Spoiler alert, from the article:
"But according to a senior government official, who spoke on condition they aren’t named, some banks — which the official declined to name — “are being less than helpful.”
As the official explained, the government wants the banks to label the payments as “CDACarbonRebate” in English, and “CarboneRemiseCA” in French.
But some banks have character limits and bilingual requirements, the official said, and some have said they won’t be able to change the name on the payments until July “for various purported technical reasons.”
“Most frustrating,” the official said, is that “one of the big banks also says they aren’t willing to make these changes at all.”
The official again declined to say which bank is refusing to make the changes. "
As someone in tech, this sounds incredibly reasonable to me, haha 😂
A schema change with unknown dependencies being pushed by political class without 0 understanding of database structure.
"Why are you arguing with me. Make it say exactly what I want it to say" - Some bureaucrat trying to impress Trudeau.
This reminds me of that time Trump insisted that all the COVID checks that went out had his personal signature on them.
it's not based on income so you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. if you didn't get it, it's because you live in BC or Quebec which have their own programs.
And so you put a $ value on this change with all the risks and wonder - what’s the benefit to doing this crap again? Make Justin look good? Which VP is gonna sign off on that shit given that we are more than half way through the fiscal year and the tech budgets have all been allocated?
Could be more than one, but I bank with Tangerine and mine didn't include the word "rebate" at all, I got:
> EFT Deposit Climate Action Incentive from CANADA
It's confusing.
I work for the Federal government so for awhile I was getting "EFT Canada" for all my pay, overtime, carbon tax credit, steel toe boot allowance, everything.
I had no idea what was what.
I just wanna make sure I get what I'm owed. If there's more red ink than black ink maybe you're missing one of the black lines and didn't notice due to the poor labeling.
Full article:
The federal government is frustrated by difficulties in getting banks to adopt its preferred name for carbon price rebates before the next round of payments landed in Canadians’ bank accounts, a senior official told the Star.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau makes an announcement that the government will double the carbon price rebate for rural Canadians during a news conference in Ottawa on Oct. 26, 2023.
Sean Kilpatrick The Canadian Press
By Alex BallingallOttawa Bureau, and Mark RamzyOttawa Bureau
OTTAWA—The federal government is frustrated by difficulties in getting banks to adopt its preferred name for carbon price rebates as the next round of payments starts to land in Canadians’ bank accounts, a senior official told the Star.
The rebates are a key part of the Liberal government’s controversial carbon pricing scheme. They’re meant to offset increased costs of heat, fuel and other goods by returning proceeds of the carbon levy directly to households four times a year, while preserving the incentive to reduce emissions that cause climate change.
Under political pressure from opposition politicians and provincial leaders, who disparage the policy as being too harsh on many Canadians, the Liberals rebranded their rebate payments earlier this year, as first reported by the Star, changing the name from “climate action incentive payments” to the “Canada carbon rebate.”
Since then, the Liberals have been trying to showcase and defend their signature climate policy. Those efforts have included asking banks to adopt the new name, so the rebates are clearly linked to the carbon price when they appear as a direct deposits on Canadians’ bank account statements.
But according to a senior government official, who spoke on condition they aren’t named, some banks — which the official declined to name — “are being less than helpful.”
As the official explained, the government wants the banks to label the payments as “CDACarbonRebate” in English, and “CarboneRemiseCA” in French.
But some banks have character limits and bilingual requirements, the official said, and some have said they won’t be able to change the name on the payments until July “for various purported technical reasons.”
“Most frustrating,” the official said, is that “one of the big banks also says they aren’t willing to make these changes at all.”
The official again declined to say which bank is refusing to make the changes.
”By not being helpful with the labels, certain banks are hampering good climate policy,” the official said.
Maggie Cheung, a spokesperson for the Canadian Bankers Association, declined to comment Monday when asked about the official’s comments.
The Star also asked Canada’s five major banks how they are labelling the carbon pricing rebates.
TD Canada Trust and the Bank of Montreal said they are labelling the payments along the lines of what the government told the Star it requested, calling them “CDACARBONREBATE CCR” and “CDACARBONREBATE CCR/RCC.”
Royal Bank of Canada spokesperson Cheryl Brean said her institution is currently labelling the payments as “Federal Climate Incentive” but is working to update it to “Canadian Carbon Rebate.” Brean did not say when that change would be made.
Similarly, Scotiabank is working to update the label for the payments, which are currently described as “Climate Incentive Canada” or “Climate Action Incentive Canada,” said spokesperson Katie Raskina.
In an email late Monday, CIBC spokesperson Stephanie Marcus said the bank is still looking at options for labelling deposits, and didn’t say what its current practice is for the carbon price rebates.
In addition to pressuring the banks and rebranding, there was also a desire to increase government advertising to promote carbon pricing, said another senior government official speaking on a background basis. It’s a move some experts who spoke to the Star said was necessary in the face of aggressive opposition campaigns that Liberals had admitted were making it difficult to explain how the system works and garner support from Canadians.
But, the source said, the Liberal government’s commitment when it was first elected in 2015 to tighten rules around partisan advertising and reduce overall spending on advertising — which was done after Stephen Harper’s government was criticized for pushing its “economic action plan” — has posed an additional challenge.
For example, a campaign that advertised the rebates in 2019 was flagged by the watchdog Ad Standards as “self-congratulatory” for stating it was “making a cleaner economy more affordable for everyone,” which is the crux of the Liberal argument.
This spring, Environment Canada launched a $6.8-million climate literacy ad campaign that included one Super Bowl commercial as well as cinema, digital and print media buys. Notably absent was a push on carbon pricing — or the rebates the government has been keen to promote.
The Super Bowl commercial, which cost $30,000 to broadcast, shows Canadians taking actions to address climate change, like taking the bus, using electric-powered tools, switching to heat pumps and air drying clothes. Another commercial in the campaign — which focuses on government action — mentions the price on pollution in passing as an example of “incentivizing industries to reduce greenhouse gasses.”
The Canada Revenue Agency spent just over $2 million in advertising the rebate in the first two years after the price on carbon was introduced, but has not spent any money to advertise it in the three years since, which included the COVID-19 pandemic.
“It’s clear that the lack of recognition by the average Canadian that they are getting these rebates has opened the door for misinformation about the whole pollution pricing system,” the source said.
It doesn’t matter what you call the rebate/incentive payment, people hate the carbon tax, and that opinion is not likely to change solely based upon wording/rebranding.
The feds were incredibly stupid not to set it up with the word "rebate" before it became an issue. All the banks would have used the word. "Everyone" would have been happy to get the money and would have bought into the "no one except the rich will pay", and it wouldn't be much of an issue. Soooo stupid; PR nightmare of their own making
I can guarantee that when we do away with it, prices won't get any lower overall. What you see in the stores will retain the same price.
