KLINKER Posted January 15, 2017 Report Posted January 15, 2017 Not drawing a wage is the biggest mistake that the self employed make but but the 5K per kid makes it possible, they get the money for the kids not the business. When I was in construction they brought out the gst that drove the business underground, so I figured if you are going to have an illegal business it should pay like an illegal business so I quit.
Fisherman Posted January 15, 2017 Report Posted January 15, 2017 What I fail to understand is how taxing us is taking carbon out of the air. It's a tax, not an air filter and it does jack squat to solve the problem.
Old Ironmaker Posted January 15, 2017 Report Posted January 15, 2017 (edited) Taxing a company for emissions allows the Feds to earmark dollars to those manufacturers that are unable to stay above water if they are legislated to spend millions they don't have for emission control improvements. I don't know if I buy that. Based on the amount of C02 I don't emit here in Ontario or Quebec I get a carbon credit. You on the other hand are polluting somewhere in California. You in Cali. can buy carbon credits from me in Quebec so you the California guy can keep polluting without investing the money you don't have to improve your systems. I don't pollute as much in Quebec and you do in California, I have credits to sell you. So the incentive is to not pollute so you can bank credits to sell for $$. If all goes well emissions to atmosphere is reduced or remain neutral at the least. That's what I get from all the gibberish. I may be way off base but why would I invest millions for new systems to reduce emissions if I can just pay someone else far less money than the capital expenditure for improvements will be. The new Blast Furnace Gas cleaning system and Casthouse bag house built in the early 90's came in at 20 million if I remember right. I can check that number. We are talking huge dollars. There has to be a maximum number of credits that can be bought, I don't know. Is there? It is far too complicated for me to fully get my head around. If it's complicated enough for the taxpayer to not understand the Gov. agency given the task to confuse us enough has done it's job. In other words Bull baffles brains. So I don't question it I just pay my taxes and hope someone smarter than I figures it out. Edited January 15, 2017 by Old Ironmaker
Tom S Posted January 15, 2017 Report Posted January 15, 2017 Global warming is here, is impacting the world now, and temperature increases are accelerating. The consensus of experts in that field predict outcomes from a range of bleak to the end of the world as we know it. One can always come up with an excuse to do nothing... to shirk responsibility. That might be less of an issue with something like say old age security where say family should be somewhat responsible, but you're on OUR giant space vehicle. What makes those who don't want to pay for upkeep so extra special? A winning personality? If your beef is with who is spending the money and how it is spent then that is a political issue. If you believe Wynne and Trudeau to be incapable of doing this right then remember they got elected with majorities which means the alternative was unappealing. Get involved and help the party of your preference choose leaders who are financially and socially capable. We need good leaders who can reach out to all with the best plan going forward. Something to keep in mind is that humanity loves to come up with scenarios that lead to the end of the world, just try to think of a time period after 1950 when something or another wasn't going to destroy humanity. Whether it was A-bombs, H-bombs, energy crisis, various diseases, Y2K, ozone layer depletion and so on. Does it mean these are not things to be taken seriously? No, but remember even through all these crises have come and gone we are still here. Saying that, I believe that we do have to take some sort of action to be more responsible with regards to the environment, but also that we shouldn't handicap our economy and punish ourselves to make ourselves feel like we are doing something. Those 3rd world countries pumping out pollution are often in the unfortunate position of either being able to eat or cut back on emissions. I know that if it was my family who depended on that job to provide food I wouldn't be thinking twice about it. Here in the Western world we are in a privileged position of being able to fret over issues like this, as we have food in our bellies, good healthcare, free time our our hands, and extra money. I think that a better approach would have been to promote moderation and cutting back with incentives, rather than taxing everyone. Additional taxes are only going to hurt the most vulnerable people who cannot stretch a fixed income. Please don't insinuate that Wynne and Trudeau were elected because the majority of Ontarians & Canadians thought they were the best leaders. Wynne got in because the Conservatives ran a terrible campaign and basically handed the election to her, and Trudeau got in because it turned into a popularity contest. Hopefully in the elections to come other parties will be able to focus on financial and social capabilities as well as accountability, and hopefully we as the voters will be able to focus on these issues as we cast our ballots.
ketchenany Posted January 15, 2017 Report Posted January 15, 2017 I've read the cap and trade document Wynnebag did last year and bout four times on and off. Fancy graphics words that con us and make believe they are right. Helping natives in Northern Ontario with their air conditioning is not what it seems. I WILL POST THE EXACT WORDING WHEN I GET THE COPY OUT tomorrow! Some don't even have clean drinking water. Yes we need to changeour ways, but the way they put it it's only up to Ontario to make it better! I had one report where all of our pollution was coming up the Ohio valley where they burnrd coal and into Ontario (win direction. . .) yet we were made to pay and emission test for our cars. LET'S take a reading of the temperature and air quality today (2017) as we are paying this taxing then next year and see how effective that tax was and where the money was spent and see if we are going in the right direction.
