# What the hell is an Eco Fee



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

What the hell is an Eco Fee and why are we paying it?


----------



## megadan (Feb 5, 2006)

...? More information needed.


If you're talking about an extra charge for consumer goods like cell phones, computers, oil, paint, batteries, etc. it's there because these things are damaging to the environment and need to be disposed of in a proper way. When you drop off your old electronics at the depot, someone has to pay for them to be properly disposed of, so toxic chemicals don't leech into the ground and water supply.

Seems like a good idea to me.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

megadan said:


> ...? More information needed.
> 
> 
> If you're talking about an extra charge for consumer goods like cell phones, computers, oil, paint, batteries, etc. it's there because these things are damaging to the environment and need to be disposed off in a proper way. When you drop off your old electronics at the depot, someone has to pay for them to be properly disposed of, so toxic chemicals don't leech into the ground and water supply.
> ...


Yeah, I got hit with a $25 fee when I was buying my retired parents a $399 computer. I wasn't so much upset about the fee, because I understand the need to properly dispose of these things (I remember all the hoops i had to just through a few years back trying to get rid of an old, broken-down computer), I was more upset about the relative lack of press regarding this fee. I don't really pay too much attention to the news, so it's probably mostly my fault, but it certainly wasn't made public to the same extent as the HST.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

megadan said:


> ...? More information needed.
> 
> 
> If you're talking about an extra charge for consumer goods like cell phones, computers, oil, paint, batteries, etc. it's there because these things are damaging to the environment and need to be disposed of in a proper way. When you drop off your old electronics at the depot, someone has to pay for them to be properly disposed of, so toxic chemicals don't leech into the ground and water supply.
> ...


You better read this one then

Ontario’s eco fee hoax: Blizzard | Christina Blizzard | Columnists | Comment | Toronto Sun

Appears to have been terribly concieved and implemented



> Environment Minister John Gerretsen is threatening to revoke retailers right to charge eco fees if they continue over-charging consumers.
> 
> “I expect Stewardship Ontario to put in place the necessary audit and compliance systems to ensure consumers are not being over-charged,” the minister wrote in a letter to the organization’s CEO Gemma Zecchini Tuesday. “If the situation is not rectified, I will consider options to ensure consumers are not being misled about any fees being charged or eliminate altogether the ability to charge additional set fees to consumers.”
> 
> ...


----------



## megadan (Feb 5, 2006)

I don't think business should be overcharging people for eco fees, obviously, but I don't see anything wrong with fees on plastic bags, bottles, electronics, and chemicals. People need to take personal responsibility for the damage they are doing to the planet, and the wallet is the place people will always notice right away. 

People who complain about this being an 'illegal tax' are greedy and selfish and ought to be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

megadan said:


> I don't think business should be overcharging people for eco fees, obviously, but I don't see anything wrong with fees on plastic bags, bottles, electronics, and chemicals. People need to take personal responsibility for the damage they are doing to the planet, and the wallet is the place people will always notice right away.
> 
> People who complain about this being an 'illegal tax' are greedy and selfish and ought to be ashamed of themselves.


I dont know about you but I like to know where my money is going and why. Being led like a lemming down the garden path does not sit well with me.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Most cell phones are not trashed. They are reused till they barely work. There are huge shops filled with little people that do nothing but take used ones apart, and put them back together again. Anyone with a computer can donate it to one of the many reuse agencies that are working to bring information to all peoples of the world, as you know information is power.

Fees on things like bags are really nuisance fees. They did bring in some shopping behaviour changes for a short time. Then, as people suddenly realized they had spent 20 or 30 dollars a month in those tote bags, by and large what I see is no one using them and myself included hand over the nickle to the profit bloated company. I was at a Longos a week ago, and I wanted a tote bag because the handle is stronger on them and I had a fair bit of walking. The cashier took 5 minutes to find where they were being kept in the store they were that far shoved out the back. As to the fee, I love how Shoppers Drug Mart, one of the highest ranking profit making companies around, is now dinging 5 cents a bag and saying "feel good, it is going to cancer!". I want a tax receipt please.

Any fee any regulated company charges that is not fully government approved can and will be class actionable and will be sued to recover.

What it again comes to is a system of power out of touch with the people that carry shovels who are getting mighty fed up with the none sense.


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I dont know about you but I like to know where my money is going and why. Being led like a lemming down the garden path does not sit well with me.


oh be quiet you selfish little sheep...and just pay your mcginty-lovin' taxes! =)


----------



## dodgechargerfan (Mar 22, 2006)

Of course it's ill-conceived and poorly implemented. It's the Ontario government!

Anyone have an enhanced drivers license? Only about 27000 people bothered. At 40 bucks each that's nor even close to covering the costs of setting up the system. Never mind the ongoing costs. 

Sorry if that's a little off topic from the original post but it's just another example. 

I get why they charge up front. If it were a disposal fee, people would just find alternate disposal methods to avoid paying. It still sucks that there's no transparency to the system. 

It seems fundamentally flawed, too. What if I buy a computer in Toronto and end up disposing of it in Niagara? How does that fee cover the costs? Oh and by the way if I drive it out to the waste management facility, they charge me by weight. So I'm paying twice, then?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

six-string said:


> oh be quiet you selfish little sheep...and just pay your mcginty-lovin' taxes! =)


Aint that the truth brother... the nickel and diming just never ceases, literally nickel and diming us to death


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

The eco-fee, like the health tax is a way to pay for some nice paying patronage jobs, funded by the suckers...........


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Accept2 said:


> The eco-fee, like the health tax is a way to pay for some nice paying patronage jobs, funded by the suckers...........


Question is, when are we going to start throwing some molotov cocktails around and start fighting these things. Pure nonsense in my opinion. These buggers must sit back howling at how dumbed down and lethargic people have become.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> The eco-fee, like the health tax is a way to pay for some nice paying patronage jobs, funded by the suckers...........


It's a bit more insidious than that! Remember, McGuinty swore during his campaign that he would not raise or institute any new taxes. That's why it's called and eco-'fee' and not an eco-tax. It's a lawyer's trick. Different name but it's the same thing. He's done this with literally HUNDREDS of new user fees and such!

These days, you can get away with any tax if you say it's "green"! Just tell people it's for saving the planet and who would be against that? Of course, things get a bit vague when you try to figure out just HOW this tax grab is going to save the planet!

We've had recycling programs already for some years now. If you google up the list of things receiving the new eco-tax you will notice stuff like lock de-icer. Imagine it's January and you are squeezing some lock de-icer into your key slot in your ice-bound car. When the bottle is empty you will no doubt put it in with your plastic recyclables but how on earth are they going to recycle or dispose of that de-icing solution? So what are you paying tax FOR?

They also are taxing paper towels and some cleaning fluids. It's a VERY interesting list! Well worth the google.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

The only thing a society produces, when its number one industry is government, is debt. These guys are going to take all they can get to make sure their friends and family are in the elite class, and screw everyone else. Hopefully in the US the Libertarian party will be elected, dismantle the monster and we will follow suit..........


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

nkjanssen said:


> I think I saw you down at the G20 Summit. You were wearing black, no?


Actually if you visit their website and trace back all the email addresses, those guys in black are ubber socialists and labour unions............


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Why is it that being screwed over to some extent or another and there being very little hope for real change in time to save the planet, and thus ourselves, seems to be the most logical reality for the general public?

And why are we too lazy to fix it?


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Budda said:


> Why is it that being screwed over to some extent or another and there being very little hope for real change in time to save the planet, and thus ourselves, seems to be the most logical reality for the general public?
> 
> And why are we too lazy to fix it?


Oh man, ever try to call a gov't office?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Budda said:


> Why is it that being screwed over to some extent or another and there being very little hope for real change in time to save the planet, and thus ourselves, seems to be the most logical reality for the general public?
> 
> And why are we too lazy to fix it?


Save the planet? I did not know it was in danger. Let nature do what it has always done I say. Do we need to be pigs and throw garbage all over the place? No. Do I need the government taxing the hell out of me every chance they get in the name of saving the planet? Certainly not. Where there is money to be made you will get the slime oozing out of every crack imaginable. I want to see results for my contributions. Lately I dont see shiite so dont be bamboozled by the green machine. Like everything else its a money maker.

