Mr. McKeever, have you researched the Green Party tax shift? You know, the one the Liberals tried to replicate. Who knows policies better then the original producers? No one! So might I suggest you continue your homework and educate yourself further on this topic. Considering the Liberals were not successful in introducing their tax shift, by your explanation, we should be better off... However, that is not the case. Ask most people from Oshawa how they are and the answer is universal, WORSE!!!
I'm so glad I discovered you, I really need things like the 'dime demonstration'! and thank you for not speed-talking the way most people do. what is up with that? do they think the faster they talk the smarter they look?
There's a flaw in your logic. Under the green shift, the additional tax on fuel would increase its cost, and discourage people from buying it. What you're saying is true only if people spent all of their income tax cut on fuel, but they would not. They would spend it on other things too. They would be incented to buy things like bikes, bus passes, and running shoes - things that are not subject to the carbon tax.
for a lawyer i'm surprise, you think we should jsut continue to externalize the cost of pollution. have you looked into or at least glanced over other countries/pronvinces that have implemented the carbon tax.
"In most of the developed countries of the world today, firms are paying the cost of pollution to the global environment, in the form of taxes imposed on coal, oil, and gas. But American firms are being subsidized—and massively so. There is a simple remedy: other countries should prohibit the importation of American goods produced using energy intensive technologies, or, at the very least,
impose a high tax on them, to offset the subsidy that those goods currently are receiving." Just a quote from Joseph Stiglitz Professor Economics University Columbia
Not everyone who has read the plan has come to this same conclusion. For a different (and fun) take on The Green Shift and its benefits, please see "The Green Shift in 88 Seconds" on YouTube :)
The conservative don't have a plan, there plan isn't a plan at all, you'll end up paying high prices of gas/oil and energy and that 2% tax cut on the gst isn't going to do anything for you in the long run. The Liberal Green shift plan will lower your income taxes by 10% within the four years it is implemented, that's a lot of money returned to you. It's more than the 2% GST tax break that you're getting now. The green shift plan will keep the GST at 5% with out increasing it.
Either you didn't understand the plan or you're willfully misrepresenting it. The plan will allow us to decide how much carbon we want to emit, and we will pay more or less than now based on our choices. This is coming sooner or later whether we like it or not. We can institute this sooner (and more gradually), or later (and therefore more abruptly and more painfully), but it is naive to believe we can escape this kind of change.
I would like to see your analysis of the Conservative "plan".
After actually wasting my time and reading through the green shift site, my biggest concern is that it's hazy information at best. Basically, if I don't have a car, but own a home, I still get nailed because some of my energy requirements are based in some kind of carbon "source".
At this point I agree with the video... this would completely cripple Canada economically...
Overall the idea is to tax those individual who decides to over spend carbon tax allowance. The concept is simple. If companies invest in green technology, they'd save in the long run and that's the main idea, to force companies to invest in greener technology so they could be more energy efficient.
This guy is hiding some of the concepts of the Green Shift plan. I don't think he's understanding the idea at all and he calls himself a lawyer. The idea is not to tax the Canadians on the carbon Tax, it's to Tax the Corporation that emits all of C02. The money generated is to help infrastructure and build cleaner technology with the extra income. Money grabs is when the government is taking the money and including their over budget. It's suppose to be revenue neutral, every dollar earn is spent
A green shift is long overdue, they need to put a price cap on fuel so the companies can't retaliate upon the citizens. Paul McKeever I'm very interested who you work for because even if they tax the fuel producers, technically it doesn't matter what the prices do seeing that we are in opec, we have lots of gas and are paying up the ass already. Just think about that pretty lady jogging along the road catching lung cancer because of your SUVs and busses. This guy feels bad for the oil companys?
- if people eventually buy less gas then tax revenues go down for the government. or would income taxes go back up?
- why not tax gas at 400000%? imagine the tax revenue and imagine the decreased use of gas... - so gas will be more expensive. Hopefully poorer people don't need gas. It will be nice going to a gas station without all those pesky middle class types in their ugly cars. the roads will be nice and clear for me and my lamborghini. Just me and the politicians on the roads I guess.
