Inheritance Tax on Rich Popular!

According to a new poll I wrote about some days ago the inheritance tax on the rich is apparently popular.

that 69 per cent of Canadians support the introduction of an inheritance tax on any estate valued at more than $5 million.

I have been talking about this for some time. Which I still holds can provide 3 billion dollars and it wouldn't even allow major taxes to be payed by the top 1-2% of Canadians. The rich in the U.S don't seem to mind and some rich are even asking that their taxes go up. The "Buffet Rule." It seems the center of Canada is with this plan.

Because if all 31% are against and Harper conservatives support is at 32% it shows that only the right is against it.,and Harper in the last election got 40% of the vote that leaves for the sake of argument the people who jumped to the right wing party since 2004 and gave Harper his majority. If the Liberals support a Death Tax it would get the people we need from the Conservative party to our party. Now I am not saying this will help us win election, but obviously it won't hurt us in elections.

We are More Genourose Then I thought.

According to a new poll done recently a vast Majority of Canadians are willing to pay higher taxes to combat income inequality. As we know income inequality has risen over the past 30 years in Canada and it is something we must tackle and apparently the country as a whole believes that as well.

The survey showed that 77 per cent of respondents agree that widening income gaps are a big problem for Canada that will have long-term consequences and 71 per cent agreed that income inequality undermines Canadian values.

Liberals and New Democrats are the strongest supporters of paying more taxes to combat inequality, and interesting enough 58% (that a majority!) of Conservatives also believe in paying more taxes to combat inequality. The poll also asked what Canadians thought about higher Corporate taxes. No surprise 73% of Canadians support making Corporations pay the previous 2008 corporate tax rate. That was Ignatieff's plan in the election (ain't so radical was it) In fact a majority of Conservatives agree in making the corporate tax rate go back to the 2008 level. It seems even Harper's Conservatives don't like to the Harper policy.

The Broadbent Institute says the poll shows that the problem of income inequality is not an ideological one and that even the wealthy agree that they should play their part in addressing it.

 Read more Here

R is for Romney and Rick Santorum

Romney released his tax returns only to show us that he makes a lot of money and is taxed at a rate 15.4% the lowest rate is 15%! Now this was of no surprise to some. It only show the enormous amount of money the U.S  could be getting to reduce the deficit if they actually taxed the rich at the current low rate it is. Because to pay the same tax rate as a guy earning minimum wage is absurd. Rick Santorum who has recently came on his white horse to apparently "save" the Republican party and trys to show himself as the guy who is most like you is also a millionaire. Nothing wrong with that except the fact that he pays at most 28.5% of his income to taxes. The current rate for the rick which Santorum is should be paying 35%. Now I don't blame these men for using the loopholes at their disposal to pay as little income tax as possible. I blame our government and the organization who lobby the U.S government into making the tax rate what it is now with all the loopholes. Now I get that there are tax reduction, but sometimes the rich have got to pay taxes.

Democrats are Dreaming

In a somewhat strange turn of events it seems the Democrats who contiguous talk themselves as being the party that will save Social Security is now the party that quite frankly is giving it lip service.  The Payroll tax (the tax that generates a lot of income for Social Security) is at 4.2%, but it is usually at 6.2%. This tax cut is set to expire by the end of the year. If the tax cuts aren't extended then that would mean that the people making  in the low income brackets (as low as 35,000) will pay 700 dollars more and people making more than 110,000 will pay a few thousands more. Granted that the expiration would hurt people in the middle class, but the U.S is running a deficit it time to make hard choices. The Debt to GDP is too high and extending tax cuts like this will hurt the economy in the long run. Because the less money the U.S tries to save now means more than that amount they are going to have to save later. In Fact Obama and some Democrats want to not only extend the tax cut, but expand it to make people pay 3.1% he claims he will pay for it by taxing the rich more. Granted this tax cut will help people in the lower bracket and that the taxes on the rich need to increase, but the U.S can't live off on just revenue neutral ideas they need revenue positive plans.  So I say the best plan would be to eliminate the payroll tax cuts to the people making over 100,000 and in fact make it 7%, and for the middle class I say compromise on slowly re-introducing the 6.2% by only increasing it by 0.5% in 2012 year and 0.5% the next year and the other 1% the third year. The U.S has to start getting serious on debt , and make long term plans to stop the social security deficit and the countries deficit.

Read more here

A Rich Tax!