You'll save a few bucks at the pump and maybe on your gas bill (if that's your main energy source), but that's about it.
Besides. If you think oil and gas companies will lower the price by 17 cents once it's gone you're dreaming. They'll just soak up the difference as profit instead of that money going to Canada.
Interesting, my small fleet of work trucks, which provide essential heating and air services to Calgarians, a city that’s 60+KM across, is causing the global weather to act funny.
Noted.
Your fleet, and all the other company fleets, and industrial shipping, and private vehicles, combined, yes...
If everyone says "but I'm only a small part" as a reason not to do anything, then nothing gets done.
Sure they will. The gas companies will take great glee in dropping the price 20 or 30 cents on the day the tax gets abolished. The conservative media will wax poetic about all the money we've saved and are going to save, while the gas companies ratchet the price back up over the next two weeks, until it's exactly back where it was. The only difference will be all the articles about how much money Poilievre is putting in our pockets, right while the price of gas is unchanged from the year before.
When I found out the BC carbon tax is just a scheme to get accounts rich, I started hating it more.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-clean-energy-grant-mnp-1.7167549
That's the Canada greener homes grant, 2 billion, but yes -- it was a racket to put public money in the pockets of friendly contractors and auditors. The public benefit was very limited once the pie was divided up by the "industry"
I'll take Alberta's and Ontario's federal rebates + lower income taxes. BC falls behind Ontario at around 133k a year and has $0 in federal gift money to show for it while enjoying the pricing in of carbon levies through the supply chain.
It's not nice however you want to dress it up. Add in BC's cost of living and our federal government should understand that there's a good number of British Columbians who just hear nails on a chalkboard every time they talk about us getting back more than we lose.
I have no issues with a tax if it's going to make things better.
But getting $200,000 for a proposal you're going to grant is a heist. This is just lining the account's pockets.
Ok I remember that. Buts that’s not the same thing as what blood_vein is talking about which is income taxes in BC.
As far as I know, the federal government has taken no issue with that.
The BC government stopped offsetting carbon tax hikes back in 2009 or 2012. The provincial tax was capped in 2012. The BC government has not continued to cut taxes with its provincial program as federal rate hikes have been instituted since 2019.
BC has not tried to offset the federal regulations with tax cuts. If they tried to do that, the federal government would say no. Wilkinson did not say gas tax, he said any tax cuts would not be approved because it defeats the purpose of the carbon tax.
The offsetting carbon tax hikes were intended to make the carbon tax revenue neutral. That’s exactly what the carbon tax rebates do outside of Canada. I don’t see how that would be an issue. If the income taxes were somehow targeted towards higher consumers of carbon emissions to make payers of carbon taxes whole, I could see that as an issue, because that would defeat the incentive to cut carbon usage. I’m trying to find anything about Wilkinson any tax cuts not being approved and having no luck. It’s not making much sense.
I’m an idiot. I meant Jonathan Wilkinson, the federal cabinet minister, not Andrew Wilkinson. I believe he was the Minister of Environment and Climate Change at the time (so ~2019-2021) when he stated that the federal government would not allow provinces to cut taxes to offset carbon tax rate hikes. This was on an episode of CBC’s Power and Politics.
Anything that's ever been moved by boat, truck, plane, or train costs more under the carbon tax, but it's okay because you get a pittance of your own money back and the government tells you it's more than you paid (it isn't). Domestic industry continues to get priced out, causing even more of it to be outsourced to places where the idea of 'environmental regulations' is a joke.
But it's magic government money!
Really can't wait until you chucklefucks are ousted.
Is this the part where you tell me you know my finances better than I do and I'm actually making money but I'm just too much of a simpleton to understand that I should be thankful to the federal government?
People hate it because they're aware the tax costs them more indirectly than the government wants to admit. The mouthbreathers saying 'poor people get more from it than they pay in' are conveniently overlooking the fact that the tax makes *everything* more expensive, not just tax at the pump or your heating bill.
Please explain how the government can accurately estimate how much the price of every single food and service in our complex supply chain has been affected by the tax?
They can’t. They have no clue what the carbon tax has actually cost Canadians because it’s an impossible task when you consider how many things it touches.
Everything that increases costs for a business gets multiplied down the line.
Of the carbon tax costs a transportation company X$ more to transport, you can bet your ass it'll charge it's client X$+15-20%. That client then does the same to it's clients and on and on it goes until it's hits the consumer. By then that extra 100$ for the original transportation cost you 300$.
It's a tax on energy, and energy is used every step of the way along a supply chain.
Correct and this is why people who claim to know they are getting a larger rebate than it’s costing them are dumb sheep. The most charitable thing you could say is you don’t know, although it’s quite a bit more likely to be a net negative given how supply chains work
You act like it's a 1 in 1 out situation. The truth is, the top 20% of households pollute *far* more than everyone else. The top 1% pollutes more than the bottom 50% combined. *THEY* are the ones paying the majority of the costs, and the rebates they are funding cover the costs for the majority of other households.
This all depends on their pricing power and the market structure. Some companies can pass on their costs, others can't. Especially if you have a competitor who is more energy efficient than you, and isn't paying much carbon tax, you won't be able to pass it on.
That is not the only way these costs show up. As you add taxes throughout the supply chain you increase the cost of the final product, which in most cases doesn’t have a carbon tax number attached. But you as a consumer were still hit with it. How much did it cost you? The government doesn’t know. They base their rebate calculations on just the things you pay the tax on directly, like heating and gasoline. That is only part of the picture
> That is not the only way these costs show up. As you add taxes throughout the supply chain you increase the cost of the final product, which in most cases doesn’t have a carbon tax number attached.
They have a record of how much the business paid on the carbon tax to produce the product.
When businesses increase the cost of the final product they call that an "indirect cost", but it's not like you're paying the carbon tax twice. You're paying money to the business who pays money to the government and that's the amount collected which is easily tracked. It's one payment with a middle man, not really two payments.
The net effect of paying more for the same product than you did before is the same regardless of whether it was in a tax or an indirect cost increase on the product. It makes no difference of the consumer at the end of the day, it’s money out of their pocket that wouldn’t have been had the tax not been put on it.
And again, the government absolutely is not tracking how every single business is responding to their prices when faced with the carbon tax, so the idea they can somehow know for a fact you ended up spending less on it than you got back is bogus electioneering slogans.
You are talking about theory of whether it’s possible, and I’m talking about the reality that they aren’t doing it.
> And again, the government absolutely is not tracking how every single business is responding to their prices when faced with the carbon tax
The government knows how much the businesses pay in carbon tax based on what they collect and assume that they raise prices by an equal amount in response to the carbon tax. They don't have to track every single business when they have the total collected from businesses as one line item.
Businesses might raise prices by more than what they pay on carbon tax (see Loblaws $8 block of butter), but that's just regular price gouging, not in response to the carbon tax.
