User talk:Ericbwalton

Obviously even a "partial shift" from redistributive taxation is still a shift and diminishes the redistributive effect of the progressive tax system. There is nothing in the "Green Tax Shift" that redresses the negative impact upon redistribution. Homey 01:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you can then adjust for this unwanted consequence by changing the tax rates/categories as appropriate to retain the same redistributive effect as the progressive tax system. You can also provide an eco-tax rebate similar to the GST rebate for those who pay no tax. Accelerating the shift to environmental sustainability through applying true cost pricing will ultimately benefit those on lower income most because they have the least resources to move or adapt to environmental degradation as can those with higher incomes. EricbWalton


 * Eric, please read our Neutral Point of View policy. Writing things like: Critics of the this revenue-neutral and partial Green Tax shift also failed to appreciate, or chose to ignore for partisan reasons is clearly not neutral writing. Also, the fact that the tax shift is revenue neutral or partial is irrelevent to the point about it being regressive. I'm semi-protecting the article temporarily - will lift protection early next week. In the mean time, please read up on our policies so as to avoid making polemical edits. Homey 03:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you also read up on regressive taxation. Homey 03:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, remove "chose to ignore"  though this did (and is) happening still in the political world, but your last comment has proven my "failed to appreciate" reference. The Green Tax Shift would not violate the Green Party commitment to social justice because it would be introduced as a package of changes. This is directly relevant to a page which discusses a political parties agenda. The onus should be on the person trying to prove the Party has abandoned this social justice value by proving that there are no political plans to offset the impact of the green tax shift on income redistribution. And I can tell you for a fact there are. EricbWalton


 * You're dodging the issue. The question isn't does the Green Tax Shift alter the party's commitment to social justice (that's really a subjective question, isn't it?). It's whether or not the Green Tax Shift is a regressive tax. As far as I can tell, you are trying to spin the issue without actually addressing the question and I'm afraid wikipedia has a low tolerance for spin.Homey 03:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not dodging the issue and I am certainly not spinning. I worked on the Green Tax Shift policy of the platform and the Party has built into its application the compensatory adjustments I mention above. This is fact not spin. Is this not relevant to an accurate portrayal of the Green Party?

On a second point I checked on the "semi-protecting" rules and found this "Semi-protection is intended to allow good edits to be made while preventing vandalism of the page. There are some situations in which it should not be applied. It is:

not to be used to deal with regular content disputes. See the protection policy for how to deal with this;"

And I also read that a NPOV violation is not considered "vandalism". What is going on here?

EricbWalton

I'm a bit concerned that, as a former GPC candidate, you were trying to rewrite the article as a GPC puff piece. Anyway, I've reread the policy and you're right so I'll lift the protection. However, please be advised that if you do engage in partisan editing it will be noticed (not by me, I'm going away for a few days) and dealt with promptly. Homey 04:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to "puff" anything but simply state the truth. It is precisely because I was involved in developing the additional policy aspects of the Green Tax Shift in order to make sure it did not violate Green Party of Canada commitment to social justice that I was able to discern the mistake! thank-you for acknowledging that the semi-protection application was not appropriate in this content debate. Eric Walton

P.S. I take strong exception to the claim that I am trying to distort the truth because I am involved with the Green Party. Does this mean every person that makes a change is obliged to state their political affiliations and are now automatically suspect if they support or voted for another political party. Lets please stick to the truth and not try to undermine the credibility of others. I would simply ask for a direct example of something I have changed that is not accurate.

Eco-capialist label
I don't believe it to be POV, however, that doesn't mean I'm right. I'll compermise and put a POV-check tag on the article. That way a neutral 3rd party can go over the entire article for POV statements. Ardenn 23:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful. Ardenn 23:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Eric, the term "eco-capitalist" refers to a genuine political stream of thought so to dismiss it as NDP rhetoric is incorrect. See the eco-capitalism article and compare it to the policies of the GPC under Jim Harris. Can you identify what in the GPC platform contradicts eco-capitalism? And remember, eco-capitalism isn't the sole identifier for the GPC but one of two in the same manner as the NDP is identified as both social democratic and democratic socialist in recognition of the two most prominent streams in that party (not withstanding the fact that many of the NDP's opponents use the "socialist" label in the same manner against the NDP that you suggest NDPers use the "eco-capitalist" label against the GPC.Homey 23:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Eco-Capitalist" may be a genuine stream of thought but it is an inaccurate tag to put on the Green Party of Canada.

Here are direct sections taken from the 2006 Platform which an "Eco-Capitalist" Party would not say. This is factual data. The "Eco-Capitalist" label is a POV claim. At the MINIMUM if there is an insistance on using that label in the Wikipedia then it has to be balanced with "Eco-Socialist" and "Eco-Centrist"  or less awkwardly what I formerly wrote "Eco-Pragmatism".

