A friend of mine passed on this little email exchange that he had recently with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and gave me permission to blog it.
I’m not sure what I would have expected, but certainly I didn’t expect the rudeness of this response.
Clearly the Ontario Director of the CTF does not believe the science of Climate Change, and certainly does not represent my views on tax policy either.
From: Robert ——–
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008
To: on.director@taxpayer.com
Cc: wilfeb1@parl.gc.ca; jflaherty@fin.gc.ca
Subject: CTF Gas Tax Petition
Mr. Kevin Gaudet
Ontario Director
Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Dear Mr. Gaudet,
I was disappointed recently to see that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is promoting cuts to gas and diesel taxes. As a Canadian taxpayer I want to make it very clear that your organization absolutely does not represent my views on this issue. Lowering gas taxes “across the board” will hurt drivers and the environment by encouraging greater consumption and ultimately driving gas prices higher in the long term. In addition, the roadway expansion that your organization suggests that gas taxes should be financing doesn’t address traffic congestion, but simply encourages more people to drive cars. Lower gas taxes are the last thing we need right now. If Canadians do indeed need relief from the rising costs of energy, that relief should be directed to those who truly need it, such as lower-income families, through other means such as federal income taxes. High income-earning Canadians who drive gas-guzzling SUV’s choose to do so, and should be taxed for that choice.
I do share your organization’s concern with how the government spends the money it collects through gas taxes, however I believe that these funds should be directed to improving the efficiency of our transportation system through improved transit, promoting carpooling, supporting cycling and walking, and financing transportation demand management initiatives. Your suggestion that our government’s priority should be “rebuilding Canada’s aging roads” would encourage more people to drive single-occupant vehicles. Among other negative effects, this will drive up the price of gas (based on the basic economic law of supply and demand).
In summary, the suggestion that the Canadian federal government should lower gas taxes and/or direct the revenues from those taxes to constructing/expanding roads and highways is an extremely short-sighted proposal. I strongly urge the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to abandon this poorly-conceived and counter-productive campaign immediately. I would be happy to further discuss this issue, or refer you to reference materials on the subject (take five minutes to review “Appropriate Response to Rising Fuel Prices: Citizens Should Demand, ‘Raise My Prices Now!’”, available online at www.vtpi.org/fuelprice.pdf). We can do much better than the “knee-jerk” reaction that your organization is currently promoting.
Sincerely,
Robert ——–
Richmond Hill, Ontario
——————————————————————————————
From: Kevin Gaudet [mailto:kgaudet@taxpayer.com]
Sent: May 17, 2008
To: ‘Robert ——–’
Subject: RE: CTF Gas Tax Petition
Thank you for your note. Of course, the CTF disagrees. The Gas Tax Honesty Campaign has been in place for ten years and is anything but a ‘knee-jerk’ response, unlike the poorly-researched, ill-guided knee-jerk carbon tax movement of today in the name of fighting ‘global-warming’, I mean ‘climate change’, I mean cleaning the earth, I mean any new way to raise tax revenues.
We are a national not-for-profit organization representing the views of our 68,000 supporters across Canada – 20% of whom are in Ontario.
I appreciate the research. Our proposal is that gas taxes be lowered and dedicated to the infrastructure deficit in roads, bridges, and highways.
Regards,
Kevin Gaudet
Ontario Director
Canadian Taxpayers Federation
416-203-0030 office
416-725-0501 mobile
show hide 14 comments
Whooee! What a numbnuts! I reckon these CTF guys never saw a tax they didn’t hate. The idea of using more tax money to fund more car culture is patently regressive. More roads, bridges and highways? He forgot parking lots and cancer wards and obesity clinics. Dumber than dirt!
JB
The mandate of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is ‘lower taxes, less waste and more accountable government’. So, yes, we advocate for lower taxes!
The CTF Gas Tax Honesty Day highlights substantial carbon taxes already in place. Between the federal and provincial governments, $13.9 billion a year is collected from gas taxes. This includes a 1.5 cent a litre deficit elimination tax despite the deficit having been slain over a decade ago. As well the GST is charged on top of the federal and provincial taxes, so motorists pay tax on tax.
As sent via email today to:
Attention Mr. Kevin Gaudet, Ontario Director, CTF
I am writing in response to your recent email exchange with a concerned citizen of Richmond Hill, Ontario (as seen below) which I came across on the blog of Glenn Hubbers, Federal Green Party Candidate for Newmarket-Aurora.
I am shocked at the utter rudeness you displayed in your first paragraph and wonder how it is that you came to not only attain the position you hold, but manage to retain it, if this is the way you respond to someone who dares to disagree with you on an issue. Your sarcasm and underlying contempt for what Robert is suggesting is not only unwarranted, but unworthy of someone purporting to represent the best interests of Ontarians and/or Canadians as a whole. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Just because someone cares enough to point out a perspective different from yours and the CTF on the issue of Gas Taxes and the use to which those funds are put, it does NOT give you the right to be so demeaning in your response, complete with your obvious scorn for the growing awareness and concern surrounding the Science (FACT BASED) of Global Warming/Climate Change issues. How dare you imply that those of us (and be warned, there are many…and growing) who DO have valid concerns with regards to the Climate Change crisis, do so simply as another “way to raise tax revenues”. (You would be much better served if you took the time to investigate the complete picture behind this TAX SHIFTING plan and didn’t just write it off as something which it is NOT!)