We want to live like kings with every imaginable toy and useless product man can devise and we try to make ourselves feel better by saying we are helping out by paying more taxes? Lets get real here.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

The bigger trouble is, when people say "ENOUGH WITH THE TAXES" what gets cut first are homeless shelters, schools, programs for troubled youth. You still pay the taxes, they change the name to "co-pay" or "user fee" or "recycling charge" the government still gets the funds, in 4 years when an election is due the troubled kids that have become homeless and are now living on the street after being kicked out of school are upping the crime rate and no one will bat an eye at paying for the next new program because they are now madder than heck some punk kid did a smash and grab from their Mercedes.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

This just in...



> TORONTO - Stewardship Ontario faces mounting fury from consumers and businesses demanding answers about its controversial eco fee program.
> 
> It was the soap and detergent industry's turn Thursday as industry leaders questioned why shoppers and manufacturers -- who already pay to recycle the packaging through the blue box program -- now have to shell out an extra eco fee on a product that goes down the drain.
> 
> ...


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Its BS.....Or at least, has some BS components. 
Eco-fee on paint?? Why, is the government going to come to my house and scrape it off my walls in order to dispose of it? If I buy 10 cans of the same colour to paint my hosue (I like beige), there is likely only going to be remainder in 1 of them, not all 10.
2-stroke motor oil?? That doesnt make any sense, its consumed by the motor along with gasoline. There is nothing to dispose of.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Question is, when are we going to start throwing some molotov cocktails around and start fighting these things. Pure nonsense in my opinion. These buggers must sit back howling at how dumbed down and lethargic people have become.


If those G20 vandals had done their acts as a response to something legitimate and focussed as how our governments routinely rape us, then I might have had some empathy for those little creeps.
As was said in V for Vendetta "People shouldnt fear governements, governments should fear people". As it stands now, they can piss away millions without accountability, other than another expensive "inquiry" that goes nowhere.
A coup with a few public hangings would make things right again, IMO.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2010)

V for Vendetta is a cool movie. But *blowing up a central core of the city*
to destabilize a government!? ..Is gonna solve problems!?!? 

Why do canadians vote li(e)beral all the time? Or more importantly..
*why don't canadians vote!! *Let me tell ya why.. apathy is the
canadian way. Bitch, scream, protest..don't matter..nobody's listening.
And we'll all let it pass. 

Yesterday's hippies are today's leaders.. .. there's yer problem.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

laristotle said:


> V for Vendetta is a cool movie. But *blowing up a central core of the city*
> to destabilize a government!? ..Is gonna solve problems!?!?
> 
> Why do canadians vote li(e)beral all the time? Or more importantly..
> ...



no, Canadians don't vote because we are educated enough to know, the choices are 1) f***tard A 2) f***tard B and 3) f***tard C


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

dodgechargerfan said:


> Of course it's ill-conceived and poorly implemented. It's the Ontario government!
> 
> What do you think we are any better off with our provincial government, they are at the point out here where they are literally squeezing blood out of stones for all things and over charging also for these so calles Eco Tax's and when we put together our Olympic bid we also included doing a skytrain line from the airport to downtown, well of course that was a few extra billions that out transportation board didn't have so let increase property tax's and such and then there was our Carbon tax increase the same day as our Harmonized sales tax adn then our provincail gov. also decided to tear up my wife collective agreement and slash her wages and others by 15%, heck 15 years ago we were all making more money then then it is possible now to make.
> So let us pay our Eco tax and just take it like there is no tomorrow, because there is only today, dang do I sound jaded or what.ship


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

back in 1930 after the collapse of the Stock Market and the start of the Great Depression...
the US gov't attempted to pass a bill that imposed user fees and raised taxes to make up for lost revenue. 
once the public caught wind of this, they protested, rioted and eventually convinced their elected representatives to ditch the bill since it was clear the general population could simply not afford to pay additional fees and higher taxes.
interestingly it appears Dalton McGuinty and his crew are basically imposing user fees and raising "lets not call them taxes even though that's obviously what they are" in the same fashion, to make up for their billion dollar ehealth boondoggles, and other gross wastes.
as long as the sheep keep voting for these pigs, things won't change.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

six-string said:


> back in 1930 after the collapse of the Stock Market and the start of the Great Depression...
> the US gov't attempted to pass a bill that imposed user fees and raised taxes to make up for lost revenue.
> once the public caught wind of this, they protested, rioted and eventually convinced their elected representatives to ditch the bill since it was clear the general population could simply not afford to pay additional fees and higher taxes.
> interestingly it appears Dalton McGuinty and his crew are basically imposing user fees and raising "lets not call them taxes even though that's obviously what they are" in the same fashion, to make up for their billion dollar ehealth boondoggles, and other gross wastes.
> as long as the sheep keep voting for these pigs, things won't change.


So again I ask, is it time we start throwing around some molotov cocktails and taking back our country? Or do we continue to bend over and take it as hard as they want to give it to us.

We are being bamboozled by the greedheads under the guise of saving the planet and they are laughing all the way to the bank



> ctvottawa.ca
> 
> Canadian Tire has admitted its stores have been charging consumers too much for eco fees since they came into effect on July 1. The company says it was the result of a computer glitch.
> 
> ...


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

laristotle said:


> V for Vendetta is a cool movie. But *blowing up a central core of the city*
> to destabilize a government!? ..Is gonna solve problems!?!?
> 
> Why do canadians vote li(e)beral all the time? Or more importantly..
> ...


Its not apathy, its learned helplessness.
We all know that no matter who is elected, by and large nothing changes...there will be forgotten or broken promises, no accountability, a few scandals and some corruption, and a system that is designed to stall any attempts to evoke real change (esp in the case of a minority goverment) in the occasion that someone really did have the mind to actually try and do something.
When its all just 3 shades of muddy, why bother?
Look at Obama...theres an example of how the more things "Change", the more they stayed the same.

People tell me "why did our forefathers give their lives so you could have the right to vote, if you dont use it?" I tell them "and those same forefathers would roll in their graves if they saw the assclowns listed on the ballot each and every election that disgrace what the system was supposed to be about, with their very existence".


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> *So again I ask, is it time we start throwing around some molotov cocktails and taking back our country? Or do we continue to bend over and take it as hard as they want to give it to us.*
> 
> We are being bamboozled by the greedheads under the guise of saving the planet and they are laughing all the way to the bank


A few strategic lynchings would go a lot farther in sending a message to our leaders that we're not going to take it anymore than simply the wanton destruction of public property which would simply be repaired through tax funds by overpaid civil servants and their $678. hammers obtained by shady quid pro quo contracts.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Diablo said:


> A few strategic lynchings would go a lot farther in sending a message to our leaders that we're not going to take it anymore than simply the wanton destruction of public property which would simply be repaired through tax funds by overpaid civil servants and their $678. hammers obtained by shady quid pro quo contracts.


Ah you forget, there is a fee for the form request for that hammer, 23 dollars. There is a filing fee for that form too another 23 dollars. There is a fast tracking fee 1200 dollars so you can get your hammer without having to put in the 'request to clear usage' fees which add up to 1300 dollars so there IS some savings. Of course there is the environmental assessments that need to be done to use that hammer unless you are willing to pay the fee for the forms to bypass that, file that, and then fast track the usage permit (the permit fee is the usual 10 dollars).


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Yes, protesting in meat space is a LOT harder. Like those young folks there at Ipperwash. Kinda hard when the "leader" tells the "guns" to go ahead and shoot. That same 'leader' put in barricades and concrete 'no go' zones and also shut out the public from the galleries all to aid the government of the days ability to NOT be protested against.

I read a diatribe on "why" going "private" was better than the government doing things today. It reminded me of living in Hamilton. The "city" did that with much of itself as many cities at the time were forced to do by that "you can't protest against us" government. One thing, it privatized ownership of the snow removal. That first winter they went on strike and we had chaos on the roads. The following winter they only did half the job because the new contract was twice the cost. The city went from paying 75 dollars an hour with its own guys to 150 dollars an hour with the private outfit and discovered after that this was a deeply cut rate price as many communities were paying 250 an hour for the same service and indeed in Hamilton the average rate of private snow removal was 350 an hour......... yup, privatizing was sure a good idea yup..... too bad about the guys with guns that shoot at protesters and the barricades and the arrest zones or we could have TOLD that government they were a bunch of f***tards for it. But what is the value of expressing yourself if you are shot or arrested and charged with the real possiblity of real time in jail not just 'peaceful protesting' night or three.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

1) MPP Lisa McLeod is my neighbour (well, if you count 5 houses down as a neighbour), and I chat with her from time to time (her husband, Joe is one of Peter Mackay's advisors). Next time I run into her, I'll have to inquire about the status of her inquiry.

