Apolitical Staples

“$1,000 Liberal break limited to households that took pro-environment action”

The question is what determines a pro-environment action, recycling? Planting a garden, trees? What?

I guess every home will get it then? Sounds like the Conservative tax break, but with a bureaucratic monster lumped on top that will cost tax papers a ton of money to run.

Who is proposing either tax break?

That’s what I thought.

I don’t know what I’d do if the polling firms and news media weren’t here to tell me what “Canadians” think. or what I think, for that matter.

Wow, what a rediculous poll! Obviously if I had a choice of saving $1000 or saving $1000 plus helping the environment, I would pick the latter. They need to explain how you can get the $1000 under the Liberal plan for anyone to be able to make a proper decision. If every household in Canada were to save $1000 under the CPC plan, but only 2% of the housholds were willing to do what is required to get the Liberals $1000 tax cut, the results will be much different!

Call me one of the minority, then.

I’d take the tax cut and help the environment on my own time if so inclined — the additional administration costs of a targeted tax break like that would likely be considerable.

So, do you guys object to the sports tax break for parents of children involved in such activities yet to be defined by the government? Just asking, not judging.

Yes, that one was a dumb idea, too.

Greg,

I believe the sports tax break has come into effect Sports Tax Break and qualifying sports are defined.

I realize you’re trying to catch Conservatives in a “well you agree with this and not this” connundrum, but it’s not a fair comparison for a number of reasons.

1. Th information referenced in this post doesn’t relate to a tax break that is before parliament, it’s from a poll.

2. The poll doesn’t talk specifics like the sports tax break does, which would make it a ‘apples to apples’ comparison.

3. If there were specifics, like only vehicles size, heating method, recycling, etc that would qualify, then the sentiments for or against would be different.

The problem with the poll is that it asks a question linked to politcal parties without specifics of what qualifies for the Liberal Tax Break.

It’s not a realistic poll because it doesn’t have specifics. The point that people like myself are making is that most Canadians already do take pro-environmental action everyday by recycling, etc. that the Liberal plan should include most households anyways. Except it would have a bureaucratic layer that costs money that could be used to actually deal with environmental problems.

Not all Canadians put their child into sports, which is part of the problem with child obecity today, therefore the tax incentive.

Another point about the poll that biases it, as human’s we feel the need to fit in, when given the choice between doing something and doing nothing, we mostly choose to do something despite what our actual actions would be.

Most people don’t want to even appear greedy even if no matter what they answered for the poll, they may not be.

When asked, “Would you want a tax break for doing something environmental or just a tax break”, the natural tendancy is to fit in and say you would want it for the environment, ignoring the fact the a good percentage of Canadians do a lot for the environment already as individuals.

I like polls like this.

Why? Because it gives the Conservatives a better handle on what resonates with Canadians.

Yes, it was hopelessly biased. But how good will it look when a plank of the Conservatives’ campaign or even better, their next budget features a “tax break” tied to environmental choices?

Poof! Suddenly the Conservatives appear to shift to the centre, without having to do a thing! They have already demonstrated they are willing to take action on the environment. They have no problem acting on good suggestions - remember their transit thing?

The poll would have been fine if it hadn’t attributed the hypothetical tax breaks to parties. As it stands, it does end up looking like a push poll.

Clearly what we need is a 1,000 deduction for recyling on the one’s income tax form. We could have a complicated proceedure like “Check yes or no” and function on the honour system because you know Canadians all care about the environment. The fact that you’d be an idiot to check no if you so much as recycled a few cans during the year is evident so the difference between giving people a thousand dollars in tax reductions and putting an evironmental bow on it is minimal unless there are real stipulated conditions.

Speaking of polls… there’s one in the business section of the Post today that asks CEOs of their opinions of the Conservatives so far.

The one section that was interesting concerned what they found dissappointing about the Conservatives so far. The chart shows that 26% cited the environment as the top issue. In the article though, the writer points out that some of the panelists cited the government’s lack of action to fight climate change while the other’s cite the government’s “passivity in the face of what they perceive to be the wrong-headed belief that humans are the main cause of climatic variations.”

So, the polsters put together two opposing views on why CEO’s are dissappointed with the environmental record of the CPC. This leaves the reader with a misleading view on the results, assuming that the concern must be over the lack of action.

I’m sure that most news outlets will pick up on the 26%, and cite it as evidence that Bay Street believes the CPC must ‘act on climate change’.

As noted by many, the poll is unscientific. It ought to ask the two questions without mentioning any political party. Linking the action (no environmental action) with the Conservatives is a blatant act of bias, rendering the poll immediately invalid.

Second, as has also been pointed out, the definition of ‘doing something for the environment’ is missing from the question. Recycling can be defined as such an action.

Completely invalid poll.

By the way - was that a telephone poll? I’d bet that it was. That already distorted the results, making certain that there was only ONE possible answer.

No matter how neutral the tone of the questioner, no-one is going to admit, in a direct one-to-one conversation/interaction that he would reject doing something for the environment in favour of ‘money’ aka ‘greed’.

…no-one is going to admit, in a direct one-to-one conversation/interaction that he would reject doing something for the environment in favour of ‘money’ aka ‘greed’

I would.

And you, dcardno, wouldn’t even show up as a statistic in the final percentage. I repeat my point. In a personal interaction, no-one (ie, a statistically irrelevant number) is going to admit to ‘pure greed’ versus ‘noble greed’.