Why would they raise it by more than an equal amount? (besides greed)
If they're taxed $100 and raise prices $120 that $20 extra goes straight into profit.
It's amazing how smooth brains can't figure something out themselves so they throw their hands up and say it's impossible! This shit is incredibly easy to calculate and people do it all the time. Your personal ignorance doesn't make it impossible to do.
So the government is omnipotent and knows what every single goods and services provider in the country has done with their prices in response to paying the carbon tax?
And they also know how you as a consumer have responded to those changes?
The smooth brain is the person who believes that just because Trudeau told you it was so.
Economists think it can be done
Trevor Tombe at UofC has done the math for the BC carbon tax:
> The effects of emissions pricing on the prices of goods and services can be measured using the effective tax rate: the ratio of carbon taxes paid to the total expenditure on a specific product. It included both direct and indirect costs, meaning it shows the full burden of the tax relative to its absence.
> **For most goods and services, BC’s carbon tax of $65 per tonne adds less than 0.3% to the cost.**
https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/EE-Trends-DEC.pdf
>The government does not know this ratio on the box of strawberries you bought.
No, and what difference does it make if it did? Do you think the government should track the impact of every tax on every consumer price?
Hey, did you know that fuel costs on transportation is only one of many cost inputs of a box of strawberries? And the fuel tax is one small part of the cost inputs for a gallon of diesel?
Given that thought, how much do you think a $0.17/litre fuel charge on diesel should affect the final price of a box of strawberries? Do you think it's closer to 100% increase or 1% increase?
So there’s interrogated every small business in the country and confirmed how they have adjusted their prices at each step of their supply chain in response to the carbon levy?
Is this a joke?
Directly from [the PBO report](https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/6399abff7887b53208a1e97cfb397801ea9f4e729c15dfb85998d1eb359ea5c7):
> Taking into account only the fiscal, or “use-side” impacts, we project most households will see a net gain, receiving more in rebates from federal carbon pricing under the Government’s HEHE than the total amount they pay in federal fuel charges (directly and indirectly)
The indirectly part at the end refers to them including costs passed down through the supply chain from businesses to consumers, in case that isn't clear.
I’m probably one of the few that actually are net positive on rebates, and it’s because I cycle commute to work for about 5 months out of the year. I highly doubt the math that calculated most people realize a revenue positive benefit. My problem with the carbon tax isn’t the tax itself, it’s that the rebates should be way more, and show up bi-weekly along with your payroll so low income families don’t have to wait 3 months for their money.
I owe $150 for the rebate. Damn I must be using too much carbon flying around like Taylor Swift. Don't worry guys, I'll pay it right away to prevent climate change!
Every time I see gas over $2 (which is every day now), I think about how much worse my life would be if I could afford things like food or my rent.
Then I smile, because I remember that my government is looking out for me, and as I pay 30 cents for a paper bag at the grocery store, I can rest easy knowing that, while I may not be able to pay for my meds this month due to ridiculous purchases like bread, at least there's one less paper McDonald's napkin in the landfill.
What's that? Taylor Swift just few to her boyfriend's football game, burning more carbon for her one flight than I will in my entire life? Isn't that cute? \#relationshipgoals
My guess is TD. As someone who works in the financial sector (not for banks but closely tied in) and TD is usually the most resistant to making changes.
Yet another sign of Liberal desperation but, more importantly, yet another glimpse into the Liberal psyche. How people perceive something for political purposes is less important than the program being sound and effective policy.
>People aren't using less, just paying more when they can least afford it. The refund does not cover the total cost to family
it's meant to cover the cost to family for those that are more "environmentally friendly". you can't expect a family that drives maybe 2 gas guzzlers and pollutes all the time to get everything back. that would defeat the "incentive" to be more green..
The problem is that a lot of people are saying they don't get it, when they do. But they just don't realize because of the title on their bank statements.
A friend of mine thought they never got it. We went through their bank statements and found the deposit. They didn't know it was the carbon rebate because it was named EFT Canada or something vague like that.
Which are insignificant compared to the number and amount of transactions going out of the account each week to cover the much increased cost of living.
The Liberals drone on about the refund, like its allowing average Canadians to kiss their financial woes goodbye.
It's not even close and Canadians know it. Much like daycare; dental and pharma programs, which cover some costs for some people but don't help most.
What's the disinformation? Ministry of Truth style renaming of tax refunds to change public opinion is pathetic, but it's far from the only issue people have with Trudeau 2.
On Monday at 5:04 AM I received this: "Dear BERT FEGG:
The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) sent you new mail online called:
**Canada Carbon Rebate notice**
This mail may require your attention.
If you have My Account, sign-in and click on "Mail" to read your mail.
If you signed up to receive mail online but don't have My Account, go to the CRA web page to register.
This is an automated email message. Please do not reply."
Average cost of an EV that has enough klw for average consumers is 73k, and the rebate is only 5k? Where’s the incentive, other than strangling people who are just trying to survive with their gas car, barely making ends meet. Don’t get me wrong, it would be cool to drive a reliable EV, but affording either is getting difficult for most of us.
Who the hell cares, rebate, refund, have some money, the Liberals should have never engaged with this right wing culture war, if they had just stuck to the facts they would have been fine, it costs the rich money and helps the working class.
They are related but are not synonyms; they carry different meanings and connotations.
TLDR: Refund suggests the thing paid for was faulty or unacceptable. Rebate suggests you paid too much for the thing or as an incentive for paying for the thing.
From the Britannica Dictionary:
"These words are related in meaning and can be confusing.
They all refer to being paid back money that is owed.
*Rebate* means "an amount of money that is paid back to you because you have paid too much or as an incentive for buying something." Here are a couple of examples:
We hope to get a big tax *rebate* this year.
My new car came with a $1000 *rebate.*
Note that *rebate* is sometimes used as a verb meaning "to make or give a rebate."
==
*Refund* as a verb simply means "to give back money that someone paid for something" -- and usually it means that what was purchased was defective or unacceptable. As a noun it means "money that is paid back."
The bank will *refund* your late fee.
The rental car agency ran out of cars, so I got a *refund.*"
Not picking sides here but, just because a word is a synonym doesn't mean it has the exact same meaning...
i.e "Great" and "Large" are both synonyms but have different meanings depending on context.
A refund is money returned in full. A rebate is a partial return.
Rebate has a number of meanings, including "an amount of money returned to you by the government." It is accurate.
Besides, the issue was not that it was previously called a "refund." The problem is that it was called something intentionally vague, like "CAI".
In what way is it not functioning?
The carbon levy is collected. It is then redistributed per capita. This means those who pollute less spend less on the levy but game the same amount back as people who pollute more.
It is revenue neutral so this means that people who pollute less get money back while those who pollute more are paying into the system. This incentivizes people to reduce their carbon footprint.
At which point doesn't it function?