From our 2006 Platform - Trade Plank

Canadian corporations flock towards free trade zones to bypass environmental regulations and exploit cheap labour. In trade agreements such as NAFTA, a foreign investor has the right to seek compensation from our government if Canada enacts a law that results in the loss of revenue for the investor. These agreements essentially put a foreign company's rights over those of Canada. It limits our sovereignty and can paralyze our government's will to enact new environmental and human rights laws. Canada's interests have also been harmed by the United States' refusal to respect NAFTA and WTO trade rulings in favour of Canada over the softwood lumber dispute. It makes one wonder why the U.S. signs free trade agreements, if they don't believe in free trade?

To address some of these issues, citizens around the world have set up international networks to create their own brand of trade - fair trade. International fair trade networks build direct links between producers and consumers ensuring that labour standards and environmental laws are respected. The Green Party's vision of trade articulates itself around innovative policies like fair trade. We can make sure that when Canada trades with other countries it also shares its vision of a just and sustainable society instead of trading away our rights for foreign interests.

We must renegotiate these trade agreements and put Canada's interests and the environment first.

Green Party MPs will work to:

• 	Renegotiate our multilateral trade agreements, such as NAFTA and the upcoming FTAA, to include fair trade tariffs that work to protect human rights and our ecosystems, as well as terminate investor-state dispute mechanisms that erode Canada's sovereignty and environmental laws. • 	Propose a reform of the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank, placing these institutions under the authority of the UN general assembly, and shift the direction of international trade away from "free trade" to "fair trade" focusing on the global protection of human rights, labour standards, cultural diversity, and ecosystems.

From our 2006 Election Platform - Housing Plank:

Affordable housing and community services play a major role in social inclusion of otherwise stigmatized and marginalized social groups. The Green Party understands that in the long run, investment in affordable housing and community services provides us with healthier communities with less social inequalities. This in turn leads to greater independence, reduction in poverty and a reduction in crime. With its short-term vision, the Liberal government seems unable or unwilling to make such connections.

From our 2006 Election Platform - Education Plank:

Accountability, accessibility and adequate funding are what Canada's education system demands. The Green Party recognizes the need to freeze and subsequently reduce tuition fees across the country, as well as creating needs-based grants to address the student debt crisis. We can fund an accessible post-secondary education system, help foster research and innovation and assist workers by providing flexible training and education for life-long learning. The Green Party sees education as instrumental in developing creativity and equality as the foundation of safe and healthy communities

From our 2006 Election Platform - Tax Plank:

Taxes are one tool governments have to shape society. For instance, both the Conservatives and Liberals have used our tax system to benefit corporations. Just in the last 5 years, federal corporate taxes have been reduced by almost 8 per cent as corporate profits hit record highs.

Meanwhile the cost of living for ordinary Canadians has increased. Canadians are spending more and saving less, which means working Canadians are having a harder time covering the groceries and providing for their families. Instead of more corporate tax cuts, our tax system should guide the economic priorities of Canadians by lowering taxes for working Canadians and reducing poverty rates. We can do this by shifting taxes away from jobs and employment, and onto pollution and non-sustainable products, thereby freeing up funding for social programs while encouraging new infrastructure.

Ericbwalton 03:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

We are not describing the GPC as a purely eco-capitalist party, simply as one in which eco-capitalism is an influence. Surely you cannot deny that. Homey

There are also many other influences. Include them all in describing the Party or none at all. To insist only on the Eco-Capitalist label is POV and not accurate. Just look at the Foreign Trade Section. An Eco-Capitalist Party would never say this type of thing. Eric Ericbwalton 04:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No one is asking for "only" an eco-captalist label. There are two, green and eco-capitalist. Homey 06:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Green does not have a specific meaning in terms of "ideology" so attaching the label "Eco-Capitalism"  effectively is saying "Eco-Capitalist Green"  which does not encompass the variety of perspectives reflected in the Platform and members of the Party. This response however is very revealing in that it ignores the valid points made earlier above. This level of response reinforces my contention that this is a POV entry and is invalid. Ericbwalton 02:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Ardenn 05:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the The-revert rule rule. I limited my revert to "pragmatic ecological" to two reverts within 24 hrs, the third revert was leaving the entry as simply "Green" and proposing mediation which is a different edit proposal. We are clearly at an impasse in the general program definition of the Green Party of Canada and I believe mediation is required. I am confident I have the evidence to factually back up my claims that a "pragmatic ecological" priority is the foundation to a wide variety of platform and policy approaches. Ericbwalton  Ericbwalton

Ardenn, it would appear we need to "negotiate" formally first before I can seek mediation. Are you willing to seek/enter into a win-win negotiated solution to this diagreement? Ericbwalton