The U.S needs to look at ways to reduce the deficit without harming many Americans . An easy way is to tax the rich! Eliminating the Bush Tax cuts of the rich and putting a new 5.6% surcharge on millionaires will bring in a lot of revenue without big economic damages. Now the U.S is going to have to balance the budget by having to make tough decisions. Cutting around the edges in spending and taxing the rich more is a good start, but won't solve the U.S fiscal crisis. But we shouldn't completely disregard these simple ideas that do the less damage. In Canada we should also look at increasing taxes on the rich in order to try and make our fiscal house in order. In Canada we should implement a U.S style death where when people die they pay a 35% tax on there estate on everything over the value of 5 million, but a U.S style system of a death tax has so many lousy deductions that some rich people who would only be effected on this would pay little to nothing. It could bring in about 3 billion dollars in Canada and hurt no one to be quite honest. When countries look at balancing budget's they should start with the easy taxes on the rich. It barely effects the economy and brings in a lot of revenue. Granted never enough to fully solve the problem, but it does help the fiscal situation. Unfortunately the Republicans down south would rather see medicare destroyed then have the rich pay a single penny. The U.S  needs to increase taxes first on the rich and go from there, but the Republicans want the pain should start on the poor and should never dare to go up to the rich, because they create jobs, while poor people don't. Even though poor people are a bigger chunk of the population and create more jobs because they spend there money while Rich people don't spend there money, and are a very small part of the population.

Cains 9-9-9 plan

I decided to refute Cains 9-9-9 plan considering he is apparently now a rising star. Mr Cain has been screaming about 9-9-9 for quite some time , but is it really going to do what he says it does. First let's see the logic behind it. Cain would reduce the Corporate tax rate from 50% to 9%. That's a 41% decrease mostly for multinationals who don't even pay the 50%, because of loopholes, but it will reduce revenue from the Business section. Then he will create a flat Income tax. Meaning everyone pays the same tax no matter how rich or how poor. The income tax bracket is 9%. Biggest winners here will be the Rich who only pay 35% will now get a 26% decrease in taxes while the poor who pay 15% will have a 6%. That sounds fair right! So how will he pay for the loads of cash he is giving to already extremely profitable business, and reduce the tax rates of the rich to the lowest it has ever been. Well Cain suggest a G.S.T will do the fix. A 9% G.S.T! So who will that hurt. Well people who buy things! Consumers the one's that drive the economy. The G.S.T tends to attacks the poor and middle class. The economic policy means. That the middle class pay more in taxes while the rich pay less. So the consumers have less money and the poor have more. Yep that will fix the inequality in pay. The top 500 earners in the U.S make more money then the bottom 50%.Think of it even though the income tax is being reduced the G.S.T is being created and taking any money the middle class would get and take even more. The Rich would pay much less in taxes and the G.S.T would only take some profits away. Cain even admitted that the 9-9-9 plan would make difficulties for people.

 "Some people will pay more. But most people will pay less," 


he has that a bit backwards. The top 10% will pay less while the bottom 90% will pay more. The sad part about it is, because of all the money this plan will give to the rich. this plan will actually reduce revenue by 200 billion. How is that going to solve the deficit. How is not taxing the rich going to help reduce the deficit? How is taxing consumers and increasing the deficit going to solve the problem in America.

What Cuts?

The Conservatives are planning to find 4 billion in permanent cuts to try and balance the budget. The Only problem is do we see these cuts in the deficit? No the way this government works with finances the deficit isn't going to get better. First the Corporate tax cuts that they are reducing again is going to cost billions more than 4 billion. Add that with the Billions the Harper government is giving Quebec (even though we really need a bridge) this government isn't at all fiscally responsible for cutting spending. Because like the Republicans in the U.S yes cuts do help cutting the deficit, but the right is fixated on cutting taxes and assume that it is free. If you cut 1$ in taxes and cut 1$ in spending guess what the deficit ain't changing. What would have been fiscally responsible of the Conservatives would be to cut more than they reduce in corporate taxes and maybe not cut corporate taxes! considering they are already low enough. We can save 10 billion in catastrophe spendign not passing Harper's stupid "on crime bill." The Conservatives are bad with money and they always disproportionally put the deficit on the poor. 4 years from now the Conservatives will be saying the reason there is a deficit is, because of too much money on social programs. Even though this government is cutting social programs left and right, and will be for the next 4 years. If this is all Harper has planned to balance the budget there will be a deficit in 4 years and it will be, because of reckless spending on useless prisons, fighter jets and Corporate tax cuts. So the question I have for Harper is what cuts are you really making to the deficit?