Rizzo Posted January 16, 2017 Report Posted January 16, 2017 Old Ironmaker...it is their new Child tax Benefit...or whatever they call it. Conservatives had one too...I think my BIL was getting maybe 10k under that government. Liberals came in and all of a sudden their payouts triple. They didnt ask for it, didnt apply for it...it just started showing up because they had a "low" income and 6 kids..."low" because they just take out what they need. Now they can take out even less because liberals are just throwing the $$$ at them! Spend spend spend....the deficit will be astronomical in a very short period when stuff like this is going on.
Toronto_Angler Posted January 16, 2017 Report Posted January 16, 2017 This post has been removed. This is what this board has come to? Threatening a sitting Prime Minister??? No wonder I stopped posting here
Canuck Posted January 16, 2017 Report Posted January 16, 2017 Please don't insinuate that Wynne and Trudeau were elected because the majority of Ontarians & Canadians thought they were the best leaders. Wynne got in because the Conservatives ran a terrible campaign and basically handed the election to her, and Trudeau got in because it turned into a popularity contest. Hopefully in the elections to come other parties will be able to focus on financial and social capabilities as well as accountability, and hopefully we as the voters will be able to focus on these issues as we cast our ballots. I wish Ontarians and Canadians made sure that they educated themselves on all aspects of a political parties platform instead of focussing on how much they like the individual or focusing on one aspect of their platform that they like. That naive approach feeds right into the politician's election strategy of focusing on one or two high popularity issues, and glossing over major tax increases that are needed to pay for the other aspects. I could care less if a politician is boring, ugly, has a bad haircut, etc. The ONLY thing that matters is that they prudently and economically use our money to run the country. And that they not lie or have hidden agendas.
Acountdeleted Posted January 16, 2017 Report Posted January 16, 2017 (edited) I wish Ontarians and Canadians made sure that they educated themselves on all aspects of a political parties platform instead of focussing on how much they like the individual or focusing on one aspect of their platform that they like. That naive approach feeds right into the politician's election strategy of focusing on one or two high popularity issues, and glossing over major tax increases that are needed to pay for the other aspects. I could care less if a politician is boring, ugly, has a bad haircut, etc. The ONLY thing that matters is that they prudently and economically use our money to run the country. And that they not lie or have hidden agendas. Then you have no one to vote for. All politicians lie and have hidden agendas. Its practically a pre-requisite for running for office. Edited January 16, 2017 by jeremy84
Headhunter Posted January 16, 2017 Report Posted January 16, 2017 Some of you may recall that when this carbon tax was first discussed, I called my MPP's office for details. i was told that the tax would be pass through and that I, as a consumer, wouldn't or "shouldn't notice a thing. When I specifically ask about fuel charges, I was told there would no change for the consumer, industry will absorb the cost. How's that working so far? HH
scuro2 Posted January 16, 2017 Report Posted January 16, 2017 (edited) If you have a better way to reduce carbon emissions please share. It's an easily understandable problem with a basic solution. Gripping about politicians or how this is unsolvable does nothing.A common belief on this board seems to be that the bulk of CO2 emissions come from 3rd world countries. They don't. We can't use the excuse that nothing should be done because this is a third world problem which typically are unsolvable because this is a myth. It's our problem. The burning of coal in the US and China is a major source of CO2. Cement production is a significant source CO2 because of the high temperatures needed. Check out the excellent CO2 website linked below. You can easily see which countries create the most CO2http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions Edited January 16, 2017 by scuro2
Big Cliff Posted January 16, 2017 Report Posted January 16, 2017 I agree there is a problem, what I want to know is: How is taxing Canadians to the point where they have to decide between eating and freezing is going to solve the problem? Do you understand that as a senior in Ontario I get $578.53 a month in pension, I have lived worked and paid taxes here since I was 15 years old and I am now 71. $578.53 doesn't even cover my heating but our wonderful leaders can give billions of $ to other countries because they are poor?