Understood. However, the Liberals are trying their best to pretend that the plan is revenue-neutral on a per-person basis (thus the title, green "shift"). Few voters care if a plan is "revenue neutral" for the government: if it isn't "revenue neutral" for themselves, they - rightly and smartly - want nothing to do with it. This video points out that the green shift is not "revenue neutral" on a per person basis...on the basis that matters to most voters.
It's not being postured as neutral on a per-person basis at all - the website itself talks about savings families can expect.
The "carbon tax" is used to reduce tax burden of everything else. Major polluters can therefore expect an increase in taxes, while the rest can expect a decrease.
I don't necessarily support their plan, but I'm sure you've misunderstood it.
When a man looks into the camera and tells you he is not going to increase your taxes, he's talking about YOUR taxes, not CANADA's taxes taken in the aggregate. The great majority of individuals could not care less about CANADA's tax burden: they care about their OWN...(cont'd)
(cont'd)... Dion KNOWs that. And he knows that when he uses the phrases "revenue neutral" and "the Liberals won't increase your taxes", the vast majority of listeners will understand him to mean that he is promising their OWN tax burden will not change.
According to the plan, a "significant majority" of the revenue comes from industry, while the majority of the expenses are income tax reductions and "family benefits" - you may have interpreted his sound-byte comments a certain way, but that simply doesn't make sense if you actually look at the plan.
The truth of the matter is that the "productive" industries in the U.S. and Canada have been taxed out/unionized out of business. When it takes so much personal investment to make such a meager profit, the business owner wonders, "Why should I?" In many cases, they decide not to go further, or not to start at all (at least in North America).
What's worse, we have something very similar in the works right now here in the US. Pretty soon, there will be no place for companies to run.
And then what will happen? Why, we'll have the Green's paradise! Everyone will be living out on the street, consuming nothing, giving off minimal Co2...
Well, if the tax proposal goes through you'll probably see a lot of other people with a beard like yours. Although I doubt they will be the sort owning a tuxedo.
On a lighter note, why stop with just a couple of suit changes, Paul? I think with each scene, you should be in a different location, in a different outfit (how about a cop costume, or McKeever as Jack Tripper?), yet not straying whatsoever from your very informative messages.
How can it be "revenue-neutral"? Talk about a pointless thing. Besides, doesn't it come with administrative/bureaucratic costs? If so how could it be "revenue-neutral"? Sounds like Green fantasies.
This would mean there would be a greater disparity between products and services that use more carbon then the ones that use less thus curving peoples buying habits. I share your concern that this would not keep taxes the same but if it did I think its much more fare than the government giving lots of money to politically connected companies for on bio fuels, wind farms and research.
Its strange. I think people actually think of business as a pot of money. They don't realize that many of the older companies are based on margin.
A company might make like 1 bill in income, but have 900 mill in cost. When the "green tax" raises their cost up to 1 bill, they have no choice but to lay off people or shut down.
Business is based on margin, not on income. Especially the older business that have been around for a long time.
It must be related with the stupid notion that profits are automatic (and the confusion of interest returns on capital with entrepreneurial profits.) Few people realize profits are merely a reward for anticipating future demand well & dealing with uncertainty (which are ephemeral), and that firms operate on a spread between their factor prices and the revenue they gain for their products. Both these activities require coordination and do not disappear with larger firms.
Mr. McKeever, have you researched the Green Party tax shift? You know, the one the Liberals tried to replicate. Who knows policies better then the original producers? No one! So might I suggest you continue your homework and educate yourself further on this topic. Considering the Liberals were not successful in introducing their tax shift, by your explanation, we should be better off... However, that is not the case. Ask most people from Oshawa how they are and the answer is universal, WORSE!!!
GreenVirgoGirl 11 months ago
Man those refomatories sure hate paying their taxes !
jkirk1963 2 years ago
I'm so glad I discovered you, I really need things like the 'dime demonstration'! and thank you for not speed-talking the way most people do. what is up with that? do they think the faster they talk the smarter they look?
hoomelemele 3 years ago
There's a flaw in your logic. Under the green shift, the additional tax on fuel would increase its cost, and discourage people from buying it. What you're saying is true only if people spent all of their income tax cut on fuel, but they would not. They would spend it on other things too. They would be incented to buy things like bikes, bus passes, and running shoes - things that are not subject to the carbon tax.