Canada #1

Canada was proclaimed #1 place for business in the world by Forbes. It mentions how Canada has faced the recession very well compared to the U.S and Europe. This of course thanks to the regulations the Liberals put on companies to make sure they would be solid in a worse case scenario. The magazine also mentions the HST which simplifies the tax code and takes taxes off manufacturing. Unfortunately B.C took it back. It didn't just look at taxes on business it looked at

11 areas in 134 countries, including property rights, innovation, taxes, tech, corruption, personal, trade and monetary freedoms, red tape, investor protection and the performance of stocks.

So as you can see the Corporate tax cuts weren't the only reasons Canada became number one. So it seems considering Canada is #1 place for business it only makes sense that we start looking to improve other things in our country.  So continuing to cut Corporate taxes is silly considering there are many other things to do with that money. Our Country has an enormous lead when it comes to taxes compared to are trading partners. So if we increase the Corporate taxes to balance the budget it seems it will have little effect on our rating. As it seems we are already number one. I think balancing the budget can help business in the long run, because cutting Corporate taxes that we can't afford to cut will only mean higher taxes on people or Companies later on which will effect business. In order for Canada to ensure the business community that there taxes don't go up we must cut taxes that we know we can afford. The Liberal party proved this as it cut the Corporate tax rate from one of the highest in the world to now one of the most competitive in North America and the G8. The Corporate tax rate needs to go back to 18% so we can balance the budget then after we have a surplus like the Liberals we will cut the Corporate taxes. Cutting them now gives business false hope.

Read more here

Repealing HST Bad Move

BC moves to eliminate the tax that would now increase the deficit. In fact the B.C deficit is now tripled. The big loss is of course the 1.6 billion BC now has to give back to Ottawa. BC is still moving to eliminate the deficit by 2014. BC could have a much easier time going into surplus if they would have kept the tax that would create jobs (over 100,000 in the next ten years), and would increase revenue. It seems that the HST was good policy, but the Liberals in BC are crazy over popularity. Even though 45% of people were in favor of keeping the tax. I mean take a vote of the G.S.T and the federal government would be lucky to get close to these numbers. I mean there is only a slight win in this politically, because many people who want the H.S.T gone are guess what with the NDP! There isn't much political gain especially for something that would have done a lot of good for the province of BC. It seems like BC are moving a few steps behind so far this year. I hope these Liberals get there act together very soon.

In his latest quarterly report, Minister Kevin Falcon says scrapping the HST will cost the province $2.3 billion over three years

"This includes $1.6 billion in 2011-12 associated with reimbursing the federal HST transition funding and a more than $700 million loss from lower tax revenue and increased spending over the three years ending 2013-14."

 Read more here

BC votes NO on HST

In BC the results of the referendum came on Friday. 55% of BC residence voted to eliminate the young new HST while 45% wanted it to stay. That is much closer than I imagined. I knew BC would vote no on the tax thought it would be more like 67% 33%. I thought this because the people who are really against were energized to vote against the tax, but it seems the tax has been more popular over the course of time, and quite frankly I think one more year in and the HST would be popular enough to not have enough people sign a petition to vote on the tax., but the Liberal BC government has decided to move to eliminate the HST. What a shame! The HST actually helps the economy and is revenue neutral. B.C got 1.6 billion dollars for moving to the HST and is going to have to give it back now, because Harper isn't going to give BC money for doing nothing. B.C lost out on this referendum. 113,000 jobs were predicted to be created over 10 years because of the new HST, And companies would have been more competitive and have a better bottom line, and consumers would see the difference. My take BC should have kept the HST regardless of the vote. Being a leader means doing something that is right versus doing something that is popular.

Another Stimulus?

