• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cut income, corporate taxes and make up difference with carbon tax says Chong

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Cut income, corporate taxes and make up difference with carbon tax says Chong

    Cut income, corporate taxes and make up difference with carbon tax says Chong
    Michael Chong's plan would see carbon priced at $130 a tonne by 2030

    By Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press Posted: Nov 02, 2016 3:41 PM ET Last Updated: Nov 02, 2016 5:46 PM ET
    Federal Conservative leadership candidate Michael Chong is breaking from the Conservative pack with his proposal to institute a carbon tax that would rise to $130 a tonne by 2030.

    Federal Conservative leadership candidate Michael Chong is proposing a dramatic overhaul of the tax system based on new revenues from taxing carbon.

    Chong says his plan would cut overall federal income taxes by 10 per cent and corporate taxes by five per cent — while imposing an escalating tax on carbon emissions that would rise to $130 a tonne by 2030.

    "We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to both lower income taxes and clean up our environment through the pricing of carbon," Chong said Wednesday at a news conference on Parliament Hill.

    Chong, one of 10 confirmed entrants in the Conservative race, says Canada already has a working model of a truly revenue-neutral carbon tax in British Columbia.

    But his proposal goes much further than simply raising carbon tax revenues and cutting income and business taxes.

    Chong proposes to eliminate more than a dozen other federal programs designed to curb emissions, including renewable fuel regulations and coal-fired electricity regulations.

    His plan would also eliminate three of the current five federal income tax brackets, scrap half the current $22.9 billion spent on various tax breaks, and double the Working Income Tax Benefit for low-income families to $2.3 billion annually. There would also be a new carbon credit built into the existing low-income GST/HST credit.

    "The level of detail in the report is truly impressive," economist Trevor Tombe, a research fellow at the University of Calgary's school of public policy, said in an interview.

    "He explicitly wants to raise the carbon price to $130 per tonne. That shows he's serious about meeting the 30 per cent reduction target — and he's serious about doing it in the most economically efficient way possible."
    Breaking with the pack

    Chong, a Toronto-area MP since 2004, says his plan is based on conservative principles using market mechanisms that will get Canada to its 2030 international emissions-cutting target while boosting economic growth.

    "Conservatives must have a credible, market-based plan to reduce these emissions," he said.

    But the 44-year-old is breaking with almost a decade of Conservative party orthodoxy on carbon pricing, which Chong's colleagues have consistently critiqued as a "job-killing tax on everything."

    Conservatives also insist carbon taxes will put Canada at a competitive disadvantage with the United States, the country's dominant trading partner.

    'Our carbon tax will in fact be revenue negative for the first several years'
    - Chong

    Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall fired off an open letter to the federal government this week that again lambasted the Liberal carbon tax plan.

    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced last month that Ottawa will impose a floor price on carbon dioxide emissions beginning in 2018 if provinces don't adopt their own pricing model by then.

    Provinces must either have a direct carbon tax — such as those in B.C. and Alberta — or adopt a cap-and-trade market that prices emissions, as in Quebec and Ontario.

    For provinces that fail to act, the national floor price will start at $10 per tonne of emissions and rise $10 annually until reaching $50 per tonne in 2022.

    The federal Liberals say all revenues will remain in the province or territory where they are collected and that provincial governments are free to use the revenues as they see fit — whether for income tax cuts, business subsidies, green incentives or other measures.
    Chong's plan

    Chong's carbon tax would mirror the Liberal system from 2018 — when all provinces will be expected to begin taxing carbon at $10 per tonne — through 2020. Provinces would be allowed to keep the first $30 per tonne of revenues under Chong's plan and would receive federal subsidies if they fully rebated those revenues through provincial tax cuts.

    The federal tax component would start in 2021, even though Chong says his income and business cuts would come in the first budget of a new Conservative government in 2020.

    "Our carbon tax will in fact be revenue negative for the first several years," he said.

    Chong said he's the only Conservative leadership candidate so far to actually propose income tax cuts.