Old Ironmaker Posted January 16, 2017 Report Posted January 16, 2017 Cliff it is disgraceful. Freeze or eat? Pick one. You say your pension is less than $600.00. That can't include Old Age pension and or CPP, can it?
ketchenany Posted January 16, 2017 Report Posted January 16, 2017 Cliff it is disgraceful. Freeze or eat? Pick one. You say your pension is less than $600.00. That can't include Old Age pension and or CPP, can it?OI OI it's only old age, the other depends on how much you paid into it. Because I work they have clawed mine back by 150 a month. I'm like Cliff paid taxes for 47 years now and never collected a cent, yet they give it away to other countries. Doesn't make sense. In the 70s Canada sent a herd of prize catle to Uganda to get them started in producing milk/meat. Just after the arrived Amin had them killed and eaten!
glen Posted January 16, 2017 Report Posted January 16, 2017 How much c02 is ok. I think I'm c02 neg. with the amount of trees I'm growing. I guess if enough people starve they will save the planet.
Old Ironmaker Posted January 16, 2017 Report Posted January 16, 2017 Ketch, I get it. I thought Old Age was more than that. Looking at the possibility of losing my company pension we will be doing some serious down sizing and we already did. I thought Old Age was a few hundred more. At those huge stipends we won't be driving a vehicle in a few years so we can pay our taxes for roads I can't afford to drive on. We have had it pretty good up to now. People say we are "lucky". Luck had nada to do with it, it's called "working" for it. I as well started paying taxes since 16, for what? All those wise guys that worked under the table for years, took every summer off to fish,never worked if it was too cold etc. etc. will still get the same pension at 65 than I do.
ketchenany Posted January 17, 2017 Report Posted January 17, 2017 Ketch, I get it. I thought Old Age was more than that. Looking at the possibility of losing my company pension we will be doing some serious down sizing and we already did. I thought Old Age was a few hundred more. At those huge stipends we won't be driving a vehicle in a few years so we can pay our taxes for roads I can't afford to drive on. We have had it pretty good up to now. People say we are "lucky". Luck had nada to do with it, it's called "working" for it. I as well started paying taxes since 16, for what? All those wise guys that worked under the table for years, took every summer off to fish,never worked if it was too cold etc. etc. will still get the same pension at 65 than I do. OI, that is correct, Canada gives more away it gives to Canadians that worked and contributed. One thing I wrote in one of my letters to our leaders last week was. All these taxes we are being sacked with and we get no raises and then they are all passed down by the people we have to it our groceries, gas, heating. . . .we are always at the end and have to pay. I figure my grocer and is going to pass on the higher cost of cap and trade onto us who need food.
Dara Posted January 17, 2017 Report Posted January 17, 2017 j Justin says he is going to phase out the oil sands so that should help a bit no?
Old Ironmaker Posted January 17, 2017 Report Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) Dara, please when did he say that? I am very proud of us all that this semi political thread has gone this long without the rhetoric that usually is synonymous with a discussion such as this. I have to say that only a few times our politicians lives were threatened here that would get you a knock at the door from the Men in Black in the US. I guess it isn't against the law up here to threaten our PM harm as it is to threaten POTUS in the USA. It should be. Edited January 17, 2017 by Old Ironmaker
Dara Posted January 17, 2017 Report Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) He said that in Peterborough on Friday Some woman asked him why he was approving pipelines when he said he was going to save the world so he said that the oil sands would be phased out. The people in Alberta weren't very happy with him http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/justin-trudeau-oilsands-phase-out-1.3934701 I think he was trying to get back on Jane Fondas christmas list Edited January 17, 2017 by Dara
Old Ironmaker Posted January 17, 2017 Report Posted January 17, 2017 What he said and I paraphrase was "we uh, can't uh choose uh between the uh environment uh and the uh economy." I'll leave out the uhs for now. He also said we have to get our product (oil) to market (through the pipelines, new or existing). And phase out the oil sands. He didn't say shut them down tomorrow. They will still be there many years to come. When a politician says phase out to him it means "not in my lifetime" the way the gov. moves.