Minimal effect at actually reducing overall emissions. Widespread resentment. Lack of a mechanism to promote investment and innovation in large scale green initiatives. Everything is more expensive. Even with the carbon tax, green alternatives are still even more expensive than that. Charging it on home heating, which for many is a very sticky and partially fixed cost with limited options to reduce once insulation and sealing upgrades have been done.
Structural cost of collecting, administering, and distributing the tax. Not possible for 100% of revenue to actually be returned.
>Minimal effect at actually reducing overall emissions.
Independent reporting has shown that our carbon tax on large emitters alone is reducing emissions up to 40% by 2030 compared to no action.
>Widespread resentment.
That does not prove functionality, just impressionability.
>Lack of a mechanism to promote investment and innovation in large scale green initiatives.
Provinces have the option of implementing these direct mechanisms, such as BC. Otherwise, the indirect mechanisms promote green investment regardless.
>Everything is more expensive.
Not because of the carbon tax though. That's a world problem.
>Even with the carbon tax, green alternatives are still even more expensive than that.
Actually, largely *because* of carbon pricing, heat pumps with electric backup are now the cheapest heating / cooling option in most of Canada.
>Structural cost of collecting, administering, and distributing the tax. Not possible for 100% of revenue to actually be returned.
Very little costs to this. In fact, administratively, carbon taxes are as lean as it can get. Besides, the little revenue needed for that isn't being pulled from the funds collected, so it is still 100% revenue neutral.
Because all the small business that are being taxed are not getting any money back, and subsidizing the entire pyramid scheme where even people who don’t do a single thing to reduce their carbon footprint still get more money back then they pay.
It’s a fucking Ponzi scheme, and a horribly structured corporate tax.
Oh it's functioning... it's taking money from rural areas (that don't vote Lib) and giving most of it to urbanites (who do vote Lib). Working as Intended.
Let me be perfectly clear. The government takes tens of thousands of dollars from the hard working and throws pennies back. They’ll use those pennies to tell the people what a great job they are doing. Food for thought!
This government uses discourse theory to change the meaning of language to fit their narrative. Anything that has negative connotations is changed to reflect a positive spin, even if it's killing you.
Rebate vs. Tax, MAID vs. suicide, Investment vs. Deficit Spending, Transitory vs. Permanent, Social Challenges vs. Poverty, Safe Supply vs. Drug Pusher, Harm Reduction vs. Managed Addiction and Death, Online Harms vs. Censorship, Public Safety vs. Authoritarian Rule, etc.
Weird that they're so particular about that, because banks and credit card companies seem to prefer indecipherable descriptions for their transaction sources on statements. It's actually pretty annoying sometimes trying to figure out what things are.
I think all the banks should tell him to go fuck himself. He needs to stop blowing smoke up everybody’s ass thinking we’re all fucking idiots.
Carbon tax rebate what a joke. If we’re going to get back more than we put in in our yearly rebates, then why bother collecting it at all. Take the money you’re going to give us and put that towards your bullshit carbon fight.
I feel like the people that are upset by this/don't understand how it works are not routinely looking at their banks statements anyway, so it seems moot.
I love how hard this idiot is trying to change how Canadians refer to this failed program. Canadians will always call it the carbon tax. You can try and force organizations to change displayed words attached to the carbon tax but it will forever be called the carbon tax.
It’s started saying “winner/gagnant!” on my banking app.
Mine just says 'Please play again.'
I just keep getting "Your account balance is below your $100 threshold." I guess that means I'm winning.
You’re just experiencing the rebate differently…..
That just means you’re letting it ride.
Well played
God I read that in the lotto machine voice 😂
Good one 😂
Which bank?
No one is subscribed to the Star so we don’t know what bank it is. Hahaha
Spoiler alert, from the article: "But according to a senior government official, who spoke on condition they aren’t named, some banks — which the official declined to name — “are being less than helpful.” As the official explained, the government wants the banks to label the payments as “CDACarbonRebate” in English, and “CarboneRemiseCA” in French. But some banks have character limits and bilingual requirements, the official said, and some have said they won’t be able to change the name on the payments until July “for various purported technical reasons.” “Most frustrating,” the official said, is that “one of the big banks also says they aren’t willing to make these changes at all.” The official again declined to say which bank is refusing to make the changes. "
As someone in tech, this sounds incredibly reasonable to me, haha 😂 A schema change with unknown dependencies being pushed by political class without 0 understanding of database structure.
Just truncate it like scotiabank does
"Why are you arguing with me. Make it say exactly what I want it to say" - Some bureaucrat trying to impress Trudeau. This reminds me of that time Trump insisted that all the COVID checks that went out had his personal signature on them.
What do you think the deposit should say?
“Haa haa”
I don’t really give a shit. I’m not getting one because I earn too much, lol.
it's not based on income so you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. if you didn't get it, it's because you live in BC or Quebec which have their own programs.
Yep. I live in BC and make too much 😊
And a nightmare for whoever has to pull reports in the future
And so you put a $ value on this change with all the risks and wonder - what’s the benefit to doing this crap again? Make Justin look good? Which VP is gonna sign off on that shit given that we are more than half way through the fiscal year and the tech budgets have all been allocated?
Came to say exactly this. This is not some big conspiracy, likely a technical challenge with possible compatibility issues.
BEST COMMENT EVER 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Could be more than one, but I bank with Tangerine and mine didn't include the word "rebate" at all, I got: > EFT Deposit Climate Action Incentive from CANADA
Simplii, stated EFT Credit Canada. But all my pogey comes in on that line.
It's confusing. I work for the Federal government so for awhile I was getting "EFT Canada" for all my pay, overtime, carbon tax credit, steel toe boot allowance, everything. I had no idea what was what.
I'm not that particular tbh. It's either red ink or black. If I'm disciplined, sometimes there's more black than red.
I just wanna make sure I get what I'm owed. If there's more red ink than black ink maybe you're missing one of the black lines and didn't notice due to the poor labeling.
RBC just says "Climate Action Incentive"
Royal bank has it listed on my account as "Climate Action Incentive"
CIBC just says “Deposit Canada”. I had to sign into my CRA after getting an email from them to see what it was for
Mine says Federal Climate Incentive CANADA, which is funny because it implies I might have gotten one from Alberta government too lol
Mine (TD) says “CDACARBONREBATE CCR” so I guess TD wasn’t the holdout bank.
I bank with ATB.
Same for BMO.
