I am very much in favour of nuclear energy in theory. Who wouldn't be? ... It's just that the chance of a catastrophic accident still seems so risky. Yes, accidents (or damage) are rare, but the results are so extreme that doesn't matter much.
problems with nuclear energy:
1. cost - really, it's the most expensive form of new energy 2. mining - the environmental impacts of mining uranium are problematic. Like most mining operations (at least domestically) are tied to supposed regulations to ensure public safety and environmental concerns - they are often ignored or not regulated.
we've had the solutions to global warming for a long time now ... we just need to get our collective heads out of our asses ...
I'm definitely interested in alternative energy sources. Wind energy is good. The possibilities of solar energy are even more interesting. Also, fuel cells. That is the most interesting by far when it comes to transportation, and hopefully advancements there will be better considered soon.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
^^^^ Watch the documentary, it alleviates those concerns.
To rely on wind and solar power for power generation is not possible. Now BC won't even allow for new hydro developments due to environmental concerns.
As for the risk of nuclear power, the documentary shows the safety features new reactors have. They cannot melt down.
My cousin built a fancy shack in Lloydminster which uses thermal energy to heat and cool his place. It was expensive but he says it works.
But with an NDP Government I could burn cowshit for,heat and Notley would figure out a way to tax me for that too. Shame on you for burning cowshit like the rich prick that you are. Since you won't share that cowshit with the less fortunate I am going to tax you on that cowshit.
I actually looked up antimatter as an option, since so "little" of it packs so much power. However, it turns out that, while it's true that a very tiny amount of it can power an incredible amount, it costs something like a billion dollars to make that amount, lol, so it's not a viable option (yet).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Fuel cells have a major obstacle. Hydrogen storage. Plus, how do you make the hydrogen. Better off spending that time/money on developing batteries. That's the key to transitioning to a renewable energy strategy. That and waste reduction.
Fuel cells have a major obstacle. Hydrogen storage. Plus, how do you make the hydrogen. Better off spending that time/money on developing batteries. That's the key to transitioning to a renewable energy strategy. That and waste reduction.
I happen to know that scientists and industry are actually working hard to make fuel cell technology more widely accessible (I know this because I used to be in a relationship with a French material physicist who specialized in fuel cell research).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Fuel cells have a major obstacle. Hydrogen storage. Plus, how do you make the hydrogen. Better off spending that time/money on developing batteries. That's the key to transitioning to a renewable energy strategy. That and waste reduction.
I happen to know that scientists and industry are actually working hard to make fuel cell technology more widely accessible (I know this because I used to be in a relationship with a French material physicist who specialized in fuel cell research).
I happen to know that scientists and industry are actually working hard to make fuel cell technology more widely accessible because everyone knows this.
I guess Trudeau and his advisors didn't want to state the obvious (to anyone with a 6th grade education in math) that the income tax adjustments will reduce the federal revenue stream until after the election. That's Real Change.
To be more than made up for with the several billions of tax dollars that will result from legalizing marijuana.
Huh
Several billions?
Maybe the word "several" is pushing it, sorry, lol. But yeah, that will rake in a LOT of money, along with all the money saved from not fighting the crime anymore. That is also a ton of $$$.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
To be more than made up for with the several billions of tax dollars that will result from legalizing marijuana.
I do not really see what one has to do with the other. This is for the next budget, weed isn't legal yet. Besides, do you have any reference on this? I would be interested in an economist's forecast of the revenue stream from legalized bud. I am all for any kind of sin tax, especially for something I have no interest in.
In my estimation, most people earn money, most do not smoke pot so I would question this would earn "billions" either way. Also, how many true pot smokers will want to buy the regulated Government THC reduced bud or continue to purchase the better black market stuff?
From a September 24, 2015 Globe and Mail (rag) article:
"The state of Colorado, with a population of 5.4 million, is on pace to collect over $125-million in tax revenue this year from the legalized marijuana trade. Canada’s population is 35 million, which extrapolates to revenue of $810-million a year as a rough guide if the same rules were applied to a population of Canada’s size."
So if the Liberals tax the pot at three times what Colorado is, we would technically get "billions" ($2.43 .
Well, hopefully they get more and they will continue to lower income taxes..... Oh wait, it's the Libs. They will find a way to spend it.
From a September 24, 2015 Globe and Mail (rag) article:
"The state of Colorado, with a population of 5.4 million, is on pace to collect over $125-million in tax revenue this year from the legalized marijuana trade. Canada’s population is 35 million, which extrapolates to revenue of $810-million a year as a rough guide if the same rules were applied to a population of Canada’s size."
So if the Liberals tax the pot at three times what Colorado is, we would technically get "billions" ($2.43 .