    #2
    Replace the word Carbon Tax with Consumption Tax, and I could get behind his idea. The concept is great, the justification is completely wrong as usual.

    Comment


      #3
      All we ever hear is "economic growth great, stagnant or slow bad", so why would you TAX consumption? That is killing growth. One should promote consumption, NOT penalize it. Nothing more fair than income tax.

      Comment


        #4
        Why not a flat tax.....get rid of the thousands reviewing taxes.


        No such thing as revenue neutral when you create another beauracracy.

        Comment


          #5
          An interesting concept and I think its good that people are coming up with alternate solutions/suggestions. What strikes me with this one are the figures - would raising the tax to $130/T really generate enough income to offset the tax cuts and other stuff proposed. Does that sound right?

          Comment


            #6
            Chong is an idiot. Carbon taxes are dishonest as carbon it not a pollutant and it would unfairly penalize rural residents. I would focus on reducing the size of government and if more taxes became absolutely necessary, I would raise the GST but only as a last resort. The conservatives had better figure out that we are not under taxed in Canuckistan and that carbon taxes will do nothing for the environment. The big issues that nobody is talking are how are we going to keep public servant pensions from strangulating the rest of us and how to keep the ginormous debt in Ontario and Quebec from strangulating the rest of us.

            Comment


              #7
              Interesting to see that Chong as a Conservative leadership candidate is proposing this. He won't win but this pushes the debate to new levels.

              It is likely that most provinces will make agriculture exempt. How this works with fertilizers and other inputs I am not sure.

              Under the Liberal plan, one Bank study suggested that the cost of the carbon tax would be about $6 per acre. Significant, but similar to the cost of one pass with Roundup? This does not seem like a game changer to most farms.

              What if farms were given carbon credits for sequestering carbon?

              As with any increase in the costs of anything consumers generally try to be more efficient which reduces the cost. There is tremendous waste in energy use because it has been relatively inexpensive. Becoming more efficient is good for productivity.

              Nitrogen fertilizer is the biggest single energy input into agriculture. How many farmers apply the same rate every year without soil testing? How many apply the same rate across the whole field? It makes no sense to do this, because N availability varies from high ground to low ground and from year to year. Farmers make themselves less competitive by doing this.

              As far as a carbon price making Canadian farmers less competitive? Energy costs have always been lower in the USA.

              Competitive advantage is a complicated question as it requires consideration of subsidies, land costs, transportation costs, exchange rates, etc etc. We already have competitive advantages and disadvantages with other farming regions. $6 per acre will not change much in regard to competitive advantage or disadvantage.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by fjlip View Post
                All we ever hear is "economic growth great, stagnant or slow bad", so why would you TAX consumption? That is killing growth. One should promote consumption, NOT penalize it. Nothing more fair than income tax.
                I would have to respectfully disagree. For most people who spend their entire paycheque regardless, it would make no difference if they were taxed on their income, or their expenses. But for a few motivated people, if you allow them to keep their entire paycheque instead of taxing up to half away, they will invest that, start businesses or invest in other businesses, options that are nearly impossible when the income is never received to start with due to penalizing income taxes. Let people decide how to spend their own money. Most will still spend it all on booze, wild women, and gambling, the rest they will just waste, and really won't see any difference at the end of the day. And tax revenues will be the same on them as if they were paying income taxes. The rest of us who invest in business won't pay as much in consumption taxes, but will eventually increase tax revenues by contributing to the economy.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Chong is a city yuppie - regardless of his politics he is lapping up this b/s carbon tax because it will only benefit his way of life financially while costing those of us that have no choice but to burn fossil fuels to feed his sorry ass .

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Chong is a lost soul who is only in the Conservative party to hold a seat and have a job.

                    He should join a party more in tune with his views. Liberal, Green or NDP would suit him better but than he would lose in his riding......he knows that.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      We do really begin to discuss the basics of economic structure, taxation and job creation in school. However, the real question must be: does he have nice hair?

                      Comment

                      • Reply to this Thread
                      • Return to Topic List
                      Working...