Firstly, the carbon tax is not a gas tax. It’s a carbon tax. There’s a difference.

I could set up an off the grid mansion powered by a mini-coal fired plant and I’d be paying carbon tax, but I would not be using gas. You can’t call that a gas tax.

There is ALSO a gas tax, but that is a separate tax.

The Carbon Tax should ABSOLUTELY be used to fund public transit, and most notably an expansion of it (with the goal of reducing carbon output, and therefore reducing revenue from the carbon tax.)

It should NOT be used to fund road infrastructure: that should be funded from property taxes and general revenue, including (but not limited to) the gas tax…which is, after all, paid for by vehicles that use the roads.

That’s why I said “property taxes and general revenue”

If I had been hired as the Liberal’s communications officer, I would have called it A POLLUTION TAX, because in effect, that is what it is intended to be. And while I rarely disagree with Carole Taylor, I would not have made it ‘revenue neutral’; I would have channelled the revenues into improved public transit, throughout the province.

So I am in support of the Regional Mayors’ call for allowing the revenues from this ‘pollution tax’ to be used for improvements to public transit.

Before signing off, I would reiterate what the Mayor said on CBC this morning. The municipalities across Canada only receive 8% of the tax revenues that are collected by the various levels of government. It is not enough to fund the activities we expect from the local level of government. And we cannot continue to increase property taxes.

We therefore need to be more creative in identifying other sources of revenue to fund transit improvements…and since I am not running for office, I can say that I support an investigation of more user fees….tolls, congestion taxes, etc. in order to fund a better transit system.

Using a portion of the pollution tax is a good start.

Michael, it’s not a pollution tax. It’s a tax on inputs, not on outputs.

A pollution tax would require detection and measuring at too many points. An input tax requires detection and measurement at far far fewer points (i.e. gas stations, rather than individual cars.)

A “pollution” tax would likely lead to numerous court challenges as well, as companies take the government to court to argue that /their/ coal fired sawmill doesn’t pollute as much as someone else’s, and therefore it’s inappropriate that they be charged the same amount of tax.

So I wouldn’t call it a pollution tax because it’s wrong, but I do agree that the Liberals should tie communications around the tax’s goals to “decreasing pollution.”

Making it revenue neutral is a GOOD thing. Remember the goal here is to make if revenue neutral ACROSS THE PROVINCE not for each individual. The government is saying that they’re not grabbing more money from our collective pocket, but Michael might now pay more than Darcy…because Darcy cycles to work almost every day (you might too…just a theoretical example.) It’s a redistribution of the burden, with a goal of no net collective increase in the tax burden.

We do need to be more creative with funding for “general” infrastructure. We also need to plan more carefully. Transportation infrastructure does provide a “general” benefit, and the burden should be shared amongst cities (which have a limited tax base) and other levels of government.

Of course this happens now, but not in a very predictable way…unless you consider giving municipalities random amounts of money every four years or so “predictable.”

This is a great way to Fix the Tax. People want choices so they can avoid paying the carbon tax.

No one cares that the tax is revenue neutral. For most people it is not. For the ones paying more, they aren’t going to be that happy. For me, I would much rather have better transit than an extra $100 a year from some poor shmuck in a pickup truck from Fort St. Bob.

For people in communities without transit, the revenue from the tax should be used to fund projects within that community that help people or the community reduce their GHG emissions.

Carbon Taxes are not regressive. The carbon footprints of the rich are ten times that of the average person. As well, the poor are far less likely to own a car and are far more likely to use transit.

The poor are also more likely to live along busy roads and suffer the health impacts of pollution. Decreased traffic and improved transit should improve the quality of life along major roads.

Unless those commenters talking about using this money for transit, are referring to building skytrain type transit systems, or systems that don’t include any type of mass transportation vehicle using a roadway, I don’t know how it is even possible to increase/improve transit, without building or enhancing our roadways.