2) Last time I tried to move out all those "hey-you're-into-computers-right?-here's-a-monitor-you-can-use" monitors cluttering up my basement, it cost me $120 to get rid of all those "free" monitors. A computer recycling place near us charges by the pound. They used to sell old stuff (and I would buy it), but found that nobody wanted to buy it anymore, and that there was more money to be made by recovering the gold on the contacts and such, than in parting them out. If you've ever been to one of those places, you'll realize that it takes an enormous amount of work to separate them into usable stuff, and stuff to be rendered. Most people just stick them at the end of their driveway, the same way they bring their pets to the SPCA and just assume that the animal will end up in a nice home in the country. Unfortunately, much like pets that end up in a dumpster, so does e-waste. If you've ever seen a drop-off location for all that e-waste, thwe thought of the cumulative effect of all that waste in all those locations being stuck in the ground does not make you feel at ease. That's why I still have an old 17" monitor and not an LCD one.

3) When the choice is between dinging people up front with an anticipatory recycling fee, or dinging them when it comes time to get rid of the stuff, they will tend to find other ways to get rid of it if it costs money to do so at that point. If there is an e-waste recycling center/location near you, and they charge for stuff dropped off, the odds are that you'll just stick it at the end of your driveway. Human nature. I've acquired some decent stuff that way, but if you don't snag it before the elements or cats get to it, it becomes garbage. If human nature was a little more thoughtful and people were a little less acquisitive, a little more environmentally-inclined, and less "aw-geez-do-I-*have*-to?", things would be different.

4) There is a difference between a suitable public policy, and a decent policy that is poorly implemented and poorly communicated. Do not confuse how appropriate the policy is with how much of a surprise it may have been for you personally.

5) The folks who sit and figure out how to fix a particular problem, are NOT the same folks who figure out how to communicate it to the public. The folks under whose authority a policy emerges are subject to whatever the folks in the relevant ministry tell them and advise them. Is the Minister EVER in the same room with the scientists, opinion researchers, systems designers, communications people, and advocacy groups, all at the same time? No. As a result, stuff falls through the cracks, and inconsistencies within the policy, or between policy A and B, arise. Ninety % of what pisses people off about government, at any level, comes about from the same set of factors that leads you to find yourself hundreds of miles from home without a camera or suitable clothing ("I thought _*you*_ packed the kids' bathing suits"): a big initiative, divided amongst a lot of people, each doing a separate part.

6) The appropriateness of a processing fee to encourage, or compensate for, human behaviour, is separate from the appropriateness of the fee amount itself. At the same time, citizens are often protected/shielded from the actual cost of many things. If we had to pay the real cost of bread or milk, by compensating farmers directly for their farming costs, then all bread would be priced like "artisan" breads ($4 a loaf and more), all ice cream would be priced like Haagen-Daz, and all cheese would be priced like "artisan" cheese. When we lived in New Brunswick, each year we were sent an itemized listing of what our use of the provincial health care system had cost the system. Sure as heck made you conscientious. Perhaps people would feel different about the fee if the had a better sense of what it was used to offset. The fee may be less, or more, than what is truly required.

7) One of the things I study is perceived fairness in individual/institution transactions. One of the things you see in that research literature is that people often justify criminal or quasi-criminal behaviour by perceived unfairness of institutions. E.g., some interesting Australian work demonstrates that people who think the government does not use tax revenue in a fair manner are more apt to make false claims on their tax returns. We also see that people are more likely to steal from their employer, or engage in acts of retribution or sabotage, if they perceive the employer as acting unfairly. And of course, today's news finds some doofuses in Quebec vandalizing DND offices because they object to "Canadian militarism" and conceivably the manner in which police interacted with G20 protesters. Note that the *perception *of unfairness is distinguishable from the actual *objective* fairness (stuff can BE fair, but not be seen as such). So, there is clearly a lot to be said for introducing a policy/fee/tax to the public in a manner that will encourage them to perceive it as fair.


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

i say we put all the politicians to the firing squad.
of course there will be a new politician eco-fee imposed to recycle their remains into something useful like....dogfood.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...you can travel to any city in the free world and hear the average joe whining non-stop that 1. their government is out to get them and 2. taxes are too high.

carry on.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

david henman said:


> ...you can travel to any city in the free world and hear the average joe whining non-stop that 1. their government is out to get them and 2. taxes are too high.
> 
> carry on.



...you can travel to any city in the free world and hear the GOVERNMENT whining non-stop that 1. if you don't pay your taxes 2. the government WILL get you

carry on.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Maybe, but if you don't master your rage, then rage will become your master! He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions. When you care what is outside, what is inside cares for you. - The Sphinx


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

It still sounds like a cash grab to me


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

GuitarsCanada said:


> It still sounds like a cash grab to me


well it is! are you surprised?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I've never understood that phrase "cash grab". What do people think happens to the money? Do they think the minister responsible pockets it and buys a country home? Do they think it translates into bonuses for all staff in the department, or new chairs for everyone?

Granted, it may well end up feeding into a larger generic pool of money for redistribution to programs, rather than specifically paying for the particular program you think it pays for....not unlike what happens to money you give to a charitable cause in the wake of a natural disaster, only to find it has slid into general revenues, some of which gets applied...eventually... to the crisis that prompted your generosity. But it's not as if government is suddenly jacking up the prices because they have you over a barrel, and demand is high. This is not someone scalping Superbowl tickets. Moreover, government economists are among the first to recognize that leaving citizens and businesses with less spending money tends to make the economy grind to a halt, so unless you live in Zimbabwe or Turkmenistan, there are natural limits to how much of your cash any democracy feels comfortable in grabbing.

Many government programs are run on what is called a "cost recovery" basis; often within government (i.e., they have to charge each other, in order to recover costs), as well as between government and the public. Our unit has been dealing with Statistics Canada for several years, and they have been nickel and diming us for everything, but apparently what they charge does not even meet their costs for whatever they provide. I.E., it's a "some-of-cost-recovery". Our department is like that too. We charge people for services, but recover only a fraction of the costs.

When operating costs are recovered by administration of a fee each time the service is drawn on, people object to such "user fees" as a "cash grab". Some authorities rightly note that often such fees tend to penalize those who need to rely on the very services, because they are the most vulnerable, and argue against user fees because they discriminate in that fashion. That is the very basis of our health care system, of which we are so proud. Of course, that still leaves government with the question of how to defray the costs of the service, so a tax is levied or adjusted as a means of providing the service on the backs of everyone, not just the most dependent. That too, I suppose, is a "cash grab". But here is what too many tend to forget: governments exist to be able to create and provide services, using the resources of many, that could simply not exist if people had to depend on their own individual resources. Even amongst those who, for some reason, think the only function a government should have is to provide a military for national defense, and *nothing* more, it is clear that the national defense we have by pooling our money outstrips the national defense we would have if we each provided what we could afford as individuals (I'd have a pocket knife!).

Now, it very well CAN be the case that the costs that need to be recovered can result from poor planning, sloppy implementation or bad timing, legitimately unforseen costs, predatory pricing by private sector providers (there's your cash grab), or commitments made in the heat of the moment before things were tallied up. Somewhere down the line, there will be a need to defray the costs of the Olympics, the G20, the Canadian commitment in Afghanistan, Aboriginal land claims, assorted natural disasters, and those fancy airplanes Peter Mackay announced the other day for $9B (plus another estimated $7B in service contracts). That list will get ever longer, and the revenue to defray those expenses will have to come from somewhere. In past, some of it came from GST, and now some of it will come from HST. And it will come from other places as well in the future. Indeed, ALL taxation can be conceived of as a "cash grab", and I suppose the Tea Partiers like to view all of government through that lens.