Dutch01 Posted January 17, 2017 Report Posted January 17, 2017 He said that in Peterborough on Friday Some woman asked him why he was approving pipelines when he said he was going to save the world so he said that the oil sands would be phased out. The people in Alberta weren't very happy with him http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/justin-trudeau-oilsands-phase-out-1.3934701 I think he was trying to get back on Jane Fondas christmas list Trudeau's comments really weren't that inflammatory, and the (over)reaction is much ado over nothing. It's obvious that we will *eventually* have to stop burning fossil fuels. The people crying now about having to choose between having to eat or heat are being a little bit selfish, frankly. I work for a living too and it's hard to pay the bills sometimes so I'm not speaking from on high. But have a little perspective. Every member on this board is in the top 5% or so of the world in quality of life and income. We have multiple cars, 2,3,4000 square foot houses, lakefront cottages, boats and the list goes on ad infinitum. Meanwhile, most of the population of Kiribati in the Pacific have had to move to another island as theirs is now underwater. If we don't change our polluting ways future generations aren't going to be worrying about heat or food, they'll be worrying about being able to breath. It's a common refrain among generally conservative politicians that running up debt is bad finance and unfair to future generations. Fair enough, I accept that premise. How ironic then, to fight any and all attempts to protect those same future generations' environment. We are cashing in lives in the future* for jobs now. I don't think that is right. * Not just in the future, people die from air pollution every day now. Do I think that this new carbon tax is the right solution? Not personally, no. But the wailing and moaning by the conservatives every time Trudeau speaks is too much. They're like a jilted Democrat on Donald Trump night. Rachel Notley of all people had the most rational and reasonable response I saw: "We have to remember, this is coming from a prime minister who's just approved not one but two pipelines that are going to assist in our diversifying the markets to which we sell the product coming from the oilsands," Notley told CBC Radio's The House. She cautioned Albertans not to get "too excited" about Trudeau's comments. I'm with her on this one.
Big Cliff Posted January 17, 2017 Report Posted January 17, 2017 Cliff it is disgraceful. Freeze or eat? Pick one. You say your pension is less than $600.00. That can't include Old Age pension and or CPP, can it? The $578.00 is OAS, I do get $600.00 a month in CPP (I took it early so I get 30% less than I could have). This new crap and trade tax that was supposed to only add $5.00 a month to the average heating bill; well my first propane bill was 20% higher then the previous one (on a cost/L) When I called my supplier they explained that not only was there the extra tax but their costs to deliver it had also gone up so they had to pass that along too. OI, that is correct, Canada gives more away it gives to Canadians that worked and contributed. One thing I wrote in one of my letters to our leaders last week was. All these taxes we are being sacked with and we get no raises and then they are all passed down by the people we have to it our groceries, gas, heating. . . .we are always at the end and have to pay. I figure my grocer and is going to pass on the higher cost of cap and trade onto us who need food. I am one of the lucky ones, I can and do still work, I have a lot of friends that can't. Some are eroding their savings just to stay alive, some are going into debt, some have down sized to the point where the next step down is going to be a doorway on Young Street, food banks can't keep up with the demand, shelters are over crowded......... What he said and I paraphrase was "we uh, can't uh choose uh between the uh environment uh and the uh economy." I'll leave out the uhs for now. He also said we have to get our product (oil) to market (through the pipelines, new or existing). And phase out the oil sands. He didn't say shut them down tomorrow. They will still be there many years to come. When a politician says phase out to him it means "not in my lifetime" the way the gov. moves. LOL, I can't even listen to him, his classes must have been fun! And now he is under investigation by The federal ethics commissioner? First time ever for a sitting Prime Minister, that didn't take long!
Dara Posted January 17, 2017 Report Posted January 17, 2017 Jeez, why would he say he is phasing out the oil sands when he has no idea when or how or what the fuel will be replaced with. I think he would be better off saying nothing rather than spreading rumors and upsetting people
Dutch01 Posted January 17, 2017 Report Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) Jeez, why would he say he is phasing out the oil sands when he has no idea when or how or what the fuel will be replaced with. I think he would be better off saying nothing rather than spreading rumors and upsetting people I'll never argue against putting one's brain in gear before one's mouth Off to work so I can "pay the man ". Have a good one Dara. Edited January 17, 2017 by Dutch01
Recommended Posts