My thought is that they go hand in hand whether we like it or not. Even if we went with streetcars or Euro-style trams, the streets and roadways would still need improvement and upgrading.

I would also add that many of you in the past have written comments about how Vancouver is a city for the rich and is becoming increasingly unaffordable to the average family. I’m referring to different FB posts of course.

The more we push people out of their cars and into transit, the more the roadways will also then become the roadways for the rich and famous.

I can hear the rebuttals now…..however, my intent with that comment isn’t to ignite a firestorm, only to provoke some deeper thought than “transit good”, “car bad” (please do in caveman voice).

Let’s cut to the chase. Gordo needs money and had another vision. Bring in a so called carbon tax, claim it’s revenue neuatral and some folks will buy it. why not dumpt it into rapid transit, buses, lighte rail. Hell no Gordo wants it for the big items like the Olympics, convention cener and anything that shows his cutting a ribbon . at least tjis time around he isn’t strumming his guitar and wearing a plaid shirt to go with his shiny cowboy boots. Press on mayors, and get some relief for municipal tax payers.

I’m editing the following sentence for accuracy. My edit in all caps.

> The SELFISH people who actually pay it only care about whether it’s going to be
> revenue neutral to them as individuals.

All forms of taxation apply more to some than others, unless you’re suggesting that taxes be assessed on a dollar per person basis, without regard to income or any other factor which varies from person to person.

Really, Darcy, you actually know someone who doesn’t care whether they pay more or less taxes? (the people in those commercials who claim to like paying banking fees don’t count – they’re actors, and it’s just a joke).

Do you skip the tax credit section when you fill out your tax return? Rip up tax receipts for your donations? Are you seriously calling every Canadian who owns an RRSP selfish?

Sliding-scale taxes – e.g. income taxes – have an underlying rationale that society widely accepts as fair and reasonable (those who can afford it pay more). Same with property taxes. Extra luxury/sin taxes are only applied to non-necessities – no one has to pay them.

No one rejoices over having to pay taxes, but most of us accept them as long as they’re fair.

Arbitrarily punishing *some* people for doing the wrong thing when they have no choice because you’re not giving them any chance to do the right thing instead, and then dismissing them as selfish is a mindset that will ensure we make no progress on climate change, while reinforcing public perceptions that Greens don’t care about real people.

Easy to sit in one’s Yaletown condo sneering at the Terrace construction worker in his pickup truck but are you going to pay the extra taxes to give them all Skytrains too?

So please, feel free to contribute your thoughts on how to tackle these complexities, but don’t presume to edit my sentences for “accuracy” – I’m quite capable of doing that myself.

Paul Martin is the only PM in recent memory who had a specific agenda for cities. It is unfortunate that he never had a chance to implement it before Adscam and Layton took him down after what, 18 months?

Harper, who’s been in power twice as long, does NOT have a plan for cities, but instead follows the age-old Canadian political tradition of talking lots / doing nothing for ages, then plop funds individual projects with no real coherence other than supplying the maximum political benefit irrespective of cost.

It’s always fascinating to see that an absolute minority of Conservative expenditures so far respect and promote sustainability.

We need to build a 21st Century economy that is much smarter than last century’s. If Harper was actually doing that, I’d be singing his praises instead of damning him.

> Really, Darcy, you actually know
> someone who doesn’t care whether they
> pay more or less taxes?

I certainly know people who accept the fact that they pay more or less taxes than others, and that taxes levied by a democratically elected government are a way of implementing policies defined by that democratically elected government.

Taxation has become accepted as a way to fund social policies and directions: healthcare, social security, and unemployment insurance are all government policies paid for by taxes. They are all a fundamental part of what makes this country Canada.

I know people who refuse to shop at the Mountain Equipment Co-op because as a co-op, they are taxed differently and not contributing to those programs at a level appropriate with their revenues compared to other private businesses.

In this case, the democratically elected Campbell government has elected to pursue a social policy that forces those who consume carbon producing fossil fuels to pay for that consumption. The tax is applied equally and transparently.

