NDP set to unveil $15-billion climate plan that would slash greenhouse gas emissions

[Ryan Strome]

8 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

are you sure that you're not a red tory in hiding? 

 

I could get behind all of this. 

Call me what you want but I think thise are sound policies, unfortunately I don't see one party supporting the whole package I proposed. 10 cent increases in fuel won't do anything, in fact it's proven it does nothing to cut emmisions... Taking vehicles off the road will. At the same time Canada invests in high paying construction jobs and creates a competitive free market. I think you are directly involved with trade to Asia?? You would likely know how difficult our red tape can be.

 

I would also like to see Canada invest in building military equipment at home and also invest in our own space program.

[thejazz97]

19 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

I would cut corporate welfare, the carbon tax, some red tape and lower the corporate tax to 8% but business is on their own, make or break..

 

I would only offer certain rebates based on job creation for veterans, first nations people, youth and peoples with disabilities.

 

16 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

are you sure that you're not a red tory in hiding? 

 

I could get behind all of this. 

Could get behind everything but getting  rid of the carbon tax (unless there's a better plan you have) and lowering corporate tax.

 

edit: but lower taxes for small business! 

Edited June 1, 2019 by thejazz97

[Ryan Strome]

3 minutes ago, thejazz97 said:

 

Could get behind everything but getting  rid of the carbon tax (unless there's a better plan you have) and lowering corporate tax.

 

edit: but lower taxes for small business! 

No tax invest in green initiatives. We need to make things easier for all business. Except snc lavalin. 

[JM_]

21 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Did you just say my plan emulates European countries? 

Euro-light 

 

(not sure thats an improvement for you )

[JM_]

11 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Call me what you want but I think thise are sound policies, unfortunately I don't see one party supporting the whole package I proposed. 10 cent increases in fuel won't do anything, in fact it's proven it does nothing to cut emmisions... Taking vehicles off the road will. At the same time Canada invests in high paying construction jobs and creates a competitive free market. I think you are directly involved with trade to Asia?? You would likely know how difficult our red tape can be.

 

I would also like to see Canada invest in building military equipment at home and also invest in our own space program.

 

10 minutes ago, thejazz97 said:

 

Could get behind everything but getting  rid of the carbon tax (unless there's a better plan you have) and lowering corporate tax.

 

edit: but lower taxes for small business! 

what I'd prefer the carbon tax be used for is to subsidize our trucking and rail industries to go to greener vehicles. Cut that, and we become a world leader in emissions reduction. 

 

RS: totally agree on the military investments, we can and should be doing this ourselves from R&D to production. 

Edited June 1, 2019 by Jimmy McGill

[thejazz97]

4 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

No tax invest in green initiatives. We need to make things easier for all business. Except snc lavalin. 

I'd be interested in some mild corruption where a goal is set for Canadian tech to get to the global forefront, whoever wins gets no tax for five years, but that's the only way you'd get me to lower taxes on businesses 

 

The important thing is we agree on the end goal, we just have different ideas on how to get there.

[Violator]

56 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Climate change is real.   People need to start to put our environment ahead of personal profit.

That is pretty tough for many people but more and more people are starting to realize our planet is in crisis. 

Canada needs to stop being a dumping ground for cheap chinese stuff.

[TheAce]

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

@thejazz97 Tell me what you think of this, I will also bring in @Jimmy McGill because also loves taxes, kind of like a chong conservative. 

 

So what if we raised the gst to 10%? That should generate 30-40 billion annually and with that we have universal/national dental plan, pharmacare and daycare? Certainly the increased gst would cover that and then some. We could use the left over for investments for our military, green tech initiatives and lowering corporate taxes. Obviously I don't support taxes but these initiatives would put more parents to work, possibly cutting back a little on mass immigration. We would also have healthier children and our seniors would get the care they need.

 

The downside is places like BC and Sask with pst's at 7 and 6 percent that tax bill would start to get excessive for everyone outside Alberta.

