Dear Editor:
RE: The sooner the better, March 14.
Over a century ago our federal government duped our ancestors into believing that income tax was only a temporary tax to help finance the war effort. The war has been over for more than a century, and we all know what happened to that temporary tax (April 30 is looming closer and closer).
I firmly believe that the more resources we surrender to a given entity (in this case the federal government), the more enslaved we become to that particular entity. What I see as particularly sinister about the tax, besides the resources we will forced to give up, is the information we will be required to give up just to get some or less likely, most, of that resource back.
As a case in point, Ron Moore disclosed his fuel consumption last year (1,168 litres) with a few basic assumptions: 1) his vehicle averaged 7 litres per 100km, and 2) about 20% of his overall consumption was for personal use, based on a 50-week work year, he would work a little less than 20km from where he lives.
Something Moore did not point out about his gasoline consumption, was the carbon footprint required to refine the crude oil into the gasoline he consumed. Nor did he point out the carbon footprint required to transport the crude oil to the refinery and then the footprint required to transport the gasoline to his service station.
In conclusion, if Moore is truly concerned for the environment, given that he is less than 20 km from his workplace, he could choose to ride a bicycle to work. Even if he did it 50% of the time, according to his calculations, there would 1.35 fewer tonnes of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere every year.
After all, he would be much healthier for the added exercise, and the world would be a little healthier for the reduced emissions.
And all done without the idiotic “cruelty tax.”
Wayne Baker,
Wellington North