So, in retrospect, it strikes me that a "cash grab" is essentially a form of taxation that someone is surprised by, or else feels is provoked by an unreasonable or not-well-understood expense. There are folks who don't drive and feel that taxes used for highway construction are a "cash grab", and folks who are avowed pacifists and feel all taxes diverted to the military are a "cash grab", and folks who have no children and feel that school taxes are a "cash grab", and maybe even those who plan on burning out early and leaving a good-looking corpse and feel that pension deductions are a "cash grab". There are those who feel that all foreign aid to developing nations is unjustified and taxes allotted to that are a "cash grab".


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

mhammer said:


> I've never understood that phrase "cash grab". What do people think happens to the money? Do they think the minister responsible pockets it and buys a country home? Do they think it translates into bonuses for all staff in the department, or new chairs for everyone?


Actually, for all the golf courses and over expensive lunches et-al history is more on the side of "yes" than "no". At least, if I pocketed the till take for the day I would be fired on the spot, I would face not only a police investigation but actual charges and when arrested and convicted I would not be in minimum security for a few months or even handed a suspended sentence and told not to do that again. Being 40 something now, I cannot think of a single politician in my lifetime that has done hard time in a pen for any length of time for what is for the common person very criminal actions.

Not to toss the baby with the bathwater. However, I think we no longer hold our political system to a very high standard, nor do we have rules and laws to enforce that because we allowed them to, in essence, write their own ticket out. I know, 100% of "government" is not fraudulent, but a very good part is. The volume of money wasted is sickening. Having helped start non profit groups, I know the hoops we had to jump through JUST to get granted 10,000 to aid in start up. Watching as the government of the day spends BILLIONS on hosting a wine and cheese party for 19 other elbow rubbers while at the same time being told "oh we need to charge you more for..." it really begins to "not matter" why they want the funds when what we see of the BILLIONS being spent on things this nation does NOT need any argument will fail to ring true.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

ummm they are flushing it 

CBC News - Toronto - Ontario to drop eco fee: report


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm currently reading a political memoir that was recommended to me. I'm reading it because the author was the president of our government department 10 years ago, but it's interesting because she was also the deputy minister that was saddled with introducing the GST, a similar sort of where-the-hell-did-THAT-come-from tax that required finessing the introduction of a tax, a technology, and a whole different way of doing things. It'll be interesting to see how the Eco-fee thing plays out and what the contrasts are between how the GST managed to survive, and why the Eco-fee didn't. Certainly one of the things that enabled the GST to float rather than sink was the economic backdrop it occurred against.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

mhammer said:


> I've never understood that phrase "cash grab". What do people think happens to the money? Do they think the minister responsible pockets it and buys a country home? Do they think it translates into bonuses for all staff in the department, or new chairs for everyone?
> 
> Granted, it may well end up feeding into a larger generic pool of money for redistribution to programs, rather than specifically paying for the particular program you think it pays for....not unlike what happens to money you give to a charitable cause in the wake of a natural disaster, only to find it has slid into general revenues, some of which gets applied...eventually... to the crisis that prompted your generosity. But it's not as if government is suddenly jacking up the prices because they have you over a barrel, and demand is high. This is not someone scalping Superbowl tickets. Moreover, government economists are among the first to recognize that leaving citizens and businesses with less spending money tends to make the economy grind to a halt, so unless you live in Zimbabwe or Turkmenistan, there are natural limits to how much of your cash any democracy feels comfortable in grabbing.
> 
> ...


I am a pretty basic kind of person. I pay my taxes (and fees) and I expect to see results from the money that is being collected. My contributions have increased steadily over the course of my lifespan to date. I see schools closing, I see people sleeping and begging in the streets. I see unemployment, I see all the high paying factory jobs gone. I see people giving up wages and benefits in order to keep the few high paying jobs that are left. I see kids coming out of school 30-60K in debt and cant find a job. 

I took my Father to the hospital 4 times via ambulance in a span of 30 days, sat in the emerg for up to 10 hours for him to be seen and then told to take him home, then told by the telehelp people that he belongs in the hospital. Well they managed to kill him off, he died on June 7th in what a recent survey concluded is one of the worst medical care facilities in Canada. The entire Niagara Region was rated as some of the worst health care in Canada.

So yeah, I wonder where the money is going cuz it aint going where it should be. Frankly I really dont care about the landfill sites, does not interest me in the least. I have witnessed in my lifetime the almost total elimination of the working middle class. We now have two categories. Those that have and those that do not. The list of those that do not is getting longer every year.


----------



## dodgechargerfan (Mar 22, 2006)

> The company says the program is too complex and was mishandled by both government and businesses.


It's not so much the fee itself that I have a problem with - it's the mismanagement of far too many things and decisions that don't seem to make sense. 

The fact that they are scrapping it speaks volumes. 

On The topic of my latest pet peeve: the Ontario govt was told by so many people - including their own employees and hired consultants that the enhanced drivers license n program was a bad idea, but they did it anyway and now we are going to have to pick up the tab.
I don't want to ask why because that'd just trigger a public inquiry that'd cost us more.


----------



## jcon (Apr 28, 2006)

Well, looks like the Eco Fee might be gone today...

Ontario Dropping Eco-fee

Cheers,
Joe


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

that's because i called Dalton yesterday and told him we at GuitarsCanada forum were going to start lobbing Molotov cocktails and rounding up the politicians for the firing squad!
see...sometime's they do listen. you just have to have a clear message.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...there is a certain crowd that sees virtually every tax and virtually every traffic fine as a tax grab, and believes that government is "out to get them". kind of a "mob mentality". i know it can be scary, but there's nothing to fear from actually thinking things through, and becoming informed.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

keeperofthegood said:


> ...you can travel to any city in the free world and hear the GOVERNMENT whining non-stop that 1. if you don't pay your taxes 2. the government WILL get you
> carry on.


...not in the real world, but nice try.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

Anybody who thinks the Eco fee was anything but a cash grab is either a government employee or a tree hugger or has never been self employed or never worked their ass off to trying to get ahead by working a 65-70 hour week. 
Listen, I pay my taxes, a whole lotta of it when you make a decent living like I do, but when they just keep on taking and give nothing back in the form of better services then I have a problem with it. 

The eco fee was a cash grab, take your head out of McGuinty's ass.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

david henman said:


> ...there is a certain crowd that sees virtually every tax and virtually every traffic fine as a tax grab, and believes that government is "out to get them". kind of a "mob mentality". i know it can be scary, but there's nothing to fear from actually thinking things through, and becoming informed.


I am sure there are a group of people that fit into that category, small but out there. However in this instance and in this case I think the fact that the Eco Fee was scrapped goes to show that "some" people, not enough in my opinion, do try to become informed. In this case it proved that we were being swindled and misled by a bunch of spin merchants and corporations in an obvious cash grab. We are entitled to know why we are paying and where it goes. When we as taxpayers stop asking these questions we are done for.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> Anybody who thinks the Eco fee was anything but a cash grab is either a government employee or a tree hugger or has never been self employed or never worked their ass off to trying to get ahead by working a 65-70 hour week.
> Listen, I pay my taxes, a whole lotta of it when you make a decent living like I do, but when they just keep on taking and give nothing back in the form of better services then I have a problem with it.
> 
> The eco fee was a cash grab, take your head out of McGuinty's ass.


...you've done an excellent job here of proving my point. those pesky tree huggers, eh. imagine, giving a damn about the environment. how silly. lets order another beer. dude, that sarah palin is hot.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I am sure there are a group of people that fit into that category, small but out there. However in this instance and in this case I think the fact that the Eco Fee was scrapped goes to show that "some" people, not enough in my opinion, do try to become informed. In this case it proved that we were being swindled and misled by a bunch of spin merchants and corporations in an obvious cash grab. We are entitled to know why we are paying and where it goes. When we as taxpayers stop asking these questions we are done for.


...the eco tax appears to have been a huge blunder. and, yeah, asking questions is how it works. whining, not so much.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...you've done an excellent job here of proving my point. those pesky tree huggers, eh. imagine, giving a damn about the environment. how silly. lets order another beer. dude, that sarah palin is hot.


What was your point David? Are you saying that because I do not agree with the Eco Tax or your opinion, that I am labelled an uninformed, beer drinking ******* who thinks Sarah Palin is hot? She's actually not bad untill she opens her mouth. We all have our own agendas. If the Eco fee fits your agenda, good for you and yes I put labels on the type of people who aren't opposed to the tax and I think you proved my point.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> What was your point David? Are you saying that because I do not agree with the Eco Tax or your opinion, that I am labelled an uninformed, beer drinking ******* who thinks Sarah Palin is hot? She's actually not bad untill she opens her mouth. We all have our own agendas. If the Eco fee fits your agenda, good for you and yes I put labels on the type of people who aren't opposed to the tax and I think you proved my point.


