Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Blog Central, Inkless Wells

The stars align

by Paul Wells on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 8:32am - 0 Comments

I have to say, I’m liking Stéphane Dion’s Permanent Tax on Everything™ more with every passing day. The advance reviews are so awful, it has to be good. Remember when Jean Chrétien and Stéphane Dion introduced the Clarity Act in 1999? No, no, you probably don’t. Well, it produced a poo storm of majestic proportions, is what it did, with the press gallery and the super-genius Liberal caucus (Official motto: “If Only We Had Paul Martin Leading Us”) leading the lamentations and grinding of teeth.

“Let sleeping dogs lie,” they said. The very same people who had said discussion of secession rules was a bad idea when separatists were doing well in the polls now argued that discussion of secession rules was a horrible idea because separatists were doing badly in the polls. “Right policy, wrong time,” they said. What they certainly never said was “36 seats in Quebec,” and yet that’s what the Liberals got, including a four-point advantage over the Bloc in the popular vote, after a federal election campaign in which the sovereignist brain trust invoked Chrétien’s supposedly hated name so frequently it sounded like some form of Tourette’s.

Now here’s Stéphane Dion with his Green Shift Permanent Tax on Everything™. The super-genius caucus hates it; the Globe’s chief political strategist wants sleeping dogs let lie; the Tory brain-in-a-jar election team thinks it’s idiotic. None of this is a guarantee of success, but Wells’s Second Law holds that an Ottawa consensus is an awfully tempting thing to bet against.

Tags: Stéphane Dion's Permanent Tax On Everything

More by Paul Wells

sandra

Steve V- I am glad you believe that this will be an insignificant amount for me to pay. Once you combine this with all of the other companies that will pas their cost along it will not be an small amount.

I can only conclude that you have a contract that has a cost of living clause built in. Unfortunately most of us don’t.
Lindsay

OK, I read it all – and the BC Budget announcement, and STILL have 3 questions.
(1) What is environmentally dangerous about CO2? Because it’s tree food?
(2) What is wrong with having cheap, abundant energy? Because it gives us more free time?
(3) Are the political forces of Maurice Strong winning?
http://farnwide.blogspot.com/ Steve V

Sandra

God’s speed.
tc

here’s an intriguing part for me: why would the Liberals support a policy for carbon reduction, by consumer taxation, that is different than the one that is accepted by all the other parties, cap and trade on a national carbon market? why start a new fight when you can move past that and start negotiating reduction levels? do they think that a liberal minority government will get support in the house for their carbon taxation levels? the NDP will say “it’s too low on rich people, to hign on poor!” the Conservatives will say “its a tax on economic growth and its why you lost your job!” if they were smart they would move in the direction of least resistance and start working on the terms. i thought this was some kind of emergency?

ps: i wouldn’t be surprised to see Harper and Layton sit down and negotiate carbon limits in a cap and trade environment to make Dion look even more ineffectual, if that’s even possible. If they do, Layton wins for forcing more meaningful reductions, Harper wins by removing the environment off the battleground of the next election.
hollinm

What happens if the AG says the revenue received was not offset by a similar reduction in taxes? Will the Liberal government resign? We all know the answer to that. Let’s remember McGuinty signed a contract stating he would not raise taxes. What did Ontario get? The largerst personal income tax increase in the history of the province. So much for Liberal promises.
While the amount of tax collected may be offset by tax cuts how does Dion account for the massive price increases that will be passed onto consumers by virtually every company in the country who uses oil in its manufacturing process. Is Dion saying if my standard of living is reduced by 30% then I will get a personal tax reduction of 30%? Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me. Beware of Liberals in sheeps’ clothing.
mitch

Ahhh yes, the oh so liberal belief that a tax that’s supposed to be costly (and hence negatively affect behavior)

won’t be costly at all.

And oh, Paul, you mock the “tax on everything” notion,

but try going shopping and picking out goods in which fuel was not a significant input.

Do you know what in our society emits carbon, Paul?

Almost everyone and everything.