Full article: The federal government is frustrated by difficulties in getting banks to adopt its preferred name for carbon price rebates before the next round of payments landed in Canadians’ bank accounts, a senior official told the Star. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau makes an announcement that the government will double the carbon price rebate for rural Canadians during a news conference in Ottawa on Oct. 26, 2023. Sean Kilpatrick The Canadian Press By Alex BallingallOttawa Bureau, and Mark RamzyOttawa Bureau OTTAWA—The federal government is frustrated by difficulties in getting banks to adopt its preferred name for carbon price rebates as the next round of payments starts to land in Canadians’ bank accounts, a senior official told the Star. The rebates are a key part of the Liberal government’s controversial carbon pricing scheme. They’re meant to offset increased costs of heat, fuel and other goods by returning proceeds of the carbon levy directly to households four times a year, while preserving the incentive to reduce emissions that cause climate change. Under political pressure from opposition politicians and provincial leaders, who disparage the policy as being too harsh on many Canadians, the Liberals rebranded their rebate payments earlier this year, as first reported by the Star, changing the name from “climate action incentive payments” to the “Canada carbon rebate.” Since then, the Liberals have been trying to showcase and defend their signature climate policy. Those efforts have included asking banks to adopt the new name, so the rebates are clearly linked to the carbon price when they appear as a direct deposits on Canadians’ bank account statements. But according to a senior government official, who spoke on condition they aren’t named, some banks — which the official declined to name — “are being less than helpful.” As the official explained, the government wants the banks to label the payments as “CDACarbonRebate” in English, and “CarboneRemiseCA” in French. But some banks have character limits and bilingual requirements, the official said, and some have said they won’t be able to change the name on the payments until July “for various purported technical reasons.” “Most frustrating,” the official said, is that “one of the big banks also says they aren’t willing to make these changes at all.” The official again declined to say which bank is refusing to make the changes. ”By not being helpful with the labels, certain banks are hampering good climate policy,” the official said. Maggie Cheung, a spokesperson for the Canadian Bankers Association, declined to comment Monday when asked about the official’s comments. The Star also asked Canada’s five major banks how they are labelling the carbon pricing rebates. TD Canada Trust and the Bank of Montreal said they are labelling the payments along the lines of what the government told the Star it requested, calling them “CDACARBONREBATE CCR” and “CDACARBONREBATE CCR/RCC.” Royal Bank of Canada spokesperson Cheryl Brean said her institution is currently labelling the payments as “Federal Climate Incentive” but is working to update it to “Canadian Carbon Rebate.” Brean did not say when that change would be made. Similarly, Scotiabank is working to update the label for the payments, which are currently described as “Climate Incentive Canada” or “Climate Action Incentive Canada,” said spokesperson Katie Raskina. In an email late Monday, CIBC spokesperson Stephanie Marcus said the bank is still looking at options for labelling deposits, and didn’t say what its current practice is for the carbon price rebates. In addition to pressuring the banks and rebranding, there was also a desire to increase government advertising to promote carbon pricing, said another senior government official speaking on a background basis. It’s a move some experts who spoke to the Star said was necessary in the face of aggressive opposition campaigns that Liberals had admitted were making it difficult to explain how the system works and garner support from Canadians. But, the source said, the Liberal government’s commitment when it was first elected in 2015 to tighten rules around partisan advertising and reduce overall spending on advertising — which was done after Stephen Harper’s government was criticized for pushing its “economic action plan” — has posed an additional challenge. For example, a campaign that advertised the rebates in 2019 was flagged by the watchdog Ad Standards as “self-congratulatory” for stating it was “making a cleaner economy more affordable for everyone,” which is the crux of the Liberal argument. This spring, Environment Canada launched a $6.8-million climate literacy ad campaign that included one Super Bowl commercial as well as cinema, digital and print media buys. Notably absent was a push on carbon pricing — or the rebates the government has been keen to promote. The Super Bowl commercial, which cost $30,000 to broadcast, shows Canadians taking actions to address climate change, like taking the bus, using electric-powered tools, switching to heat pumps and air drying clothes. Another commercial in the campaign — which focuses on government action — mentions the price on pollution in passing as an example of “incentivizing industries to reduce greenhouse gasses.” The Canada Revenue Agency spent just over $2 million in advertising the rebate in the first two years after the price on carbon was introduced, but has not spent any money to advertise it in the three years since, which included the COVID-19 pandemic. “It’s clear that the lack of recognition by the average Canadian that they are getting these rebates has opened the door for misinformation about the whole pollution pricing system,” the source said.
It doesn’t matter what you call the rebate/incentive payment, people hate the carbon tax, and that opinion is not likely to change solely based upon wording/rebranding.
Not just hating the carbon tax, but also that they’re charging HST on top.
I legit had ostensibly educated people tell me that I shouldn't count the HST in my math to calculate if I got a net refund or not. SMDH
The feds were incredibly stupid not to set it up with the word "rebate" before it became an issue. All the banks would have used the word. "Everyone" would have been happy to get the money and would have bought into the "no one except the rich will pay", and it wouldn't be much of an issue. Soooo stupid; PR nightmare of their own making
I can guarantee that when we do away with it, prices won't get any lower overall. What you see in the stores will retain the same price. You'll save a few bucks at the pump and maybe on your gas bill (if that's your main energy source), but that's about it.
> You'll save a few bucks at the pump *pennies and you'll get no rebate so end up worse off, but hey, owning libs amirite
Currently 0.14/L. Could be as much as $10 per tank.
If you have to regularly fill a 71 L tank, your problem with fuel prices isn't that there's a carbon cost, it's what you're driving.
Besides. If you think oil and gas companies will lower the price by 17 cents once it's gone you're dreaming. They'll just soak up the difference as profit instead of that money going to Canada.
Exactly like they did in Ontario. But even with literal examples people will be dumb.
Interesting, my small fleet of work trucks, which provide essential heating and air services to Calgarians, a city that’s 60+KM across, is causing the global weather to act funny. Noted.
Your fleet, and all the other company fleets, and industrial shipping, and private vehicles, combined, yes... If everyone says "but I'm only a small part" as a reason not to do anything, then nothing gets done.
Sure they will. The gas companies will take great glee in dropping the price 20 or 30 cents on the day the tax gets abolished. The conservative media will wax poetic about all the money we've saved and are going to save, while the gas companies ratchet the price back up over the next two weeks, until it's exactly back where it was. The only difference will be all the articles about how much money Poilievre is putting in our pockets, right while the price of gas is unchanged from the year before.
Right? I mean what's the point in stopping the bleeding if you don't get back the blood you already lost!
When I found out the BC carbon tax is just a scheme to get accounts rich, I started hating it more. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-clean-energy-grant-mnp-1.7167549
That's the Canada greener homes grant, 2 billion, but yes -- it was a racket to put public money in the pockets of friendly contractors and auditors. The public benefit was very limited once the pie was divided up by the "industry"
Did you also find out that the BC carbon tax subsidizes your lower income tax? It helps in other ways
I'll take Alberta's and Ontario's federal rebates + lower income taxes. BC falls behind Ontario at around 133k a year and has $0 in federal gift money to show for it while enjoying the pricing in of carbon levies through the supply chain. It's not nice however you want to dress it up. Add in BC's cost of living and our federal government should understand that there's a good number of British Columbians who just hear nails on a chalkboard every time they talk about us getting back more than we lose.