JaredLangdon 3 years ago
i my pusssy is wet O
eothernnn 3 years ago
for a lawyer i'm surprise, you think we should jsut continue to externalize the cost of pollution. have you looked into or at least glanced over other countries/pronvinces that have implemented the carbon tax.
Jesusplant 3 years ago
"In most of the developed countries of the world today, firms are paying the cost of pollution to the global environment, in the form of taxes imposed on coal, oil, and gas. But American firms are being subsidized—and massively so. There is a simple remedy: other countries should prohibit the importation of American goods produced using energy intensive technologies, or, at the very least,
Jesusplant 3 years ago
impose a high tax on them, to offset the subsidy that those goods currently are receiving." Just a quote from Joseph Stiglitz Professor Economics University Columbia
Jesusplant 3 years ago
Not everyone who has read the plan has come to this same conclusion. For a different (and fun) take on The Green Shift and its benefits, please see "The Green Shift in 88 Seconds" on YouTube :)
notintheatres 3 years ago
The conservative don't have a plan, there plan isn't a plan at all, you'll end up paying high prices of gas/oil and energy and that 2% tax cut on the gst isn't going to do anything for you in the long run. The Liberal Green shift plan will lower your income taxes by 10% within the four years it is implemented, that's a lot of money returned to you. It's more than the 2% GST tax break that you're getting now. The green shift plan will keep the GST at 5% with out increasing it.
simplysung 3 years ago
Either you didn't understand the plan or you're willfully misrepresenting it. The plan will allow us to decide how much carbon we want to emit, and we will pay more or less than now based on our choices. This is coming sooner or later whether we like it or not. We can institute this sooner (and more gradually), or later (and therefore more abruptly and more painfully), but it is naive to believe we can escape this kind of change.
I would like to see your analysis of the Conservative "plan".
grandours11 3 years ago
After actually wasting my time and reading through the green shift site, my biggest concern is that it's hazy information at best. Basically, if I don't have a car, but own a home, I still get nailed because some of my energy requirements are based in some kind of carbon "source".
At this point I agree with the video... this would completely cripple Canada economically...
Way too unclear to base a country's future on.
jaksqwat 3 years ago
Overall the idea is to tax those individual who decides to over spend carbon tax allowance. The concept is simple. If companies invest in green technology, they'd save in the long run and that's the main idea, to force companies to invest in greener technology so they could be more energy efficient.
simplysung 3 years ago
This guy is hiding some of the concepts of the Green Shift plan. I don't think he's understanding the idea at all and he calls himself a lawyer. The idea is not to tax the Canadians on the carbon Tax, it's to Tax the Corporation that emits all of C02. The money generated is to help infrastructure and build cleaner technology with the extra income. Money grabs is when the government is taking the money and including their over budget. It's suppose to be revenue neutral, every dollar earn is spent
simplysung 3 years ago
A green shift is long overdue, they need to put a price cap on fuel so the companies can't retaliate upon the citizens. Paul McKeever I'm very interested who you work for because even if they tax the fuel producers, technically it doesn't matter what the prices do seeing that we are in opec, we have lots of gas and are paying up the ass already. Just think about that pretty lady jogging along the road catching lung cancer because of your SUVs and busses. This guy feels bad for the oil companys?
Chewy2284 3 years ago
After close inspection your intro music is more ridiculous than your beard.
spayce99 3 years ago
Excellent.
qtronman 3 years ago
Nice beard
Drillinstructor179 3 years ago
I think so too. That makes at least two of us.
PaulMcKeever 3 years ago
- if people eventually buy less gas then tax revenues go down for the government. or would income taxes go back up?
- why not tax gas at 400000%? imagine the tax revenue and imagine the decreased use of gas... - so gas will be more expensive. Hopefully poorer people don't need gas. It will be nice going to a gas station without all those pesky middle class types in their ugly cars. the roads will be nice and clear for me and my lamborghini. Just me and the politicians on the roads I guess.
Mammonist 3 years ago
Ha! Exactly.
PaulMcKeever 3 years ago
Hi johnnowak:
Understood. However, the Liberals are trying their best to pretend that the plan is revenue-neutral on a per-person basis (thus the title, green "shift"). Few voters care if a plan is "revenue neutral" for the government: if it isn't "revenue neutral" for themselves, they - rightly and smartly - want nothing to do with it. This video points out that the green shift is not "revenue neutral" on a per person basis...on the basis that matters to most voters.