...your point was about cash grabs and government employess and tree huggers and people having their heads up mcguinty's butt etc. i'm glad i was able to help.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

david henman said:


> imagine, giving a damn about the environment. how silly.


Using fear to wrench money out of peoples pockets is an old and very effective tool. Tell people the world is coming to end but if you are willing to pump some money into it we might be able to save it. Yes, we all know that mankind has abused it's position on earth, there is no argument there and nobody should try to present a case that we have not abused it. However, people need to see through the haze (maybe it's smog caused by the abuse) and ask questions, seek the truth and dont be misled by anyone.

We all want to "save the earth" but I dont see too many people giving up all the nice conveniences that are a direct contributer to the problem. We dont want to face that so we say "tax the corporations and the people that create these products". Probelm is they will tax them and in turn we are the dumbells paying for it in the way of increased prices and fees. But hey, now we feel good, right? You want to help out? Stop buying this worthless shit and sell your car. Easy said, tough to do. But hey, I am doing my part. I am washing out tin cans and separating out 14 different kinds of garbage for the greedheads. I am paying $30 a pop every time I go to the landfill site. I feel good about it I do. You say you can't afford to feed your family anymore? Get your priorities straight my friend we are trying to save the planet here.

Canadian Tire coming out now and denouncing the goverment and Stewardship Ontario is laughable. Those greedhounds had no obligation whatsoever to charge the public fees. They were not levied upon Canadian Tire or any retailer and they were not obliged to collect fees. The fees were charged on the manufactures and importers. Canadian Tire, like all the rest of them said oh boy, we can raise prices and tell the idiots its becuase of the new eco fee. They got caught with their pants down behind the water cooler and now say, "we refuse to charge the fees any longer" Refuse? They were not obliged to collect it.

People... find out why and where your cash is going. If you dont understand it ask more questions and if you dont agree with it say so.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Using fear to wrench money out of peoples pockets is an old and very effective tool. Tell people the world is coming to end but if you are willing to pump some money into it we might be able to save it.



...that is an interpretation. an opinion. an accusation. some will agree. some won't. same goes for the "feel good" rhetoric. if you think people try to do good simply in order to "feel good", well, that is your perogative. not much to recommend it, though.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

david henman said:


> ...that is an interpretation. an opinion. an accusation. some will agree. some won't. same goes for the "feel good" rhetoric. if you think people try to do good simply in order to "feel good", well, that is your perogative. not much to recommend it, though.


Thats what its all about David. Yes, that is my interpretation, my accusation. Some may agree and some may not but I hope they will all stop and give it some thought, just as you are asking them to do. Stop and think about it. Dont just get in line and walk off the cliff


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Thats what its all about David. Yes, that is my interpretation, my accusation. Some may agree and some may not but I hope they will all stop and give it some thought, just as you are asking them to do. Stop and think about it. Dont just get in line and walk off the cliff


...as i said, that part i agree with. asking questions and informing ourselves is part of the democratic process.

incessant whining and complaining is, as well. if that's your thing.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

david henman said:


> ...as i said, that part i agree with. asking questions and informing ourselves is part of the democratic process.
> 
> incessant whining and complaining is, as well. if that's your thing.


Whining and complaining is useless. If you want to make changes you have to act. That is exactly what happened in this case. People stood up and said "Oh no you don't" and it was scrapped fast. Show me and prove to me that my contributions are going towards the good of all society and I will gladly do my part. The same as I would help some poor bugger on the street that really needed it. I think the majority of us would do the same. Sure there are some that dont want to pay anything to anyone. Thats unrealistic and greedy. We all have to pitch in and help to provide for those less fortunate and also try our best to not ruin the planet we live on. But DO NOT swindle me or you will hear about it. Be up front and honest, thats what I am paying your salary for Mr Government employee.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Whining and complaining is useless. If you want to make changes you have to act. That is exactly what happened in this case. People stood up and said "Oh no you don't" and it was scrapped fast..


...i'm not sure that's what happened here. i'm hearing differing reports. nonetheless, what might have been a good, even essential, idea was totally bungled. back to the drawing board.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

david henman said:


> ...i'm not sure that's what happened here. i'm hearing differing reports. nonetheless, what might have been a good, even essential, idea was totally bungled. back to the drawing board.


Your right, it may have been a very good program and in the long run probably a needed one. But if you are going to ask people to contribute financially, especially financially, you need to roll it out properly and explain in detail why it is required, what the results will be and how much it is going to cost us. How the money is collected and by whom. You have to have accountability and transparency in it or people will get their backs up.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Evidently the backlash was too much??? I think the problem most people had was the "stealth" mode that was used to roll it in... Now, how bout that HST???


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

david henman said:


> ...there is a certain crowd that sees virtually every tax and virtually every traffic fine as a tax grab, and believes that government is "out to get them". kind of a "mob mentality". i know it can be scary, but there's nothing to fear from actually thinking things through, and becoming informed.


 not 100% true. the revenue service of canada as well as that of the united states operates directly opposite to the rule of law used in every other area of people's lives. that one is innocent until proven guilty. when dealing with the tax office, the burden of proof (innocence) is on the accused.
both canada and the united states have a proven track record for having assesors who abuse their power simply because it's fun.


aside from that, i would like to throw in my 2 cents on the bag tax. those bags are made from a polymer designed to break down. they do in fact, bio-degrade. certainly not as fast as say, an egg carton, but a hell of alot faster than disposeable diapers and those damn milk bags that i hate so much. the guy who thought up that idea was nobody's pal. except for maybe the other guy who makes all those bags. also, guess where the money goes? _ANYWHERE THE RETAILER WANTS IT TO._ there is nothing to stipulate what the store should do with the money collected. better still, they are prohibited from offering you an alternative bag! who came up with this idea? lobbyists for the retail industry maybe? they are really the only ones who benefit from it. think i'm making it up? see for yourself:

City of Toronto: Solid Waste Management

here is a quote directly from the site:



> Retailers are entitled to keep the money received from the plastic bag charge, the money is not remitted to the City of Toronto. While the City does not stipulate what retailers should do with this money, it does support reinvesting the funds in local environmental or community-based initiatives.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

cheezyridr said:


> aside from that, i would like to throw in my 2 cents on the bag tax. those bags are made from a polymer designed to break down. they do in fact, bio-degrade. certainly not as fast as say, an egg carton, but a hell of alot faster than disposeable diapers and those damn milk bags that i hate so much. the guy who thought up that idea was nobody's pal. except for maybe the other guy who makes all those bags. also, guess where the money goes? _ANYWHERE THE RETAILER WANTS IT TO._ there is nothing to stipulate what the store should do with the money collected. better still, they are prohibited from offering you an alternative bag! who came up with this idea? lobbyists for the retail industry maybe? they are really the only ones who benefit from it. think i'm making it up? see for yourself:
> 
> City of Toronto: Solid Waste Management
> 
> here is a quote directly from the site:


This is exactly the kind of nonsense that I was talking about a few posts ago. We get charged some fee in the name of saving the planet and what is actually happening? We are subsidizing the retailers cost to purchase the bags as well as adding to their bottom line. You know as well as I do that none of them are contributing that money to any cause whatsoever except to pad their own pockets. So another great example of maybe a good idea but abused by greedheads. But we pay it becuase we want to feel like we are doing our part. But if you come out and oppose it someone is going to come back and tell you that you are not in support of cleaning up the planet, which is not necessarily true, you might just be opposed to being bamboozled once again


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...are you guys aware that the bag charge is strictly voluntary? 100% your choice. buy a 5cent bag, or bring your own.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Starbuck said:


> Evidently the backlash was too much??? I think the problem most people had was the "stealth" mode that was used to roll it in... Now, how bout that HST???


At the moment, I'm reading the memoir of our former deputy head (well, c'mon, the new issue of Vintage Guitar hasn't come in yet!). She had the dubious distinction of being in charge of Customs and Excise (before it was Revenue Canada, which is before it was Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, which is before it was Canada Revenue Agency) when the GST was brought it. She played no role in advocating the GST or passing it, just in having it become a normal part of value-added tax at retailers, borders, and businesses. Her success in overseeing a smooth transition there boosted her capital around Ottawa, which is likely how she ended up as our deputy head several years later.