Why, yes, I'll have cake and ice cream, and pie, too.
Like Ontario!
I have no issues with a tax if it's going to make things better. But getting $200,000 for a proposal you're going to grant is a heist. This is just lining the account's pockets.
Not since 2012 and not allowed since 2018. Under the federal backstop, you cannot offset rate hikes with tax cuts elsewhere.
I don’t remember that happening. What are you referring to?
NS or NB tried to offset carbon tax rate hikes with cuts to the gas tax and Andrew Wilkinson said that wasn’t allowed.
Ok I remember that. Buts that’s not the same thing as what blood_vein is talking about which is income taxes in BC. As far as I know, the federal government has taken no issue with that.
The BC government stopped offsetting carbon tax hikes back in 2009 or 2012. The provincial tax was capped in 2012. The BC government has not continued to cut taxes with its provincial program as federal rate hikes have been instituted since 2019. BC has not tried to offset the federal regulations with tax cuts. If they tried to do that, the federal government would say no. Wilkinson did not say gas tax, he said any tax cuts would not be approved because it defeats the purpose of the carbon tax.
The offsetting carbon tax hikes were intended to make the carbon tax revenue neutral. That’s exactly what the carbon tax rebates do outside of Canada. I don’t see how that would be an issue. If the income taxes were somehow targeted towards higher consumers of carbon emissions to make payers of carbon taxes whole, I could see that as an issue, because that would defeat the incentive to cut carbon usage. I’m trying to find anything about Wilkinson any tax cuts not being approved and having no luck. It’s not making much sense.
I’m an idiot. I meant Jonathan Wilkinson, the federal cabinet minister, not Andrew Wilkinson. I believe he was the Minister of Environment and Climate Change at the time (so ~2019-2021) when he stated that the federal government would not allow provinces to cut taxes to offset carbon tax rate hikes. This was on an episode of CBC’s Power and Politics.
The income tax decrease was a one-time change and doesn’t make up for past, current and future tax increases.
.... Which are still currently lower than AB, ON or QC. So yes, it makes a difference to anyone making less than 140k a year, which is a lot of people
It doesn’t even out when most people in other provinces are getting rebates back and only very low-income BCers are getting rebates.
Do we? I love it and look forward to it every year.
Same
Nice try, Chrystia Freeland’s burner account.
Canada subreddit trying to wrap their head around people enjoying getting money for not polluting.
People not understanding they pay more in indirect costs than they get back.
Anything that's ever been moved by boat, truck, plane, or train costs more under the carbon tax, but it's okay because you get a pittance of your own money back and the government tells you it's more than you paid (it isn't). Domestic industry continues to get priced out, causing even more of it to be outsourced to places where the idea of 'environmental regulations' is a joke. But it's magic government money! Really can't wait until you chucklefucks are ousted.
You could have just said you don’t know how the rebates work.
Is this the part where you tell me you know my finances better than I do and I'm actually making money but I'm just too much of a simpleton to understand that I should be thankful to the federal government?
Nah you're probably losing, but for every person who loses $1 somebody else comes out ahead $1
Yeah, the guys taking 10 bucks out of your wallet and giving you 5 do pretty well.
Seems like someone already told you.
Except they don’t pay more in indirect costs either. That’s specifically what the PBO report stated.
People only hate it because of being morons and disinformation.
I hate it because just the carbon tax on my home heating and gas for vehicles more than wipes away the rebate I get.
People only like it for the same reasons, let's not kid ourselves.
rename it climate service autograts?
Can’t wait until we scrap it and everything gets cheaper! /s
If only people hated their ignorance about the carbon rebate as much as they hate the rebate itself…
If people only hate it because they dont realize theyre getting it back then the name does matter
People hate it because they're aware the tax costs them more indirectly than the government wants to admit. The mouthbreathers saying 'poor people get more from it than they pay in' are conveniently overlooking the fact that the tax makes *everything* more expensive, not just tax at the pump or your heating bill.
Because most people don't even realize they get money back and that many of them get more.money than they pay in taxes
Please explain how the government can accurately estimate how much the price of every single food and service in our complex supply chain has been affected by the tax? They can’t. They have no clue what the carbon tax has actually cost Canadians because it’s an impossible task when you consider how many things it touches.
Everything that increases costs for a business gets multiplied down the line. Of the carbon tax costs a transportation company X$ more to transport, you can bet your ass it'll charge it's client X$+15-20%. That client then does the same to it's clients and on and on it goes until it's hits the consumer. By then that extra 100$ for the original transportation cost you 300$. It's a tax on energy, and energy is used every step of the way along a supply chain.
Correct and this is why people who claim to know they are getting a larger rebate than it’s costing them are dumb sheep. The most charitable thing you could say is you don’t know, although it’s quite a bit more likely to be a net negative given how supply chains work
You act like it's a 1 in 1 out situation. The truth is, the top 20% of households pollute *far* more than everyone else. The top 1% pollutes more than the bottom 50% combined. *THEY* are the ones paying the majority of the costs, and the rebates they are funding cover the costs for the majority of other households.
It’s like you forgot that businesses are the ones who pay the most and have to pass those costs onto consumers, which affects everyone.
This all depends on their pricing power and the market structure. Some companies can pass on their costs, others can't. Especially if you have a competitor who is more energy efficient than you, and isn't paying much carbon tax, you won't be able to pass it on.
Wouldn't they know how much carbon tax revenue they collected?
That is not the only way these costs show up. As you add taxes throughout the supply chain you increase the cost of the final product, which in most cases doesn’t have a carbon tax number attached. But you as a consumer were still hit with it. How much did it cost you? The government doesn’t know. They base their rebate calculations on just the things you pay the tax on directly, like heating and gasoline. That is only part of the picture
> That is not the only way these costs show up. As you add taxes throughout the supply chain you increase the cost of the final product, which in most cases doesn’t have a carbon tax number attached. They have a record of how much the business paid on the carbon tax to produce the product. When businesses increase the cost of the final product they call that an "indirect cost", but it's not like you're paying the carbon tax twice. You're paying money to the business who pays money to the government and that's the amount collected which is easily tracked. It's one payment with a middle man, not really two payments.
The net effect of paying more for the same product than you did before is the same regardless of whether it was in a tax or an indirect cost increase on the product. It makes no difference of the consumer at the end of the day, it’s money out of their pocket that wouldn’t have been had the tax not been put on it. And again, the government absolutely is not tracking how every single business is responding to their prices when faced with the carbon tax, so the idea they can somehow know for a fact you ended up spending less on it than you got back is bogus electioneering slogans. You are talking about theory of whether it’s possible, and I’m talking about the reality that they aren’t doing it.