With more fear with the stock market some people in the U.S have been asking for another stimulus or spending package. Although putting money into the economy will create jobs the U.S can't afford it! Debt to GDP ratio is at 98%. The U.S doesn't have much wiggle room right now to lower taxes or to increase spending without paying for it. The U.S needs to reduce spending and raise taxes in order to lower the deficit. If the U.S doesn't reduce the deficit then it can face future downgrades, and will increase the interest of the debt. the Interest on the debt this year for the U.S is 200 billion and growing. With more downgrade and more stimulus that number will get bigger and force future cuts to be more sever and taxes to be raised more heavily in order to balance the budget. In 2020 under current projections the Interest on the debt will explode and be more expensive than the military, medicaid and medicare, and almost the exact same as social security. Another stimulus will make things harder in the future. The first stimulus wasn't all good either their was not enough spending on infrastructure and construction, and most of all it wasn't planned to be paid for. The Stimulus did create jobs and things would have been worse without it, but the U.S has no money or room to take any more cash for another stimulus. The U.S should invest in infrastructure and should extend the unemployment benefits , but this time they should pay for it. They need to have a plan that will eliminate the deficit all together within 7-8 years, and then if they want to spend any more they should have a new tax or cut to pay for the new spending. Stimulus season is over! The U.S made over 200,000 jobs last month in the recession they lost 700,000 a month in 2009 a stimulus made sense now not only is the U.S making jobs, but making another stimulus will make the deficit hard to handle .This May be an economic slowdown and the U.S might not employ to many people this month, but they are moving (slowly) in the right direction. the U.S may have to deal with sluggish employment for a while if they want to avoid being Greece!

BC Votes On HST!

The year old tax is now being subjected to a vote. Even though Stephen Harper help get some provinces on with the tax I fully support the HST. It helps companies as it eliminates the possibility of a product being taxed multiple times before being taxed one more time when bought, because now many products won't be taxed as much when the product goes down the construction line all companies will save money. This Money will help the companies be more competitive, hire more people and reduce prices! Simplifying the tax system is a good thing. According to a recent report BC will actually create over 100,000 jobs in the next ten years and BC will make over 590,000 Jobs over the next ten years. The HST will help Canada, and if BC votes against the HST which seems very likely the BC primer Christy Clark should do what is in the best interest of Canadians which is to keep the HST which will only help her province. I hope to see the results next week. I am not expecting the HST to be voted to be keept, but if it get's more than 30-35% I would be surprised considering the HST was not at all popular just 1 year ago.

Debt deal is Okay!

The debt deal that is currently being rushed to in the last few days before a default. This deal supports 1 trillion in cuts first over the next decade then having a joint committee that would look into another 1.5 trillion in more cuts. Medicare and Social security will not be cut right now. But in the joint committee I have no doubt in my mind that they will be subjected to be cut. The sad part about this deal is that currently no tax increases have been apart of the deal, not even tax increases on the richest Americans! The U.S can end the deficit without cutting too much into medicare or social security. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts entirely would generate 300 billion dollars a year, (and to make the number look bigger) 3 trillion over 10 years. That is more than this entire debt deal. True this tax cut being eliminated will not eliminate the deficit, but if we raise the social security and medicare age, look at ending fraud in Medicare, cutting the military by billions, Cut the pentagon, reform the tax code, and look at ending subsidies to big oil and ethanol, create a carbon tax and cut discretionary spending. I hope that the the joint committee looks into proposals that will not harm Americans too much, because in order to destroy the deficit the U.S needs to make sacrifices, but let's look at easy sacrifices before elderly people need to give there social security payments to big oil companies. This deal isn't perfect, but right now I think it may just be the compromise U.S must accept, as tax increases could still be a part of the deal in the joint commitee and currently medicare and social security is safe.

Rascism is Still There!

In the United states we all knew that racism was still there, but the ratio between white and minorities has gotten bigger. In fact a white households make 20 times more than an African American household, and 18 times more than Hispanic households.

"These lopsided wealth ratios are the largest since the government began publishing such data a quarter-century ago and roughly twice the size of the ratios that had prevailed between these three groups for the two decades prior to the Great Recession," reported Pew.

 Unemployment of African American is 16.2 percent. White unemployment is half of that! The reason for this was not just because discrimination practices in business, but the reason for this record gap was because most minorities went into jobs that left away during the recession. Jobs like infrastructure and construction. What the U.S needs to do is to balance the budget, but while still offering more help to poorer Americans which today tend to be minorities. The problem is that this is hard to do. Everyone should sacrifice to balance the budget, but we must priorities. The top 500 Americans make more money than the bottom 50% (150 million) That means that clearly those 500 Americans should pay first! Increase the income tax on the rich not only to 40% (bill Clinton era) But raise it to 50%. Then cut government programs for the rich. Before we throw the poor under the bus let's see how much we can make the rich pay so the poor people in the U.S don't pay too much. The problem for minorities is that they can't move up the ladder, because the U.S has been making it harder for the poor to get higher, And since the poor tend to be minorities they stay there on the bottom.