But do keep up with your childish mockery of a point which should be well taken, as it only underscores:

1) your ignorance, and

2) another example of the agenda journalist slavishly following a favourite pet issue with little or no insight.

Now Paul, you should probably get back to cheerleading on leading Liberal blogs. Thanks for at least showing your true colors.
Ian

I wonder if Paul’s career will ever recover from Mitch calling him ignorant. Quite a blow, that.
mitch

Paul,

another quick question:

Do you think (assuming that the earth (assuming that the Earth is dangerously and dramatically warming, our winters are getting balmy coastal cities are now flooding like was predicted a decade ago),

that anything Canadians can do, anything, can make the Earth cooler, or less warm?

Assuming again in the AGW theory being correct, do you know what percentage Canada’s total output is compared to, say, China, India, Russia and the rest of the world? Try close to 1-2%.

Care to explain how this tax is NOT simply a tax that will not have (indeed based on simple math CANNOT have) any material impact whatsoever on world carbon output?

Aside from satiating our narcissistic tendencies to convince ourselves we’re “saving the world”, could you explain how such a plan can come remotely close to its purported purpose of reducing global warming?

One more:

Wouldn’t honest answers (and a genuine desire to extract oneself from leftist thinking that permeates journalism subculture) to the above questions lead one to conclude that its the liberal plan that should be mocked?
Sophie

I sincerely doubt it, Ian.
Scott M.

Mitch…

You’ve lost the argument about human-caused climate change occuring already. Which party do you support? The NDP, Bloc, Liberals, Greens and, yes, the Conservatives all agree it’s occuring (let alone the vast majority of climate scientists).

So no, I don’t think that it’s worth mocking the Liberal plan on that basis, if not for the fact that if the Liberals have it wrong so does EVERYONE ELSE.

Are you also mocking John Baird’s attempt to come up with new regulations to reduce CO2 which will surely cause economic hardship for some companies?

BTW, I’m sure you have no problem littering. After all, why should you not throw your garbage on the street when thousands of others do it? Your contribution is negligable — who cares about it? There’s no point in going to the hassle of putting your Tim’s coffee cup in the garbage until everyone else does it, after all you’re only contributing < 0.05% of the litter on the street… it doesn’t matter.
Mark

Hey Mitch – didja notice that Paul’s original post (waaaaay up there, at the top of your screen) is not, in fact, about the merits of the tax, its possible utility, or the science of climate change, but rather the proposal’s potential implications on electoral politics?
Which is not to say you won’t find a healthy debate on this thread about those other questions; I mention this simply to ask if you might consider directing your brave and original broadsides against the liberal-media conspiracy at more promising targets. At the moment you’re basically complaining about an orange for not being apple-y enough.
Bill Simpson

Scott,
The argument about the causes, scope and affects of climate change is very far from closed, as are the various costs and benefits of dealing with all of this. Check out the Copenhagen Consensus for some alternative reading on this.

Carbon taxes will have a definite adverse affect, and an uncertain benefit locally and globally. This is why they are such a bad muddled idea.
Scott M.

If you honestly believe that human-caused climate change isn’t occuring, you’re in an unenviable position. There’s no major party you can back who supports your views.

One can only hope for some form of PR (MMP, STV, etc.) that will allow for a greater diversity of views such as yours. I’m in the same boat but not on this issue – honestly, I sympathise.
boudica

Hey Bill,

Are you saying that you wouldn’t welcome the income tax reduction that comes with the carbon tax? Or is this the part that you are careful to ignore in this discussion?
http://dandylittlecdnblog.blogspot.com d. andy jette

Adding to Wells’s orignial thesis, kinsella posts the following on his blog:

“Now that I read that Paul Martin is also nervous about a carbon tax, I am wholeheartedly in favour of it. Tax the [bleep] out of everyone, on everything that moves, and two things that don’t. Go for it, Dion!”

I’ve basically come to the conclusion that we’re all playing b/w video Checkers for Mac Classics, while Dion (and Wells) are playing some whacked-out version of Wizard’s Chess for Wii.