, has been a complete failure. And yet the NDP and Liberal carbon tax architects have been using the bogus Denmark "achievements" to push the idea of a carbon tax here. Ironically, "green" Denmark is in the red, the first EU country to slide into recession.
This should be warning for all Canadians not to get blind-sided by all the environmental hype.
$1:
The entire program works by shifting income taxes to consumption taxes on carbon emitting sources. Anybody reducting their carbon emissions one way or another save money because they get those saving plus the tax breaks.
What of those that don't have the ability to reduce their carbon emmissions? Which is pretty much anyone that doesn't live within a city.
Keep drinking the kool-aid pal. And by the way, Harper doesn't need your vote to form the next government. Worst case scenario he wins a minority with cash overflowing the Conservative coffers. The Liberals swimming in debt and will go bankrupt. They are desperatly trying to win this election to steal more taxpayers money to keep them afloat.
DerbyX @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:54 am
mtbr mtbr:
DerbyX DerbyX:
We all saw this during the debate. Harper offered no platform of his own and no answers of his own. All he did was attack, lie about, and distort the plans of others.
The platform you've been crying for will be announced on Tuesday. You must have watched a different debate he was interrupted by the other 4 parties who were lying and attacking him.
He say "may" be released tuesday and thats what, a whole week before the election and well after the debates.
Only Harper lied about the plans of others since he had no plan of his own there was no possibility of lying about it.
Apollo @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:56 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
mtbr mtbr:
DerbyX DerbyX:
We all saw this during the debate. Harper offered no platform of his own and no answers of his own. All he did was attack, lie about, and distort the plans of others.
The platform you've been crying for will be announced on Tuesday. You must have watched a different debate he was interrupted by the other 4 parties who were lying and attacking him.
He say "may" be released tuesday and thats what, a whole week before the election and well after the debates.
Only Harper lied about the plans of others since he had no plan of his own there was no possibility of lying about it.
He does have a plan. He's been working that plan for the past 2 and half years. It's the oppositions job to put something different forward.
Reverend Blair @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:57 am
$1:
Its like talking to children isn't it? They don't respond to intelligent posts in favour of simply crying non-stop.
Pathetic isn't it? I may not vote NDP but at least when I debate you guys you actually make counter-points rather then just crying about me not agreeing with whatever you say.
Pathetic isn't it? I may not vote NDP but at least when I debate you guys you actually make counter-points rather then just crying about me not agreeing with whatever you say.
Yeah.
My problem with the Liberal plan is that I think too many people will just bitch about taxes while doing nothing to reduce their emissions.
If it does work though, there will be a gradual reduction of the tax base in the mid and long term though, leaving us unable to take the next step when needed.
For it to have the desired effect, it has to be backed by politicians for at least a century, and is open to massive degradation later on. What if Dion puts this into effect and is successful in shifting the tax base, then Harper or somebody like him comes in and cuts the carbon tax?
I like carbon trading better because it is less open to things like that...business leaders actually like it because they can turn a buck, so a later conservative government is less likely to be able to dismantle it.
DerbyX @ Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:58 am
Try Norway for one.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/ssb/dispap/337.html
$1:
During the last decade, Norway has carried out an ambitious climate policy. The main policy tool is a relatively high carbon tax, which was implemented already in 1991. Data for the development in CO2 emissions since then provide a unique opportunity to evaluate carbon taxes as a policy tool. To reveal the driving forces behind the changes in the three most important climate gases, CO2, methane and N2O in the period 1990-1999, we decompose the actually observed emissions changes, and use an applied general equilibrium simulation to look into the specific effect of carbon taxes. Although total emissions have increased, we find a significant reduction in emissions per unit of GDP over the period due to reduced energy intensity, changes in the energy mix and reduced process emissions. Despite considerable taxes and price increases for some fuel-types, the carbon tax effect has been modest. While the partial effect from lower energy intensity and energy mix changes was a reduction in CO2 emissions of 14 percent, the carbon taxes contributed to only 2 percent reduction. This relatively small effect relates to extensive tax exemptions and relatively inelastic demand in the sectors in which the tax is actually implemented.
Yet again though we see the failure of the con position. They don't offer a plan of their own but attack the plan of others.