Read more here 

Wow Republicans !

Last few years when the Dem's held both houses the Republicans stood united against almost every single thing the Democrats proposed. The Republicans now are somewhat divided in passing Boehner plan. It seems the curse of being the party in power has now been caught by the Republicans. The Republicans see that it is harder to be the party that has to actually make decision rather than to be the party that just votes NO! The Republicans have no big plan. I am slightly disappointed in the Boehner plan. Nine hundred somewhat billion over a decade is actually just 90 billion a year. The deficit is now 1.2 trillion and will only get as low as 600 billion in a few years then get even worse later on. This plan is maybe a baby step. I still would disagree with this bill as it is just cuts important programs and there are no tax increases. At least Reid's plan is twice as big and for that matter still has no tax increases. I still don't support Reid's plan as it would just be 200 billion a year which is a good start, but not enough, but we could close the rest of the deficit putting the taxes back to there 1990 levels. Where Clinton who also faced a deficit made tax increases and payed record amounts of the debt. It's funny Ried has a plan twice as big in just cuts while Boehner has just 900 billion. No wonder it he kept delaying his plan multiple times his plan is a joke. Even Bachman is against the bill, and the tea party part of congress is also very much against it. I am glad now to see the Democrats are united. To be quite honest we need to reduce entitlements, by increasing the medicare age and the retirement age to 70, while also stopping the Bush tax to all, end the mission in Afghanistan and Iraq, eliminate subsidies to big oil and finally pass bowl Simpson plan which will reduce the corporate tax rate and eliminate loopholes and increases revenue.

update: I support the Bowl Simpson plan, but I think we should eliminate loopholes and reduce rates only a little or nothing, because the U.S needs to balance the budget, but for a compromise I would agree with reducing corporate tax rates by 7% while eliminating loopholes, even though my ideal situation is eliminating all loopholes and no change to the tax rate.

Republicans Unrealistic

You think that the Republicans would be serious about reducing he deficit that they should look at ways to reduce the deficit without hurting the economy too bad. John Boehner is again sticking with the idea that as long as millionaires get more money poor seniors will somehow be able to pay for the drugs. Apparently the Republicans think that before we can give health care and drugs to the poor and the seniors. The rich in our society deserve justice as they are taxed already the lowest in the industrialized world in respects to income  tax.  As leader of the house of representative that represent the whole U.S.A he should look out for everyone not just millionaires. Taxing the rich a little more would be a nice start then move to put the taxes under Bill Clinton back and you already have 300 Billion. Raising the retirement age and medicare age would be much better than completely eliminating the programs.

John Boehner had a very interesting quote for the president about raising taxes on the rich 

"The longer the president denies these realities, the more difficult he makes this process," Boehner stated.

 It be more like the other way around if you ask me. John Boehner is being unrealistic by saying that Obama is dreaming when he says we can get money by raising taxes on the rich, when John Boehner what's to almost eliminate medicare.

"With a fragile economy, tax hikes on our job-creators in the name of debt reduction is bad policy, especially since our debt crisis is fueled by unsustainable spending," Hatch said.

 Hatch should know that before 2000 the U.S had a surplus and a strong economy. The reason we went into deficit was because of two wars, and a big tax cut to mostly the richest Americans. So it seems that taxing the job creators (which by the way isn't major millionaires it is small business owners) who by the way with a higher taxes than today created millions of jobs in the 1990's.  

Read more here

The Pawlenty Plan Part 2

First the U.S will spend 3.8 Trillion this year. Let’s say Pawlenty's plan would only cost 380 billion then you add that with 1.6 trillion you have a approximate 2.0 trillion dollar deficit. Even if you reduce the deficit to 1.9 trillion, because of the stimulus you will have to cut spending in half to pay for this plan. Discretionary spending today accounts for 24% of the budget. Meaning Pawlenty will have to kill all government agencies from the education department- to the transportation department, and will have to cut Medicare and Medicaid deep (even more than Paul Ryan is proposing) just to pay for his plan.

With all these spending cuts the economy isn't going to grow at five percent Pawlenty will be lucky if the economy grows at all under this plan, and revenue will not come back as he hopes so there will still be a major deficit.