 

Feel free to tell me what you guys think. @ForsbergTheGreat I know you're anti tax like myself could you be alright with a plan like this? Would either party propose it?

 

I came up with this idea a few weeks ago based on polls that showed strong majorities support having  these programs but are people prepared to pay for them? 

 

 

I think before we continue to raise or create new taxes, we start becoming accountable and fiscal with the taxes that are already getting collected. Its become a joke how badly tax dollars get wasted or thrown around.

[Ryan Strome]

3 minutes ago, TheAce said:

I think before we continue to raise or create new taxes, we start becoming accountable and fiscal with the taxes that are already getting collected. Its become a joke how badly tax dollars get wasted or thrown around.

I agree... As I say I only proposed that based on very recent polls and studies done to show Canadians want these programs. No matter your political affiliation when you see 80 % support for certain things you have to adjust.

Edited June 1, 2019 by Ryan Strome

[ForsbergTheGreat]

13 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

@thejazz97 Tell me what you think of this, I will also bring in @Jimmy McGill because also loves taxes, kind of like a chong conservative. 

 

So what if we raised the gst to 10%? That should generate 30-40 billion annually and with that we have universal/national dental plan, pharmacare and daycare? Certainly the increased gst would cover that and then some. We could use the left over for investments for our military, green tech initiatives and lowering corporate taxes. Obviously I don't support taxes but these initiatives would put more parents to work, possibly cutting back a little on mass immigration. We would also have healthier children and our seniors would get the care they need.

 

The downside is places like BC and Sask with pst's at 7 and 6 percent that tax bill would start to get excessive for everyone outside Alberta.

 

Feel free to tell me what you guys think. @ForsbergTheGreat I know you're anti tax like myself could you be alright with a plan like this? Would either party propose it?

 

I came up with this idea a few weeks ago based on polls that showed strong majorities support have these programs but are people prepared to pay for them? 

 

 

I'm about as anti tax as it gets mostly because I don't agree with the majority of places the gov't ends up spending the money. That's why I'm big in donating to charitable causes of my choice. I'd be much more inclined to set up a system where you get to chose which programs your tax dollars go (ie veterans, roads, healthcare). Also When the gov't is in control of where the money goes they have zero concern on efficiency and end up wasting a ton of money.  Alberta is the perfect example, When it comes to healthcare Alberta is the highest per-capita spender yet we don't rank the highest,  If we made smarter decisions (aka not https://www.cihi.ca/en/unnecessary-care-in-canada) we'd be able to spend billions else where.  While many social policies have good intentions, they are easily abused and at a global scale, don't encourage competition/innovation and often end up spending a ton of wasted money. 

 

People love to talk about the Scandinavian countries but often fail to realize that Norway has a lower top marginal tax rate to the US does.  And the big kicker is that in Norway the people lower incomes on average have a higher income tax rate than US as well.  They make most of their taxes on a similar system to like you propose.  The more to spend/buy the more to pay in taxes.  They do this through charging Value-added taxes (VATs) which does make every day items more expensive for all but it really makes it more fair to individuals regardless of your annual salary.  Less opportunity to find tax loop holes and more focus on opportunity equality (not outcome equality)

 

On a side note, this idea that the rich don't pay their fair share is asinine. The top 20% already cover 87% of the total taxes paid do people really think that don't pay there fair share?.  No offence but who is Jazz to tell people what is too excessive vs what is not needed.  I'm sure many people in Africa would be appalled as what he deemed is reasonable (if you make over 34k you are in the top 1% income earners world wide).   It's an emotional argument and it's saddening to think Jazz partied too hard in Uni and killed off all his brain cells. lol....just bugging you @thejazz97.  