Well, hopefully they get more and they will continue to lower income taxes..... Oh wait, it's the Libs. They will find a way to spend it.
From a September 24, 2015 Globe and Mail (rag) article:
"The state of Colorado, with a population of 5.4 million, is on pace to collect over $125-million in tax revenue this year from the legalized marijuana trade. Canada’s population is 35 million, which extrapolates to revenue of $810-million a year as a rough guide if the same rules were applied to a population of Canada’s size."
So if the Liberals tax the pot at three times what Colorado is, we would technically get "billions" ($2.43 .
Well, hopefully they get more and they will continue to lower income taxes..... Oh wait, it's the Libs. They will find a way to spend it.
From a September 24, 2015 Globe and Mail (rag) article:
"The state of Colorado, with a population of 5.4 million, is on pace to collect over $125-million in tax revenue this year from the legalized marijuana trade. Canada’s population is 35 million, which extrapolates to revenue of $810-million a year as a rough guide if the same rules were applied to a population of Canada’s size."
So if the Liberals tax the pot at three times what Colorado is, we would technically get "billions" ($2.43 .
Well, hopefully they get more and they will continue to lower income taxes..... Oh wait, it's the Libs. They will find a way to spend it.
How many balanced budgets did the CONS have?
I'm trying to understand the relevance of your question?
If we go back to my post which ended the dead silence of Canadian Politics Redux, my point was that the Liberals promised "Real Change" and taxing the middle class less and taxing the rich capitalist pigs more was "Real Change".
Sin taxes are generally aimed right at the middle to lower income workers. I don't know many pot smokers in upper management where I work. Engineers don't generally strike me as party animals.
The Liberals were elected promising to run deficits, and the general electorate is going to get what they voted for. The Conservatives ran deficits (smaller than any G7 nation) to slide through a huge recession. The Liberals are running them just because, well, we are being run by a drama teacher and snowboard instructor
Sin taxes generally on middle to lower income workers? What about alcohol? I'm not sure there's ever been a shortage of higher income earning drinkers. And I'm also not sure you know who out of your upper management smoke pot; they'd be unlikely to divulge that to you, given it's current legal status, unless you are close friends.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Sin taxes generally on middle to lower income workers? What about alcohol? I'm not sure there's ever been a shortage of higher income earning drinkers. And I'm also not sure you know who out of your upper management smoke pot; they'd be unlikely to divulge that to you, given it's current legal status, unless you are close friends.
So you think that high income earners drink more than the middle,class? The "1%" drink enough to pay equal/more tax than the 99% lower/middle class? Interesting math, similar to the Liberals pre-election math.
Upper management does not smoke pot. Those luxury boxes at a Flames or Canucks game? It's hookers and blow. Unless you legalize those two things, the "1%" are tax free. smiley: You can opine about what I may or may not know, but sin taxes are regressive. Your hero is fucking you over.
You think it is fair for a person making $20,000 a year who buys a case of beer and a pack of smokes has to pay the same tax on those "sins" as a person who makes a $100,000. Same items, same tax.
But it is "unfair" for the same person to have to pay the same income tax rate? The person making $20,000 should pay less income tax than the person earning $100,000?
Why are sales taxes, gas taxes, etc etc accepted as a flat tax, but somehow a person who makes more money is taxed at a higher rate simply by earning more (by working harder, being smarter, or just dumb luck, etc)?
You think it is fair for a person making $20,000 a year who buys a case of beer and a pack of smokes has to pay the same tax on those "sins" as a person who makes a $100,000. Same items, same tax.
But it is "unfair" for the same person to have to pay the same income tax rate? The person making $20,000 should pay less income tax than the person earning $100,000?
Why are sales taxes, gas taxes, etc etc accepted as a flat tax, but somehow a person who makes more money is taxed at a higher rate simply by earning more (by working harder, being smarter, or just dumb luck, etc)?
This is the socialist logic I can't figure out.
No, that's apparently the 1Thought logic. You pulled all of this out of your...we'll say hat, to be polite. I didn't say any of this; you did.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
You took "You" too literally, and by saying something like "to be polite" is actually anything but. It is typical passive aggressive bullshit. A fifth grader knows what you are inferring.
The whole post was designed as thought provoking question, not a statement on exactly how a person should or should not think. You think the rich pay their share of tax in alcohol. That was your argument. The point I was making, is that if these flat taxes are ok on "sins"; why would a person be taxed heavier for being a good citizen and working everyday?
I am not sure how this is my "logic". This is the way IT IS. The sin taxes are regressive. I didn't pull any of this from "my hat". If you did not know this is the way it is, perhaps you should pull your head out of your .... we'll say hat, to be polite
As usual. A left winger cannot even mull over the possibility that someone who doesn't think exactly like them may have a point. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. "Liberals" are supposed to be the "nicer, caring, more understanding" citizens. Open-minded and educated. They tell themselves how great they are constantly, continual pats on the back for being so evolved.