PaulMcKeever 3 years ago
It's not being postured as neutral on a per-person basis at all - the website itself talks about savings families can expect.
The "carbon tax" is used to reduce tax burden of everything else. Major polluters can therefore expect an increase in taxes, while the rest can expect a decrease.
I don't necessarily support their plan, but I'm sure you've misunderstood it.
danno1111 3 years ago
When a man looks into the camera and tells you he is not going to increase your taxes, he's talking about YOUR taxes, not CANADA's taxes taken in the aggregate. The great majority of individuals could not care less about CANADA's tax burden: they care about their OWN...(cont'd)
PaulMcKeever 3 years ago
(cont'd)... Dion KNOWs that. And he knows that when he uses the phrases "revenue neutral" and "the Liberals won't increase your taxes", the vast majority of listeners will understand him to mean that he is promising their OWN tax burden will not change.
PaulMcKeever 3 years ago
According to the plan, a "significant majority" of the revenue comes from industry, while the majority of the expenses are income tax reductions and "family benefits" - you may have interpreted his sound-byte comments a certain way, but that simply doesn't make sense if you actually look at the plan.
danno1111 3 years ago
Dion, as I see it, is literally hoping most voters do not look at the plan.
PaulMcKeever 3 years ago
Get a haircut you hippie!
aaron0883 3 years ago
Ha! Yeah. After growing the beard, I just had to get the top taken down to avoid the Michael MacDonald look (the Doobie Brothers MM, that is)!
PaulMcKeever 3 years ago
The truth of the matter is that the "productive" industries in the U.S. and Canada have been taxed out/unionized out of business. When it takes so much personal investment to make such a meager profit, the business owner wonders, "Why should I?" In many cases, they decide not to go further, or not to start at all (at least in North America).
dabruin2 3 years ago
What's worse, we have something very similar in the works right now here in the US. Pretty soon, there will be no place for companies to run.
And then what will happen? Why, we'll have the Green's paradise! Everyone will be living out on the street, consuming nothing, giving off minimal Co2...
And starving. And dying.
Vote Green! It's for the planet!
Sarrisan98 3 years ago
Wow, intense beard!
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
Ha! Yes. Currently found only amongst the tuxedo-wearing set or those who sleep outside. Luckily, I own a tuxedo.
Quite probably a very short-term experiment...
PaulMcKeever 3 years ago
Well, if the tax proposal goes through you'll probably see a lot of other people with a beard like yours. Although I doubt they will be the sort owning a tuxedo.
GamblerJustice 3 years ago
On a lighter note, why stop with just a couple of suit changes, Paul? I think with each scene, you should be in a different location, in a different outfit (how about a cop costume, or McKeever as Jack Tripper?), yet not straying whatsoever from your very informative messages.
dabruin2 3 years ago
How can it be "revenue-neutral"? Talk about a pointless thing. Besides, doesn't it come with administrative/bureaucratic costs? If so how could it be "revenue-neutral"? Sounds like Green fantasies.
Moragauth 3 years ago
This would mean there would be a greater disparity between products and services that use more carbon then the ones that use less thus curving peoples buying habits. I share your concern that this would not keep taxes the same but if it did I think its much more fare than the government giving lots of money to politically connected companies for on bio fuels, wind farms and research.
Transitiving 3 years ago
Oh, you won't find me advocating hand-outs for companies. I share your concern there.
PaulMcKeever 3 years ago
Its strange. I think people actually think of business as a pot of money. They don't realize that many of the older companies are based on margin.
A company might make like 1 bill in income, but have 900 mill in cost. When the "green tax" raises their cost up to 1 bill, they have no choice but to lay off people or shut down.
Business is based on margin, not on income. Especially the older business that have been around for a long time.
horvay 3 years ago 5
Many companies are based on much less margin too... around 3-5%
horvay 3 years ago 4
It must be related with the stupid notion that profits are automatic (and the confusion of interest returns on capital with entrepreneurial profits.) Few people realize profits are merely a reward for anticipating future demand well & dealing with uncertainty (which are ephemeral), and that firms operate on a spread between their factor prices and the revenue they gain for their products. Both these activities require coordination and do not disappear with larger firms.
Moragauth 3 years ago