 

The idea stems from the claim that income inequality is a terrible thing and needs to be solved.  My question is why?  Inequality is a result of the individual choices and freedoms. You are free to make good decisions and bad ones.  For example.. If you're taking for an exam, you study your butt off and that typically results in you getting a good mark, but if you decide to skip studying to go out an party all night, you likely get a bad mark. That's your freedom.  So why should we punish the person who made the good choices to accommodate the person who didn't?

 

When people view the top 10%, they picture McScrooge who swim in pools of money in their secret rooms.  People like to paint the rich with evil brush as if they simply screwed over others in order to get to where they are.  That's such a misguided view though, as 99% of the time they get to where they go through smart life choices and lots of sacrifices.  I just got out of a big business meeting last night where a dozen of the people there would be considered 1%ers.  They are all under 40, highly intelligent, highly motivated people who've earned their way.  And now they are looking to take that hard earned money and hopefully invest into the company i'm involved in, to make even more money. 

 

Edited June 2, 2019 by ForsbergTheGreat

[Ryan Strome]

5 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I'm about as anti tax as it gets mostly because I don't agree with the majority of places the gov't ends up spending the money. That's why I'm big in donating to charitable causes of my choice. I'd be much more inclined to set up a system where you get to chose which programs your tax dollars go (ie veterans, roads, healthcare). Also When the gov't is in control of where the money goes they have zero concern on efficiency and end up wasting a ton of money.  Alberta is the perfect example, When it comes to healthcare Alberta is the highest per-capita spender yet we don't rank the highest,  If we made smarter decisions (aka not https://www.cihi.ca/en/unnecessary-care-in-canada) we'd be able to spend billions else where.  While many social policies have good intentions, they are easily abused and at a global scale, don't encourage competition/innovation and often end up spending a ton of wasted money. 

 

People love to talk about the Scandinavian countries but often fail to realize that Norway has a lower top marginal tax rate to the US does.  And the big kicker is that in Norway the people lower incomes on average have a higher income tax rate than US as well.  They make most of their taxes on a similar system to like you propose.  The more to spend/buy the more to pay in taxes.  They do this through charging Value-added taxes (VATs) which does make every day items more expensive for all but it really makes it more fair to individuals regardless of your annual salary.  Less opportunity to find tax loop holes and more focus on opportunity equality (not outcome equality)

 

On a side note, this idea that the rich don't pay their fair share is asinine. The top 20% already cover 87% of the total taxes paid do people really think that don't pay there fair share?.  No offence but who is Jazz to tell people what is too excessive vs what is not needed.  I'm sure many people in Africa would be appalled as what he deemed is reasonable (if you make over 34k you are in the top 1% income earners world wide).   It's an emotional argument and it's saddening to think Jazz partied too hard in Uni and killed off all his brain cells. lol....just bugging you Jazz.  

 

The idea stems from the claim that income inequality is a terrible thing and needs to be solved.  My question is why?  Inequality is a result of the individual choices and freedoms. You are free to make good decisions and bad ones.  For example.. If you're taking for an exam, you study your butt off and that typically results in you getting a good mark, but if you decide to skip studying to go out an party all night, you likely get a bad mark. That's your freedom.  So why should we punish the person who made the good choices to accommodate the person who didn't?

 

When people view the top 10%, they picture McScrooge who swim in pools of money in their secret rooms.  People like to paint the rich with evil brush as if they simply screwed over others in order to get to where they are.  That's such a misguided view though, as 99% of the time they get to where they go through smart life choices and lots of sacrifices.  I just got out of a big business meeting last night where a dozen of the people there would be considered 1%ers.  They are all under 40, highly intelligent, highly motivated people who've earned their way.  And now they are looking to take that hard earned money and hopefully invest into the company i'm involved in, to make even more money. 

 

Again as I say I only proposed that based on recent polls and studies.

Edited June 1, 2019 by Ryan Strome

[canuckistani]

19 hours ago, MystifyNCrucify said:

Sigh

 

zippideedoodah. The problem is population, not pollution. An area that cannot sustain let alone control their population, no matter how friggen hard they try, will inevitably expand. Or consume. 