In any event, I'll have to reread that section about the GST implementation, where she mentions a number of key actions she undertook that helped bring it in with few bumps or glitches. certainly one of them was the local training sessions for small businesses, which is what seems to have been missing in the case of the Eco-Fee.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

david henman said:


> ...are you guys aware that the bag charge is strictly voluntary? 100% your choice. buy a 5cent bag, or bring your own.


Totally aware David, but can someone explain to me how that charge is helping the cause? If you are paying the retailer the money and they are not doing anything with it other than pocketing it, what is the purpose? OK, you force some people to use alternative bags that they need to bring themselves therefore reducing the total amount destined for the landfill, is that the only outcome we were hoping for? If they have been proven to be a collossal problem for the environment do something useful and ban them, get rid of them and go back to paper bags and re-open a few paper mills and put some people to work. They closed most of them around here long ago.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

on top of that it is not voluntary. the cost of the bag was factored into the overhead of the retailer up until the tax was implemented. there has been no reduction in grocery costs, now that the retailer charges for something that is now subsidized. 
consumers had no choice. the charge was thrust upon them. maybe there are less grocery bags going into the landfill, but does that really equate to less plastic? the bags they would have you use are also plastic, and they are many times thicker. when they break and are discarded, what is their contribution to the plastic content of the landfill? is anyone even studying that? tbo, it would be alot easier for me to swallow if they collected that money and put it into the budget. the reality is the government has forced a price increase on goods, however slight. now that it has been given, see how easy it is to take it back. i'd bet $100 if the bag tax was repealed, prices of groceries would immediately increase by at least 2% to offset the loss of new revenue. notice how not a single store is running ads telling how they are using the money to feed homeless people or clean the environment? it's because they're not.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i'd definitely much rather read an argument like than this than the stereotypical "all environmentalists eat granola and wear birkenstocks" idiocy that passes for intellectual discourse in the minds of some folks.

source?



cheezyridr said:


> on top of that it is not voluntary. the cost of the bag was factored into the overhead of the retailer up until the tax was implemented. there has been no reduction in grocery costs, now that the retailer charges for something that is now subsidized.
> consumers had no choice. the charge was thrust upon them. maybe there are less grocery bags going into the landfill, but does that really equate to less plastic? the bags they would have you use are also plastic, and they are many times thicker. when they break and are discarded, what is their contribution to the plastic content of the landfill? is anyone even studying that? tbo, it would be alot easier for me to swallow if they collected that money and put it into the budget. the reality is the government has forced a price increase on goods, however slight. now that it has been given, see how easy it is to take it back. i'd bet $100 if the bag tax was repealed, prices of groceries would immediately increase by at least 2% to offset the loss of new revenue. notice how not a single store is running ads telling how they are using the money to feed homeless people or clean the environment? it's because they're not.


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

david henman said:


> ...i'd definitely much rather read an argument like than this than the stereotypical "all environmentalists eat granola and wear birkenstocks" idiocy that passes for intellectual discourse in the minds of some folks.
> 
> source?


David you are such a cut up! 
"intellectual discourse"??? on the internet? ROTFLMAO!


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

I wonder if I can get my money back.

You know NO ONE is properly applying the HST. If you are PST exempt, you are supposed to be charged the HST then issued a REFUND of the PST tax. I tell retailers this all the time, and the outright laughs to the look of "you HAVE to be kidding me" LOLOL but no, that is what you are supposed to do it is all detailed in the documentation.

So, anyone that wants to confess to tax evasion so I can turn them in and get the reward stand up. Save me from the "we already know you are guilty" audit of my own taxes.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...are you guys aware that the bag charge is strictly voluntary? 100% your choice. buy a 5cent bag, or bring your own.


Its pretty clear that most businesses treated it like a price increase.

However, I was impressed at my last visit to The Bay. I bought a couple shirts and the cashier asked if I wanted a bag..I said nah, dont worry about it. She said "Great, and for refusing a bag, you qualify for an additional 100 HBC points".
Thats a policy that shows a company taking a correct stance and not just leaping onto an opportunity to pad their bottomline. I wish they promoted this better.


The bag tax is stupid to begin with. All those bags I was getting for free, were getting recycled...BY ME! I used them for our trash, like most people. So some genius decided its more "environmentally sound" if we are forced instead to buy bags manufactured for the explicit purpose of trash rather than recycling/re-purposing the ones we had always been getting. Sure it is  The air feels cleaner already, lol...due to all those purchased bags in the trash instead. 
Its not like I had a pile of empty bags that I would throw into garbage for no reason.
A great example of "fixing" something that wasnt broken, at best. At worst, a government supported kickback for big business, on the backs of the consumer, at a far from ideal time.

Oh well, I'll vote with my dollars. I now prefer to go to stores that arent bag-gougers, like Wal_Mart.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...i'd definitely much rather read an argument like than this than the stereotypical "all environmentalists eat granola and wear birkenstocks" idiocy that passes for intellectual discourse in the minds of some folks.
> 
> source?


I dont personally think this is an "environmentalists" issue. I think its big business exploiting a timely and worthy concern to boost their bottom line.
Its a shame really. Too many "cry wolf" incidents like these and much of the public will become cynical of valid environmental initiatives.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i haul my groceries home in a child trailer towed behind my bicycle. i put a metal floor in it to support more weight and cut out the seats. i can bring home a weeks worth of goods for the 4 of us, plus a case of gatorade no problem. 50lb sack of dog food? i can do that too, although not at the same time. i feel like i'm doin my bit for the environment by limiting my use of fossil fuels. i transfer my groceries from the shopping cart directly to the trailer, so i don't need the bags for carrying stuff. but even at a nickel a piece it's still cheaper to buy 20 of them once a month to use for garbage bags than it is to buy actual garbage bags. i just can't bring myself to do it now that they are also charging me hst. so i am scrounging other bags to use unless i really have to. i offset the cost by not buying bags to pick up dog poop. i have 2 dogs, that's alotta poop. 
so i double bag all my produce every week. those bags are free.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

The Eco Fee has nothing to do with the environment, and neither does the bag fee. Its all about how do we pay for our ballooning government payroll. Along time ago tax revenues went to infrastructure, now they are used to feed the monster payroll. All those managers, supervisors, and administrators. As for the environment, leaders fix problems, politicians tax problems. Its all pretty clear if you look at the whole system..............


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Accept2 said:


> The Eco Fee has nothing to do with the environment, and neither does the bag fee. Its all about how do we pay for our ballooning government payroll. Along time ago tax revenues went to infrastructure, now they are used to feed the monster payroll. All those managers, supervisors, and administrators. As for the environment, leaders fix problems, politicians tax problems. *Its all pretty clear if you look at the whole system*..............



Well, thanks for letting us know how it really is.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

I read an interview with the environment minister in which he said that cleaning a landfill cost the provincial government 5 million dollars which will be saved with the implementation of eco fees.

So lets see: the government takes 5 mil from us in taxes to clean a landfill ..... now with the eco fees rendering those tax dollars unnecessary does that mean that they will reduce our taxes?

Of course not.

And all they're doing with the 90 days reprieve is figuring out how to put a better spin on it - as Mr. Hammer says: it's just our perception that needs to be adjusted ..............


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

allthumbs56 said:


> So lets see: the government takes 5 mil from us in taxes to clean a landfill .....


Why do I have an image of an immigrant worker with a mop and a bucket facing a HUGE pile of crap while THE BOSS sits in a limo smoking Cubans saying "do a good job now, earn that minimum wage".


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Rugburn said:


> Well, thanks for letting us know how it really is.


what made this comment so much funnier was that i cannot read anything you post without hearing it in my mind from a drunken nick nolte voice, gravelly from too many cigarettes.


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

McGuinty must have been reading this thread.

CBC News - Toronto - Ontario eco fees 'gone for good': minister


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

How many millions of dollars was poured into this debacle? Sad


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Sneaky said:


> McGuinty must have been reading this thread.
> 
> CBC News - Toronto - Ontario eco fees 'gone for good': minister


From the article.....