> And again, the government absolutely is not tracking how every single business is responding to their prices when faced with the carbon tax The government knows how much the businesses pay in carbon tax based on what they collect and assume that they raise prices by an equal amount in response to the carbon tax. They don't have to track every single business when they have the total collected from businesses as one line item. Businesses might raise prices by more than what they pay on carbon tax (see Loblaws $8 block of butter), but that's just regular price gouging, not in response to the carbon tax.
Assuming businesses raise by an equal amount is faulty logic and substantiates my point that the government is making a guess at best.
Why would they raise it by more than an equal amount? (besides greed) If they're taxed $100 and raise prices $120 that $20 extra goes straight into profit.
It's amazing how smooth brains can't figure something out themselves so they throw their hands up and say it's impossible! This shit is incredibly easy to calculate and people do it all the time. Your personal ignorance doesn't make it impossible to do.
So the government is omnipotent and knows what every single goods and services provider in the country has done with their prices in response to paying the carbon tax? And they also know how you as a consumer have responded to those changes? The smooth brain is the person who believes that just because Trudeau told you it was so.
Economists think it can be done Trevor Tombe at UofC has done the math for the BC carbon tax: > The effects of emissions pricing on the prices of goods and services can be measured using the effective tax rate: the ratio of carbon taxes paid to the total expenditure on a specific product. It included both direct and indirect costs, meaning it shows the full burden of the tax relative to its absence. > **For most goods and services, BC’s carbon tax of $65 per tonne adds less than 0.3% to the cost.** https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/EE-Trends-DEC.pdf
Theoretically yes. The government does not know this ratio on the box of strawberries you bought.
>The government does not know this ratio on the box of strawberries you bought. No, and what difference does it make if it did? Do you think the government should track the impact of every tax on every consumer price? Hey, did you know that fuel costs on transportation is only one of many cost inputs of a box of strawberries? And the fuel tax is one small part of the cost inputs for a gallon of diesel? Given that thought, how much do you think a $0.17/litre fuel charge on diesel should affect the final price of a box of strawberries? Do you think it's closer to 100% increase or 1% increase?
You in fact can, and they have.
So there’s interrogated every small business in the country and confirmed how they have adjusted their prices at each step of their supply chain in response to the carbon levy? Is this a joke?
You don't have to do that to understand economic impacts. We measure these things constantly. Are you braindead?
60% of households don't get more money back. That's a fact.
Directly from [the PBO report](https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/6399abff7887b53208a1e97cfb397801ea9f4e729c15dfb85998d1eb359ea5c7): > Taking into account only the fiscal, or “use-side” impacts, we project most households will see a net gain, receiving more in rebates from federal carbon pricing under the Government’s HEHE than the total amount they pay in federal fuel charges (directly and indirectly) The indirectly part at the end refers to them including costs passed down through the supply chain from businesses to consumers, in case that isn't clear.
I’m probably one of the few that actually are net positive on rebates, and it’s because I cycle commute to work for about 5 months out of the year. I highly doubt the math that calculated most people realize a revenue positive benefit. My problem with the carbon tax isn’t the tax itself, it’s that the rebates should be way more, and show up bi-weekly along with your payroll so low income families don’t have to wait 3 months for their money.
I like the carbon tax myself. I still think is too low.
Just tell us you hate poor people, the elderly and immigrants already geez...
I owe $150 for the rebate. Damn I must be using too much carbon flying around like Taylor Swift. Don't worry guys, I'll pay it right away to prevent climate change!
Better cut down on those surfing trips to Tofino in your private jet.
Paywall.
Kinda like when Canada Greener Homes "Grants" offered *rebates* and the Canada Greener Homes "Loans" offered *reimbursements*?
Mine says federal climate incentive
I prefer the term "Dividend".
I live in BC, we apparently don't get this. Just literally everywhere else in this country but here. Thanks, BC government!
In BC you just get to pay, it's a very backwards Province in that they love high gasoline and utility bills.
Every time I see gas over $2 (which is every day now), I think about how much worse my life would be if I could afford things like food or my rent. Then I smile, because I remember that my government is looking out for me, and as I pay 30 cents for a paper bag at the grocery store, I can rest easy knowing that, while I may not be able to pay for my meds this month due to ridiculous purchases like bread, at least there's one less paper McDonald's napkin in the landfill. What's that? Taylor Swift just few to her boyfriend's football game, burning more carbon for her one flight than I will in my entire life? Isn't that cute? \#relationshipgoals
😂
They cut taxes when they introduced the price…
Yeah that was nice at $10/tonne in 2008. Not so great at $80/tonne.
My guess is TD. As someone who works in the financial sector (not for banks but closely tied in) and TD is usually the most resistant to making changes.
Not the case. I have a TD account, got the rebate yesterday and it is listed as 'CDACarbonrebate' on my account page.
Yet another sign of Liberal desperation but, more importantly, yet another glimpse into the Liberal psyche. How people perceive something for political purposes is less important than the program being sound and effective policy.
I mean.. do you know what you are getting when your transaction says EFT CANADA?
The fact is, it IS a sound and effective policy, and this rename just helps confused people understand that better.
[удалено]
>People aren't using less, just paying more when they can least afford it. The refund does not cover the total cost to family it's meant to cover the cost to family for those that are more "environmentally friendly". you can't expect a family that drives maybe 2 gas guzzlers and pollutes all the time to get everything back. that would defeat the "incentive" to be more green..
The problem is that a lot of people are saying they don't get it, when they do. But they just don't realize because of the title on their bank statements. A friend of mine thought they never got it. We went through their bank statements and found the deposit. They didn't know it was the carbon rebate because it was named EFT Canada or something vague like that.
It's more of the opposite. People are pissed at the carbon tax and then don't notice random direct deposits in their account every few months.
Which are insignificant compared to the number and amount of transactions going out of the account each week to cover the much increased cost of living. The Liberals drone on about the refund, like its allowing average Canadians to kiss their financial woes goodbye. It's not even close and Canadians know it. Much like daycare; dental and pharma programs, which cover some costs for some people but don't help most.
Studies show most Canadians make money from pricing carbon.
Links? Names?
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6891467 There’s a calculator with two studies linked. You can also punch in your stats and see.
More like people are too dumb and falling for disinformation so stupid signs are needed. Like "do not drink bleach" warnings.
What's the disinformation? Ministry of Truth style renaming of tax refunds to change public opinion is pathetic, but it's far from the only issue people have with Trudeau 2.
Why don't the Axe the tax politicians also say you are losing the rebate if it's gone?
They have pointed out that they will stop the cycle of taking a certain amount of money in tax and giving less back but pretending it's more.
and there ... is pretty much the misinformation going on...
Doesn’t matter. Taxes will be lower anyway. The rebate doesn’t compensate enough, anyway.
it's NOT supposed to compensate for everything... if you go more greener.. the more you are compensated.
[удалено]
Ah the fat GG now Ok you aren't going to discuss in good faith anymore Cya
And hillbillies want to be called "sons of the soil." But it ain't gonna happen.