Comes with a caveat - you can have an opinion, it just can't be different from theirs.
When some don't actually have a strong argument I've noticed that some try to throw around "Liberal" as an insult. Weak deflection shit but not a surprise.
If you feel like you are being victimized because your "opinion" is challenged.....go post in the I'm a victim thread....cause nobody cares about your your weak shit here.
Hard time being a conservative these days.....real hard times.
Comments
Watch the documentary, it alleviates those concerns.
To rely on wind and solar power for power generation is not possible.
Now BC won't even allow for new hydro developments due to environmental concerns.
As for the risk of nuclear power, the documentary shows the safety features new reactors have. They cannot melt down.
My cousin built a fancy shack in Lloydminster which uses thermal energy to heat and cool his place. It was expensive but he says it works.
But with an NDP Government I could burn cowshit for,heat and Notley would figure out a way to tax me for that too. Shame on you for burning cowshit like the rich prick that you are. Since you won't share that cowshit with the less fortunate I am going to tax you on that cowshit.
I like timbits.
No partisanship at all, but that was funny.
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6163239-liberal-admit-tax-changes-will-cost-1-2-billion-more/
Him 43
Several billions?
Besides, do you have any reference on this? I would be interested in an economist's forecast of the revenue stream from legalized bud.
I am all for any kind of sin tax, especially for something I have no interest in.
In my estimation, most people earn money, most do not smoke pot so I would question this would earn "billions" either way.
Also, how many true pot smokers will want to buy the regulated Government THC reduced bud or continue to purchase the better black market stuff?
"The state of Colorado, with a population of 5.4 million, is on pace to collect over $125-million in tax revenue this year from the legalized marijuana trade. Canada’s population is 35 million, which extrapolates to revenue of $810-million a year as a rough guide if the same rules were applied to a population of Canada’s size."
So if the Liberals tax the pot at three times what Colorado is, we would technically get "billions" ($2.43
Well, hopefully they get more and they will continue to lower income taxes..... Oh wait, it's the Libs. They will find a way to spend it.
If we go back to my post which ended the dead silence of Canadian Politics Redux, my point was that the Liberals promised "Real Change" and taxing the middle class less and taxing the rich capitalist pigs more was "Real Change".
Sin taxes are generally aimed right at the middle to lower income workers. I don't know many pot smokers in upper management where I work. Engineers don't generally strike me as party animals.
The Liberals were elected promising to run deficits, and the general electorate is going to get what they voted for. The Conservatives ran deficits (smaller than any G7 nation) to slide through a huge recession. The Liberals are running them just because, well, we are being run by a drama teacher and snowboard instructor
The "1%" drink enough to pay equal/more tax than the 99% lower/middle class? Interesting math, similar to the Liberals pre-election math.
Upper management does not smoke pot. Those luxury boxes at a Flames or Canucks game? It's hookers and blow. Unless you legalize those two things, the "1%" are tax free. smiley:
You can opine about what I may or may not know, but sin taxes are regressive. Your hero is fucking you over.
You think it is fair for a person making $20,000 a year who buys a case of beer and a pack of smokes has to pay the same tax on those "sins" as a person who makes a $100,000.
Same items, same tax.
But it is "unfair" for the same person to have to pay the same income tax rate? The person making $20,000 should pay less income tax than the person earning $100,000?
Why are sales taxes, gas taxes, etc etc accepted as a flat tax, but somehow a person who makes more money is taxed at a higher rate simply by earning more (by working harder, being smarter, or just dumb luck, etc)?
This is the socialist logic I can't figure out.
You took "You" too literally, and by saying something like "to be polite" is actually anything but.
It is typical passive aggressive bullshit. A fifth grader knows what you are inferring.
The whole post was designed as thought provoking question, not a statement on exactly how a person should or should not think. You think the rich pay their share of tax in alcohol. That was your argument.
The point I was making, is that if these flat taxes are ok on "sins"; why would a person be taxed heavier for being a good citizen and working everyday?
I am not sure how this is my "logic". This is the way IT IS. The sin taxes are regressive. I didn't pull any of this from "my hat".
If you did not know this is the way it is, perhaps you should pull your head out of your .... we'll say hat, to be polite
It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. "Liberals" are supposed to be the "nicer, caring, more understanding" citizens. Open-minded and educated. They tell themselves how great they are constantly, continual pats on the back for being so evolved.
Comes with a caveat - you can have an opinion, it just can't be different from theirs.
If you feel like you are being victimized because your "opinion" is challenged.....go post in the I'm a victim thread....cause nobody cares about your your weak shit here.
Hard time being a conservative these days.....real hard times.