"When you look at Europe, when you look at many of the other Canadian jurisdictions, they have adopted the principle of producer responsibility," he said. "That basically means that if you make a product, you are responsible — if there are toxic components, hazardous components to it — [for] dealing with the after-effects of that product."

OK .... so we make the Producer responsible ......... any ideas on how he recovers his costs?

Right - we pay more for the product and he uses that money to clean things up ............ and we get our 5 mil back from McGuinty ...................don't we?

Where's that rolling-my-eyes smilie gone!!!!!!!


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

allthumbs56 said:


> From the article.....
> 
> "When you look at Europe, when you look at many of the other Canadian jurisdictions, they have adopted the principle of producer responsibility," he said. "That basically means that if you make a product, you are responsible — if there are toxic components, hazardous components to it — [for] dealing with the after-effects of that product."
> 
> ...


In terms of evils... I prefer to grease one palm than 3 or 4. Load it onto the price of the item and cut out the retailer and the government employees being paid to "administer" the program.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> In terms of evils... I prefer to grease one palm than 3 or 4. Load it onto the price of the item and cut out the retailer and the government employees being paid to "administer" the program.


Well said and makes total sense! 

Just one small problem.....the manufacturer still has to pass the cost along to the consumer, the consumer complains its too expensive to the retailer, so the retailer outsources to another country that can manufacture at a lower cost because of the lower wagers and and the fact that these other countries have no regulations regarding health, safety and the well being of the planet. More jobs in the manufacturing industry are therefore lost.....and the only way our government can come up with a plan to create new jobs, is too create a new tax that will require more government employees to administer it.


----------



## Beatles (Feb 7, 2006)

Just to get back to the eco tax for a sec...

What I don't understand is on the day the tax became effective, there would have to be thousands of cash registers or Point of of Sale SW that would have to be reprogrammed to reflect the changes. I'm sure there would have had to been some lead time to have it all ready. Surely, with all of the merchants affected, wouldn't someone have spoke out? I honestly don't get it.


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

well i'm not so convinced my elected representatives are so worried about the planet as they might have me believe.
tomorrow is garbage day. so tonight i am rounding up the stuff to go to the curb.
and while i ponder the extra time i have been spending over the past years cleaning and sorting my trash, i can't help but wonder...
recently i had a new surcharge added to my property tax to pay for my "green bin" that is to collect organic kitchen waste. but wait...i have a composter that i bought 15 years ago in the garden for that??? so why am i now paying for a green bin?
years ago, i stopped getting home delivery of the paper because, let's face it, i get my news from the internet or tv long before some kid can bring the paper around. and besides, save the trees! right?
and here's a funny...i've been using canvas and cotton bags to carry my groceries forever. in fact up until very recently some major grocery chains, (like Loblaws etc) used to get pissed off at me for refusing their plastic bags and insisting they let me put my purchases into my own bags. of course the staff usually just fired the products across the code scanner and then stood there impatiently waiting for ME to bag my own groceries. have you noticed how the advent of 'reusable bags' has meant that grocery store "bag boys" are now unemployed? 
so over time i have learned to reduce, reuse and recycle. 
tonight i put out one small kitchen-catcher sized bag of garbage (that's it for my family for a week. sometimes 2 weeks). then i put out a blue box full of cans and glass and plastic containers. then a large paper bag of yard waste. (okay i confess some of that might have gone in the composter, but its pretty full at the moment.)
and next week it will be the black box for paper recycling. hard as i try i can't stop the flyers and junk mail from coming. and then there's the endless boxes and packaging with just about everything you buy. i console myself that at least some of it can be recycled.

so here's the bottom line...when i was a kid, Mum asked me to take out the trash once a week. that involved dragging one or sometimes two cans to the curb. and one truck went by and emptied them. 
now i spend all this time sorting my trash, i pay way more than my folks ever did and now i have 3 different giant diesel trucks pulling up every week to haul away the trash. part of the hard sell to encourage recycling and support of programs like blue box, black box, green bin etc was that these recyclables could be sold and so it would be revenue neutral for the taxpayer. of course that is not the reality and my municipality is charging every increasing fees for these services. i've also heard that little of the recycled stuff is generating revenue and in fact, some of the companies with contracts to recycle are simply trucking the excess to landfills.
so i'm curious if you think that having those 3 trucks doing what 1 truck used to do is really that good for the environment?


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

I wish I could recall it clearer, maybe a fellow Hamiltonian can. About a year back the Spectator ran a story on Hamilton and Recycling. Hamilton is one of the top recycling cities in Canada, and so the paper did a story on it. Of the picked up materials for recycling, something sad like 23% was actually recycled while the rest was sent to land fill as either spoiled or unrecoverable.

One of the British comedians I really like did a show all on reusing stuffs (forget the names of the shows, Junkyard something or other). He also has a youtube where he speaks candidly. One of his talks was on recycling too. Now, he is 'off the grid' making his own electricity, and he drives an electric car. He is a supporter of environmentally friendly "anything" so, you would not expect him to call recycling in England a load of utter shash and a complete fail. To paraphrase him "Ive been to the recycling centers, and seen the hundreds of tons of rotting news papers sitting there because no one wants them."

Another thing that gets my britches in a bind is how completely random the entire recycling requirements are. Some years styrofoam is in, some out. Some years tetra packs are in, then they are not. Most typically if it has the materials symbol on it, with only certain numbers, they can be recycled... only if the people dumping your sorted good back on your lawn have taken the time to READ those numbers which they don't, they just slap an OOPS sticker on your stuff so the whole neighborhood knows you are a dork.


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2010)

six-string said:


> so i'm curious if you think that having those 3 trucks doing what 1 truck used to do is really that good for the environment?


we do everything you described as well (our 1 grocery bag of garbage takes 3 weeks to
fill up). where as my bro in law tosses everything into the garbage. his justification; 
everything winds up on the same conveyor. why bother sorting when it's all mixed up
again anyway..*and I'm paying for this!*


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> The Eco Fee has nothing to do with the environment, and neither does the bag fee. Its all about how do we pay for our ballooning government payroll. Along time ago tax revenues went to infrastructure, now they are used to feed the monster payroll. All those managers, supervisors, and administrators. As for the environment, leaders fix problems, politicians tax problems. Its all pretty clear if you look at the whole system..............


...opinion? or fact? source?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...there will always be a segment of the population that doesn't give a %$#@. otherwise there would be no am talk radio.



laristotle said:


> we do everything you described as well (our 1 grocery bag of garbage takes 3 weeks to
> fill up). where as my bro in law tosses everything into the garbage. his justification;
> everything winds up on the same conveyor. why bother sorting when it's all mixed up
> again anyway..*and I'm paying for this!*


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...opinion? or fact? source?


Work on some government audits and it becomes fact.......


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> Work on some government audits and it becomes fact.......


...so we have to take your word for it, in other words.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...so we have to take your word for it, in other words.


Nope, the auditor general releases bits and pieces here and there, and the government always has to release financial information packages. It is written up under the PSHB, which is bullshit, but thats another story. Its all there for everyone to read. You wont find any good VFM stuff unfortunately, which is sad...........


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...so we have to take your word for it, in other words.


Hey Mr. Informed, who's word do you take to believe the Eco fee was not a cash grab?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I am sure the braintrust assigned to this one will come up with another way of getting it implemented, stay tuned for more ranting at a later date


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...and if they get it right, i'll be happy to pay.



GuitarsCanada said:


> I am sure the braintrust assigned to this one will come up with another way of getting it implemented, stay tuned for more ranting at a later date


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> Hey Mr. Informed, who's word do you take to believe the Eco fee was not a cash grab?



...because i don't see taxes (or traffic tickets, for that matter) as cash grabs, mr tinfoil hat.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...because i don't see taxes (or traffic tickets, for that matter) as cash grabs, mr tinfoil hat.


Ahhhhhhhh.........ok, so I have to take your word for it? Awesome! Thanks....I wasn't informed on that.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> Ahhhhhhhh.........ok, so I have to take your word for it? Awesome! Thanks....I wasn't informed on that.