Some would say at least he is reducing taxes, but he of course is giving it to millionairess who don't need the money. the Top 20% will see the tax bracket reduce by 8.6% and for the wall street guys who are in the top one percent who of course need more money (Pawlenty will reduce there tax bracket by 14.6%). The bottom 20% income Americans will see there tax bracket reduce by 0.2%. That is about $23. I wonder how $23 will  give them enough money to pay for there health considering medicare and health care will be cut to oblivion.

This man would be a great Republican nominee against Obama as he will be an easy opponent. 

The Pawlenty Plan Part 1

Republicans talk about how the government is broke and we can't afford to continue to spend the way are spending. In the video Pawlenty sent to declare his candidacy he said "Are country is in big trouble we have far too much debt" (watch here). In Pawlenty economic and budget plan he stated that he would like to reduce taxes. Nothing new of course in the Republican Party, but Pawlenty is taking it to a whole new level. The Bush Tax cuts are worth about 3 Trillion over 10 years. Expensive enough, but Pawlenty thinks the Bush tax cuts don't go far enough. He would reduce income tax Corporate tax and

Under Pawlenty's plan, taxes on capital gains, interest income, dividends and estates would all be eliminated.

A non-partisan policy center said the Government would lose 7.6 Trillion in revenue over ten years. That is about 760 billion a year. The deficit this year will be 1.6 trillion. So how is reducing revenue going to balance the budget Pawlenty? His plan says that he would make up the difference in spending cuts, and economic growth.

Pawlenty's plan claims that the economy of the U.S will grow by 5% every year. And therefore he thinks he will increase revenue by 380 billion every year for ten years making up only half the difference. In Canada we have faced the recession relatively okay and we don't have 5% growth rate are growth rate is 3% roughly, and we went on a spending spree. If pawlenty cut all these taxes you think that it would increase the growth rate to 5%, but you haven't taken in to account the spending cuts.

Fiscally Reposible? Yeah Right

The Conservatives are going to reduce the Corporate taxes by more for next year. If this years budget passes (which of course it will) the corporate taxes will be 16.5% the next year the Harper Government wants to reduce it to 15%. The cost for these cuts will be large.

The cost is about $1.6 billion in foregone revenue in the 2011-12 fiscal year, $3.9 billion the year after, and a total of more than $10 billion over three years.

How will the Conservatives fund these tax cuts. They don't know. Canada has already a very competitive tax cuts compared to the G8 and the Conservatives want to make Canada a country that cuts taxes and has a large deficit problems. Wait that reminds me of a country. The U.S! If we continue this tax cuts and spending increases Harper agenda we will never reach surplus. This isn't fiscally responsible. I wonder how the Conservatives will reach surplus  without making new cuts they didn't tell us about.

Read more here

update: there was a problem on  Blogger I am sorry i know that this was an old post

The Carbon Tax Re-Explained (Libertarian Edition) Part 2

                      Now to continue to refute another point that my friend has brought out which is that he believes that there is no way to monitor how much CO2 was used to make a product in a foreign country when it comes in, But it isn't hard to monitor something that is already monitored. First China is going to have a carbon tax in 2012, and many countries already have a carbon tax including some U.S states. Next when a carbon tax will be introduced it will have to clearly state that shops that distribute a product that was made overseas will have to now report how much Co2 they emitted over seas and tax it when in comes in the border. Another false statement is the ideology that oil will last for another 120 years. Under current consumption which is rising dramatically every year as the world becomes more urbanized and developing countries start to need more resources Oil will be needed. The most oil can last for will be another 47 years. Even with more oil reserves found oil can't last much longer these oil reserves are predicted to be in remote places were no country has right over and even if they do the extraction cost would be very high. This just proves oil is unsubstantial. My Libertarians solution to it is allow the free markets to handle it. His theory is that Oil will gradually rise in prices and eventually it will be to expensive to use it so we will move to another source of energy. Thing is if our economy is dependent on fossil fuels now and will be unless something is done if we let the free markets work oil will rise so high that economy would crash, and we wouldn't have the time to shift to cleaner resources, because we waited to long. Canada has to institute a carbon tax now!
                      
                    One last point My Libertarian friend mentioned that Canada only emits 0.00000244666% this is a lie. Canada actually emits 2.3% of the worlds emissions although that is relatively small, but Canada is the 8th largest emitter and every other country of the world must reduce their CO2 emissions accordingly we can't just keep pointing at the biggest polluters which includes technically Canada for being responsible to reduce Co2 Emissions.