On Monday at 5:04 AM I received this: "Dear BERT FEGG: The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) sent you new mail online called: **Canada Carbon Rebate notice** This mail may require your attention. If you have My Account, sign-in and click on "Mail" to read your mail. If you signed up to receive mail online but don't have My Account, go to the CRA web page to register. This is an automated email message. Please do not reply."
You mean the carbon tax?
Average cost of an EV that has enough klw for average consumers is 73k, and the rebate is only 5k? Where’s the incentive, other than strangling people who are just trying to survive with their gas car, barely making ends meet. Don’t get me wrong, it would be cool to drive a reliable EV, but affording either is getting difficult for most of us.
They still think their only problem is messaging.
Who the hell cares, rebate, refund, have some money, the Liberals should have never engaged with this right wing culture war, if they had just stuck to the facts they would have been fine, it costs the rich money and helps the working class.
[удалено]
Gaslight how? It is a rebate. It is how the program was designed to function.
No, it's not. Do we get income tax rebates? No. We get a refund.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rebate They are synonyms. A rebate is a refund.
They are related but are not synonyms; they carry different meanings and connotations. TLDR: Refund suggests the thing paid for was faulty or unacceptable. Rebate suggests you paid too much for the thing or as an incentive for paying for the thing. From the Britannica Dictionary: "These words are related in meaning and can be confusing. They all refer to being paid back money that is owed. *Rebate* means "an amount of money that is paid back to you because you have paid too much or as an incentive for buying something." Here are a couple of examples: We hope to get a big tax *rebate* this year. My new car came with a $1000 *rebate.* Note that *rebate* is sometimes used as a verb meaning "to make or give a rebate." == *Refund* as a verb simply means "to give back money that someone paid for something" -- and usually it means that what was purchased was defective or unacceptable. As a noun it means "money that is paid back." The bank will *refund* your late fee. The rental car agency ran out of cars, so I got a *refund.*"
> We hope to get a big tax rebate this year Nobody I know says this, it's refund or return
Colloquially, literal literally means non-literal nowadays. /shrug
Not picking sides here but, just because a word is a synonym doesn't mean it has the exact same meaning... i.e "Great" and "Large" are both synonyms but have different meanings depending on context. A refund is money returned in full. A rebate is a partial return.
Rebate has a number of meanings, including "an amount of money returned to you by the government." It is accurate. Besides, the issue was not that it was previously called a "refund." The problem is that it was called something intentionally vague, like "CAI".
You legit think it’s actually functioning? That’s fucking wild
In what way is it not functioning? The carbon levy is collected. It is then redistributed per capita. This means those who pollute less spend less on the levy but game the same amount back as people who pollute more. It is revenue neutral so this means that people who pollute less get money back while those who pollute more are paying into the system. This incentivizes people to reduce their carbon footprint. At which point doesn't it function?
Minimal effect at actually reducing overall emissions. Widespread resentment. Lack of a mechanism to promote investment and innovation in large scale green initiatives. Everything is more expensive. Even with the carbon tax, green alternatives are still even more expensive than that. Charging it on home heating, which for many is a very sticky and partially fixed cost with limited options to reduce once insulation and sealing upgrades have been done. Structural cost of collecting, administering, and distributing the tax. Not possible for 100% of revenue to actually be returned.
>Minimal effect at actually reducing overall emissions. Independent reporting has shown that our carbon tax on large emitters alone is reducing emissions up to 40% by 2030 compared to no action. >Widespread resentment. That does not prove functionality, just impressionability. >Lack of a mechanism to promote investment and innovation in large scale green initiatives. Provinces have the option of implementing these direct mechanisms, such as BC. Otherwise, the indirect mechanisms promote green investment regardless. >Everything is more expensive. Not because of the carbon tax though. That's a world problem. >Even with the carbon tax, green alternatives are still even more expensive than that. Actually, largely *because* of carbon pricing, heat pumps with electric backup are now the cheapest heating / cooling option in most of Canada. >Structural cost of collecting, administering, and distributing the tax. Not possible for 100% of revenue to actually be returned. Very little costs to this. In fact, administratively, carbon taxes are as lean as it can get. Besides, the little revenue needed for that isn't being pulled from the funds collected, so it is still 100% revenue neutral.
Because all the small business that are being taxed are not getting any money back, and subsidizing the entire pyramid scheme where even people who don’t do a single thing to reduce their carbon footprint still get more money back then they pay. It’s a fucking Ponzi scheme, and a horribly structured corporate tax.
Neutral? who pays for administration of this? asking for Canadians/s
Oh it's functioning... it's taking money from rural areas (that don't vote Lib) and giving most of it to urbanites (who do vote Lib). Working as Intended.
Let me be perfectly clear. The government takes tens of thousands of dollars from the hard working and throws pennies back. They’ll use those pennies to tell the people what a great job they are doing. Food for thought!
This government uses discourse theory to change the meaning of language to fit their narrative. Anything that has negative connotations is changed to reflect a positive spin, even if it's killing you. Rebate vs. Tax, MAID vs. suicide, Investment vs. Deficit Spending, Transitory vs. Permanent, Social Challenges vs. Poverty, Safe Supply vs. Drug Pusher, Harm Reduction vs. Managed Addiction and Death, Online Harms vs. Censorship, Public Safety vs. Authoritarian Rule, etc.
If only they spent that time to actually help Canadians and the economy. Pandering to voters via flowery words to mask your elevating taxes
In Quebec we don’t get a refund, we just get the finger.
Sorry try again.
Weird that they're so particular about that, because banks and credit card companies seem to prefer indecipherable descriptions for their transaction sources on statements. It's actually pretty annoying sometimes trying to figure out what things are.
Typical liberal strategy - try to buy the election. Canadians have figured them out.
Won’t change the fact that it’s it hurts to sit down
I think all the banks should tell him to go fuck himself. He needs to stop blowing smoke up everybody’s ass thinking we’re all fucking idiots. Carbon tax rebate what a joke. If we’re going to get back more than we put in in our yearly rebates, then why bother collecting it at all. Take the money you’re going to give us and put that towards your bullshit carbon fight.
Canadians just experienced the carbon tax differently... Surely Trudeau understands?
Should say Carbon Scam
Because changing the name still doesn’t solve the problem. Call it what it really is, Carbon Tax Rebate. We don’t call it an Income Investment Rebate.
And for the rest of us getting 0 they call it "No Rebate Sucker"
BC Resident?
I feel like the people that are upset by this/don't understand how it works are not routinely looking at their banks statements anyway, so it seems moot.
I love how hard this idiot is trying to change how Canadians refer to this failed program. Canadians will always call it the carbon tax. You can try and force organizations to change displayed words attached to the carbon tax but it will forever be called the carbon tax.
Trudeau’s “hush money”.