...you're welcome. my pleasure, in fact. its all a matter of perspective. some people see taxes and traffic fines as "cash grabs", some don't. consider yourself informed.

to me a cash grab is the hidden fees, added fees, incidentals etc etc etc that big businesss (enbridge, rogers, big oil, big pharma etc etc etc etc) use to suck money out of you and i so that their executives can live a life of royalty.

the money we contribute view our tax dollars actually comes back to us, in a myriad of ways. we actually benefit from it. perfect synergy, in my humble opinion.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

david henman said:


> ...you're welcome. my pleasure, in fact. its all a matter of perspective. some people see taxes and traffic fines as "cash grabs", some don't. consider yourself informed.
> 
> to me a cash grab is the hidden fees, added fees, incidentals etc etc etc that big businesss (enbridge, rogers, big oil, big pharma etc etc etc etc) use to suck money out of you and i so that their executives can live a life of royalty.
> 
> the money we contribute view our tax dollars actually comes back to us, in a myriad of ways. we actually benefit from it. perfect synergy, in my humble opinion.


In theory, that is 100% correct. However when it is not in the open and when it has not been explained in detail to the public (who is being hit with it) then it falls into the same category. This eco fee reeks of it.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> In theory, that is 100% correct. However when it is not in the open and when it has not been explained in detail to the public (who is being hit with it) then it falls into the same category. This eco fee reeks of it.



of course, but that is a separate issue. i am constantly ioffended by the manner in which my tax contributions are pissed away. 

example: the millions of people who use my tax dollars to try and avoid paying perfectly legitimate traffic fines.

of course, none of you have ever done that....


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

david henman said:


> of course, but that is a separate issue. i am constantly ioffended by the manner in which my tax contributions are pissed away.
> 
> example: the millions of people who use my tax dollars to try and avoid paying perfectly legitimate traffic fines.
> 
> of course, none of you have ever done that....


I have had very few traffic fines in my time, but here is an example for you that I am sure will piss you off. My son got pulled over for speeding last year, he also could not produce his ownership or insurance (although they were in the car) because he is a dumb shit when it comes to that stuff. The cop gave him a ticket for all of it and then proceeded to tell him to not bother paying it, just show up to court because he wont show up and it will be thrown out. I advised him not to play around and just pay it as he was at fault. He took the cops advice, showed up and it was thrown out. Waste of taxpayers money? You bet.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I have had very few traffic fines in my time, but here is an example for you that I am sure will piss you off. My son got pulled over for speeding last year, he also could not produce his ownership or insurance (although they were in the car) because he is a dumb shit when it comes to that stuff. The cop gave him a ticket for all of it and then proceeded to tell him to not bother paying it, just show up to court because he wont show up and it will be thrown out. I advised him not to play around and just pay it as he was at fault. He took the cops advice, showed up and it was thrown out. Waste of taxpayers money? You bet.


...we've all (well, most of us) used taxpayer $$ to try and avoid paying traffic fines, including me. the last time i did that, it hit me: i'm using taxpayer $$ for my own, personal benefit, for no other reason than to avoid paying a perfectly legitimate fine.

never again. 

its even more hypocritical to complain about the way our tax constributions are spent and yet feel as though we are "entitled" to use those same tax dollars for our own personal gain.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...we've all (well, most of us) used taxpayer $$ to try and avoid paying traffic fines, including me. the last time i did that, it hit me: i'm using taxpayer $$ for my own, personal benefit, for no other reason than to avoid paying a perfectly legitimate fine.
> 
> never again.
> 
> its even more hypocritical to complain about the way our tax constributions are spent and yet feel as though we are "entitled" to use those same tax dollars for our own personal gain.


Damn, this tinfoil hat is not blocking out these self righteous posts?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> Damn, this tinfoil hat is not blocking out these self righteous posts?


...yep, i can see that. must have hit a hot button.

perhaps, in your own inimitable way you're trying to tell us that you see no incongruity, hypocrisy or flawed logic in thinking that its okay to criticize the way our tax dollars are spent, yet still feel perfectly_ entitled _to use those tax dollars to try and avoid paying a perfectly legitimate traffic fine (using a system designed the assist the wrongly accused) for your own personal benefit.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...yep, i can see that. must have hit a hot button.
> 
> perhaps, in your own inimitable way you're trying to tell us that you see no incongruity, hypocrisy or flawed logic in thinking that its okay to criticize the way our tax dollars are spent, yet still feel perfectly_ entitled _to use those tax dollars to try and avoid paying a perfectly legitimate traffic fine (using a system designed the assist the wrongly accused) for your own personal benefit.


Well, in my 29 years of driving, I've only had two speeding fines and I paid them both, so you've used a poor example in my case.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

david henman said:


> ...we've all (well, most of us) used taxpayer $$ to try and avoid paying traffic fines, including me. the last time i did that, it hit me: i'm using taxpayer $$ for my own, personal benefit, for no other reason than to avoid paying a perfectly legitimate fine.
> 
> never again.
> 
> its even more hypocritical to complain about the way our tax constributions are spent and yet feel as though we are "entitled" to use those same tax dollars for our own personal gain.


I have never been to court for anything in my life, well once, for jury duty. Other than that I have never been in a courtroom for any reason. Any tickets I have ever gotten I paid, as I was at fault. However, I would have no issue fighting one that I thought I was not in the wrong. But to go back to my example above, you seemed to have missed the point that a) we are paying the salary of the police and b) they are clearly wasting our tax dollars in that example.

Also, you have to admit that in a city like Toronto they are taking full advantage of the fact that there is very little parking and way too many vehicles on the road. Parking around Ontario place is $20 a pop and they are making money hand over fist there.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

david henman said:


> the money we contribute view our tax dollars actually comes back to us, in a myriad of ways. we actually benefit from it. perfect synergy, in my humble opinion.


Actually no. The government has become a money black hole. It simply sucks up money and a few elite get new cars. Value-For-Money is no longer the focus. Spending and kickbacks have taken over. Government has become big business. This is why some Canadian government departments have been blocking the auditor general from conducting audits. The government has even worked with KPMG to change disclosure standards so that VFM becomes a non-issue, funding becomes a non-issue, what is the primary focus now is that money was spent and we need more.........


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

Accept2 said:


> Nope, the auditor general releases bits and pieces here and there, and the government always has to release financial information packages. It is written up under the PSHB, which is bullshit, but thats another story. Its all there for everyone to read. You wont find any good VFM stuff unfortunately, which is sad...........


Give us a link - I don't know where to look.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

mrmatt1972 said:


> Give us a link - I don't know where to look.


I wanted you to look, because the info isnt easy to find. Transparency is no longer there. You have to go to different departmental websites and get bits and pieces. Even the auditor general reports are about 5 years old.........
Federal Accountability Act
This is where everything should be..............


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i don't completely disagree with this, but it is a separate issue from the point i was making re using the system for you own personal benefit.




GuitarsCanada said:


> I have never been to court for anything in my life, well once, for jury duty. Other than that I have never been in a courtroom for any reason. Any tickets I have ever gotten I paid, as I was at fault. However, I would have no issue fighting one that I thought I was not in the wrong. But to go back to my example above, you seemed to have missed the point that a) we are paying the salary of the police and b) they are clearly wasting our tax dollars in that example.
> 
> Also, you have to admit that in a city like Toronto they are taking full advantage of the fact that there is very little parking and way too many vehicles on the road. Parking around Ontario place is $20 a pop and they are making money hand over fist there.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> Actually no. The government has become a money black hole. It simply sucks up money and a few elite get new cars. Value-For-Money is no longer the focus. Spending and kickbacks have taken over. Government has become big business. This is why some Canadian government departments have been blocking the auditor general from conducting audits. The government has even worked with KPMG to change disclosure standards so that VFM becomes a non-issue, funding becomes a non-issue, what is the primary focus now is that money was spent and we need more.........


...if that is true, then i am REALLY curious to know who is paying for our roads, schools, hospitals etc etc etc.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...if that is true, then i am REALLY curious to know who is paying for our roads, schools, hospitals etc etc etc.


Its a combination of kiting, debt and printing money. One is illegal for non-government people to do, and the other 2 are dangerous because they give you short term gain and long term pain. Of course when youre only thinking in 4 year terms, all you think about is the here and now, **** the future..............


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> Its a combination of kiting, debt and printing money. One is illegal for non-government people to do, and the other 2 are dangerous because they give you short term gain and long term pain. Of course when youre only thinking in 4 year terms, all you think about is the here and now, **** the future..............


...now i have to find a translator. thanks.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...now i have to find a translator. thanks.


With the changes to public disclosure, we all will soon need one.........


----------