 

Ya ya the higher ups in those countries understand the “global emissions and pollution problem”. Do you understand the problem? 

So because there are more Indians and Chinese on the planet than Canadians, Canadians get to pollute 50x as them and call it fair. Nothing more than elitism of the fringe minority. If climate change is a global problem, then Canada has to do its part or STFU about them who are doing better than the average Canadian in terms of emissions. Canada - the hypocrite Mary Antoinette of climate change. Virtue signalling but doing far less than most of the world in emissions. 

[TheAce]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I'm about as anti tax as it gets mostly because I don't agree with the majority of places the gov't ends up spending the money. That's why I'm big in donating to charitable causes of my choice. I'd be much more inclined to set up a system where you get to chose which programs your tax dollars go (ie veterans, roads, healthcare). Also When the gov't is in control of where the money goes they have zero concern on efficiency and end up wasting a ton of money.  Alberta is the perfect example, When it comes to healthcare Alberta is the highest per-capita spender yet we don't rank the highest,  If we made smarter decisions (aka not https://www.cihi.ca/en/unnecessary-care-in-canada) we'd be able to spend billions else where.  While many social policies have good intentions, they are easily abused and at a global scale, don't encourage competition/innovation and often end up spending a ton of wasted money. 

 

People love to talk about the Scandinavian countries but often fail to realize that Norway has a lower top marginal tax rate to the US does.  And the big kicker is that in Norway the people lower incomes on average have a higher income tax rate than US as well.  They make most of their taxes on a similar system to like you propose.  The more to spend/buy the more to pay in taxes.  They do this through charging Value-added taxes (VATs) which does make every day items more expensive for all but it really makes it more fair to individuals regardless of your annual salary.  Less opportunity to find tax loop holes and more focus on opportunity equality (not outcome equality)

 

On a side note, this idea that the rich don't pay their fair share is asinine. The top 20% already cover 87% of the total taxes paid do people really think that don't pay there fair share?.  No offence but who is Jazz to tell people what is too excessive vs what is not needed.  I'm sure many people in Africa would be appalled as what he deemed is reasonable (if you make over 34k you are in the top 1% income earners world wide).   It's an emotional argument and it's saddening to think Jazz partied too hard in Uni and killed off all his brain cells. lol....just bugging you Jazz.  

 

The idea stems from the claim that income inequality is a terrible thing and needs to be solved.  My question is why?  Inequality is a result of the individual choices and freedoms. You are free to make good decisions and bad ones.  For example.. If you're taking for an exam, you study your butt off and that typically results in you getting a good mark, but if you decide to skip studying to go out an party all night, you likely get a bad mark. That's your freedom.  So why should we punish the person who made the good choices to accommodate the person who didn't?

 

When people view the top 10%, they picture McScrooge who swim in pools of money in their secret rooms.  People like to paint the rich with evil brush as if they simply screwed over others in order to get to where they are.  That's such a misguided view though, as 99% of the time they get to where they go through smart life choices and lots of sacrifices.  I just got out of a big business meeting last night where a dozen of the people there would be considered 1%ers.  They are all under 40, highly intelligent, highly motivated people who've earned their way.  And now they are looking to take that hard earned money and hopefully invest into the company i'm involved in, to make even more money. 

 

I would like to see something like this when it comes to foreign aid. Im all for generosity and helping other however it should be an individual choice as to how much you give and to where you want to give it to. Its not fair that the government takes your hard earned money in the form of a tax and then gives it away to other countries only to turn around and then cry that they need to raise our taxes because there isnt enough for roads, medical, etc.

The government can set up a foreign aid charity and every dollar donated has a 1.5 dollar ratio deduction towards someones tax receipt . That should help encourage people to donate and allow Canada to continue to help.

[MystifyNCrucify]

3 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

No one deserves a catastrophe.......  wow really you are going to far on this one.