Your rather short-sightedness and, I’m sorry, but…ignorance…(not to mention your unwillingness to respect the possibility that other perspectives have merit) surrounding this issue really make me question your suitability to head up an organization such as the Ontario branch of the CTF, which is, hopefully, in place to act and lobby for policy positions on issues such as this IN THE BEST INTEREST of the citizens it represents. Information feeds knowledge feeds wisdom, Mr Gaudet. May I suggest you lower yourself off that high horse you seem to have placed yourself on to gain some.
Yours truly,
Marie Bridel, Kitchener, ON
Wow…and a response already from Mr Gaudet. He STILL isn’t getting it!! (My immediate response back also follows):
_____________________________
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Kevin Gaudet wrote:
Ms. Bridel;
Thank you for your note.
Perhaps you have read my recent post on Mr. Hubber’s site.
The mandate of the CTF is to advocate for ‘lower taxes, less waste and more accountable government’.
After extensive research, the CTF believe so-called tax shifting is an idea that has no merit and is based on little to no economic grounding.
You are correct to infer that I believe there is ample evidence the what was once called global warming and is now referred to as climate change is a fad and science is anything but settled on the issue.
It is unfortunate that those who subscribe to such ideology cannot tolerate a difference of opinion on the matter. I suggest you read Bjorn Lomborg’s book ‘Cool It’.
Regards,
Kevin Gaudet
____________________________
Mr Gaudet, it is NOT a difference of opinion that I cannot “tolerate”, but rather, the condescending, sarcastic, dismissive tone YOU used in your initial response that I took most objection to. And if you still can’t see that…and/or won’t address it…than you really are a lost cause, I’m afraid.
Truly,
Marie Bridel
And now, in fairness…another response from Mr Gaudet…for which I, in turn, emailed back a “Thank You”:
___________________________
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Kevin Gaudet wrote:
I appreciate your point. Perhaps my tone was dismissive. I will make an effort to disagree less dismissively.
I do find it interesting that Robert himself hasn’t bothered to express to me directly whether he found my tone to be dismissive.
Kevin Gaudet
Ontario Director
Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Even if he does dismiss climate change what about the issue of peak oil? To perputuate the car culture is to burn through our energy legacy that much quicker, and while climate change deniers are still numerous few, even oil execs dismiss peak oil these days.
So, they like to talk about waste but what about the waste of building more roads at huge costs to the public only to have them half empty in a decade?
Waste is not only about money, waste is about using anything of value at a irrational level, and our use of energy certainly falls into this catagory, as is our use of water in Tar sands processing.
Since they hate taxes so much what is their opinion on the subsidy gravy train the oil industry is on?
What GAB said.
Also, even if he does dismiss climate change what about the issue of pollution related health problems? Pollution from autos is one of the biggest contributors to poor air quality. Poor air quality kills 3000 a year in Ontario. Poor air quality sends thousands more to emergency rooms. Society pays for healthcare through taxes. Car culture increases preventable illnesses, exacerbates chronic conditions, encourages a sedentary lifestyle and costs us billions.
Short-sighted”solutions” like making it cheaper to pollute nearly always lead to long term, negative consequences.
JB
“I do find it interesting that Robert himself hasn’t bothered to express to me directly whether he found my tone to be dismissive.”
I know. It’s way more fun for the rest of us to see the poor social skills that are at the heart of the perenially aggrieved.
“in the name of fighting ‘global-warming’, I mean ‘climate change’, I mean cleaning the earth, I mean any new way to raise tax revenues.”
This is just an insult to the intelligence of the average taxpayer.
I’m glad there is so much response to this issue and especially to the rudeness of Mr. Gaudet.
I understand the general reason behind the “Gas Tax Honesty Campaign”, but I just can’t help think that the name itself is a complete oxymoron! If the tax on gas was “honest”, wouldn’t we be paying the TRUE cost?
Oh, and yes, climate change is a “fad”… I guess peak oil will also be rectified when a few million dinosaurs show up and decay before our eyes into a massive puddle of fresh oil.
PS: Here is a review of Bjorn Lomborg’s book, The Skeptical Environmentalist.
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/postings/review-skeptical-env.html
Yeah, it’s not the same book; “Cool It”; that Mr. Gaudet refers to, but the author himself does not sound all that credible to me!
The taxpayers federation has always been appalling glib or exasperatingly misleading. Now they’ve added atmospheric physics to their play-card we can look forward to them adding embarassingly incompetent to their play bill.
Lowering gas taxes “across the board” will hurt drivers and the environment by encouraging greater consumption and ultimately driving gas prices higher in the long term.
Lowering prices would encourage driving in Ontario, but Ontario is too small to have much effect on the continent-wide market price for gasoline.
Mollie:
“I’m glad there is so much response to this issue and especially to the rudeness of Mr. Gaudet.”
Did we read the same letter? Although obviously Gaudet is not a fan of the global warming argument, his response seemed a model of respectful disagreement. I wish all political discussions were that civil.
Kudos to Mr. Gaudet for even answering the letter the eco-whacko wrote him. I wouldn’t have wasted the electrons on lowering myself to associatiate with this sort of element. I’m going to join the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation to help them combat Global Hoaxing. And Mr. Irrelevant, David Suzuki, can go [[bleep]][[1]] himself.
[[1]]I hate having to edit comments, and I usually delete crap like this in it’s entirety, but it’s just not possible to have a civilized discussion with idiots who fill their correspondence with slurs and insults. It relegates their opinion to the “not worthy of consideration” category. So who should we really side with, even if we didn’t already know a lot about the issue at hand? The well worded and polite criticism of a policy? Or the verbal diarrhea from whichever brand of whacko this guy represents? Hmmm… let’s just think on that for a bit.
–Glenn