A vote for the NDP will be sure to get rid of it, which is strange…but that’s the solution.

I for one support the carbon tax in ADDITION to a cap and trade controls. Then again I cycle almost 15km each way to work pretty much every day, and I did before the tax was in place. That’s a choice that I’ve made to help leave a better planet for my children.

I’d like to see a downtown entry toll for private vehicles too, but I think that will be a while before it happens.

Many people are concerned about the environment and climate change, however at some time in the future, there will be a tipping point and this will change.

Without good thoughtful and fair policy, the public will eventually tune-out what they will come to believe as just more rhetoric from people and groups with certain agendas.

Already, the tagline has moved from “global warming” to “climate change”. It’s hard to believe the earth is warming when we’re in a 10 year cycle of cooling. US-style fear mongering will only take you so far. See GW Bush for examples and know that many are already quite sick of Al Bore.

Personally, I think there should be more of a top-down approach to get the waste out of the system before demanding jane and joe turn into treehugging hippies who live in their bio-diesel VW van.

Without much effort – the very people who comment on this blog could come up with hundreds if not thousands of ways for government, business and industry to be more earth friendly, before jane and joe would have to do anything at all.

That in itself would go a very long way to selling those eventual changes to the public, including so called carbon taxes.

Some of my friends are already as green as they want to be, and are starting to say enough already. When enough people say the same thing, it will be very bad for this planet.

Dawn,

Switching to civic politics, what I fear from Gregor and co., is their continued push to punish the Vancouver citizen before looking at other methods to make the city greener.

What has come out of that green action team has been suggestions that are pretty much targeted at the individual and even include “shaming” or “intolerance” tactics.

I find it disappointing and disgusted that “the greenies” have adopted the GW Bush mantra that “you’re either with us or against us”. Bullying is apparently okay to “save the environment”.

That type of behaviour will eventually destroy the green movement, and it will be done by the very people who thought they were doing the right thing in the first place.

No Dawn, I haven’t missed your point…and you highlight it here:

> One can choose to stop smoking, turn out the lights or reduce garbage to
> avoid paying extra fees and taxes.

One can choose to drive not at all, or less.

You cite “truck transporters” as a group that can’t choose. Keep in mind that those who drive “for a living” are able to write off the cost of their fuel and vehicle maintenance. Government is thus taxing on the one hand and issuing a credit against those taxes on the other.

If it were up to me, such people wouldn’t be able to write off fuel as a cost. It’s a cost that gets abused (think cab drivers who put the occasional tank in their personal vehicle and write the expense off) and artificially lowers the cost of goods and services.

People can choose to drive less, or carpool. There are a great many alternatives.

Dawn, my family founded a town that makes most people’s definitions of small town BC look like a major metropolis. They still live there. I know how small town BC operates.

In any case, from a study by the Brookins Institute:
> And Germans living in low density areas travel by car about as much as
> Americans living at population densities five times higher.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/dkh7pp

Now…we are not America, but car use patterns in the U.S. and Canada are substantially similar. Car use could be reduced. It needs political will.

And yes, I’ve run a business but that’s not relevant to the point. By essentially subsidizing the cost of transporting goods, governments are artificially lowering the real cost (both in dollars and in carbon emissions) of manufacturing goods, and consequently purchasing them. If the “real” cost were on the price tag, people’s purchasing habits would change.

If more people bought locally, we might not have these hollowed out shells of towns that exist all throughout BC.

It wouldn’t happen overnight, and that’s not the point. I simply don’t support giving people a tax write off for polluting. If you’re going to contribute to the destruction of the planet, I think you should pay the full freight.

“Even if we went with streetcars or Euro-style trams, the streets and roadways would still need improvement and upgrading.”

Actually, after a certain point of transit use, many local roads can be pedestrianized. They then support (1) trams, (2) walking, and (3) local delivery. So you’re not supporting ‘roads’ any more, you’re supporting sidewalks and driveways.