 

But soon we as humans will need to see our industrial activities are in fact contributing to climate change.  Climate change deniers like you are slowly disappearing luckily though...

I never denied climate change. I simply believe, that canada needs this oil money to make itself a better, more stable country. Yes, there may be some accidents. With that money canada can build failsafes to limit the effects of any possible leaks etc. 

 

Besides, north america would be hard pressed to catch up to india and asia in the pollution game. In fact, they would probably actively have to purposefully dump plastic into both the atlantic and pacific. 

[canuckistani]

8 minutes ago, MystifyNCrucify said:

I never denied climate change. I simply believe, that canada needs this oil money to make itself a better, more stable country. Yes, there may be some accidents. With that money canada can build failsafes to limit the effects of any possible leaks etc. 

 

Besides, north america would be hard pressed to catch up to india and asia in the pollution game. In fact, they would probably actively have to purposefully dump plastic into both the atlantic and pacific. 

North America has far greater lifetime plastic pollution quantity than Asia or any other corner of the planet. North Americans are by far amongst the worst polluters individually on the planet. 

[MystifyNCrucify]

2 hours ago, canuckistani said:

So because there are more Indians and Chinese on the planet than Canadians, Canadians get to pollute 50x as them and call it fair. Nothing more than elitism of the fringe minority. If climate change is a global problem, then Canada has to do its part or STFU about them who are doing better than the average Canadian in terms of emissions. Canada - the hypocrite Mary Antoinette of climate change. Virtue signalling but doing far less than most of the world in emissions. 

Im not getting sucked into another meaningless discussion with you, but i will say this. 

 

Good innovation from india and china with their plastics recycling programs. Good on them. 

 

Oh wait....hmmm

[canuckistani]

43 minutes ago, MystifyNCrucify said:

Im not getting sucked into another meaningless discussion with you, but i will say this. 

 

Good innovation from india and china with their plastics recycling programs. Good on them. 

 

Oh wait....hmmm

Doesn't change the fact that indian or chinese people themselves are less polluting than you or I on a person to person basis. As a person, that makes us worse polluters than them. 

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, canuckistani said:

North America has far greater lifetime plastic pollution quantity than Asia or any other corner of the planet. North Americans are by far amongst the worst polluters individually on the planet. 

I think we Canadians as a whole don’t even compare with India and China for pollution.  Individually we are definitely serious consumers and enjoy being at the top.  I don’t see what’s wrong with being at the top, and wanting to stay there?  If we keep our population relatively small, we will continue at the top, and be within our right (as the ones at the top) to consume more than those at the bottom.  

 

 

[canuckistani]

Just now, Alflives said:

I think we Canadians as a whole don’t even compare with India and China for pollution.

Yeah. But we canadian as a whole don't even compare to India or China in almost anything really - total educated people, total wealth, total military might.....Canadians also don't compare to India or China in consumption of any particular product/good. 

Just now, Alflives said:

 Individually we are definitely serious consumers and enjoy being at the top.  I don’t see what’s wrong with being at the top, and wanting to stay there?  If we keep our population relatively small, we will continue at the top, and be within our right (as the ones at the top) to consume more than those at the bottom.  

Being on top and being one of the worst offenders at pollution are two seperate things. There are richer countries than us, also on the top, who are lesser polluters than us. What is really not on, is being one of the worst polluters on the planet but acting like we are somehow better at pollution than 90% of the planet. 

 

Being a smaller population does not give the Canadian individuals a free pass on polluting more than other people while pretending we don't. 

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, canuckistani said:

Doesn't change the fact that indian or chinese people themselves are less polluting than you or I on a person to person basis. As a person, that makes us worse polluters than them. 

There is little or no logic in my argument.  There are no facts or figures, or even expert opinions.  My argument just is:  we are the top of the consumer ladder.  Good for us.  Let’s stay there as long as we possibly can.