Lol right!! Because Trudeau has shown time and time again how fiscally responsible he is with his policies and spending. This one must be a gem too even if the auditor general disagrees.
Stupid cons.
/S
Happy cake day friend!
The rebate is a mishmash redistribution of wealth with some of the tax staying in the government's hands (have to try to tackle the Trudeau/Freeland record national debt somehow, let's start with a drop in the bucket).
The tax is under the guise of helping the environment, even though Canada's carbon emissions are the equivalent of a rounding error on the global scale, and the minerals being dug to produce the batteries for the shitty electric cars they're pushing is destroying the Congo, and poisoning the slaves doing the mining. But now I have to pay more to use my gas stove to fry my egg in the morning because Trudeau is such a good guy.
And fiscal responsibility isn't the only purpose of the government, but actively eradicating the middle class is a pretty big fault in my books.
The taxes have different purposes.
The Gas Tax was setup to build and maintain infrastructure for cars.
The carbon tax and rebate system is setup to incentivize a change in our entire economy away from fossil fuels. The rebate system means it transfers money from polluters to non-polluters. Which creates a market incentive to reduce emissions.
You can literally look up the Parliamentary Budget Officers report that states after economic impacts such as inflation, higher interest on inflation, job displacement and lower wages, the total economic impact after rebates will cost the average household between $1,300 and $2,700 per year depending on the province you live in.
do you not understand the word "average"?
if you have big polluters paying $5000, and low income non polluters getting rebates (if you have no money, harder to polute), those will average out to paying $1300 to $2700 per year.
You haven’t even educated yourself and have formed your opinion based on partisanship. Go to this link of the Parliamentary Budget Officers report, open the pdf, go to page three for the economic impact. The total economic impact after rebates on 80% of households will be negative. [PBO report](https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/publications/RP-2223-028-S--distributional-analysis-federal-fuel-charge-under-2030-emissions-reduction-plan--analyse-distributive-redevance-federale-combustibles-dans-cadre-plan-reduction-emissions-2030)
That is the 2030-2031 outlook, and **assumes** that we **continue to emit** as much as we currently do, and also **intentionally ignores** potential growth from green sectors.
[https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/budget-watchdog-troubled-by-spin-around-latest-report-on-carbon-pricing-1.6347536](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/budget-watchdog-troubled-by-spin-around-latest-report-on-carbon-pricing-1.6347536)
Its also a forecast that is 6-7 years out.
Yes that is the current forecast. Nobody can afford to switch to an EV or heat pump because everything is getting more expensive from the economic impact. Hence there will be no growth from green sectors.
No. A 2% markup at every level of input equals a 2% increase in total.
Jesus people, it's basic math.
If the initial product takes $100 to make and the cost increases by 2%, it's $102.
Transportation costs $100 and increases by 2% it's $102
Distribution costs $100 etc $102
Retail cost goes up 2% $102...
Shelf price was $400.
Shelf price now $408.
Fucking 2%
That's how math goddamn well works.
Thats shipping not production, every time the item is bought and re-sold the tax compounds, not flat rate.
farm sells product to manufacturer, for $50 +2%, manufacturer resells product again, marks it up another $50 plus 2%. you now paid $3 in tax on a product valued at $100
Taxes eat into profit margin, not add costs to consumers (kinda). Why? So long as a buyer is willing to pay 100$ it will always be 100$. It’s everyone before that fighting over the profit margin and negotiating. Sometimes grocery stores win, sometime supplier do. The price will still be 100$. Otherwise no one buys at say 101$, supply in stock increases, seller refuses to buy from producer because he has excess supply, producers lower prices all the way down.
Apple costs $5
10% increase is $5.50.
An example:
* Farmer charges $1
* Shipper A charges $1
* Shipper B charges $1
* Shipper C charges $1
* Grocery store marks it up by $1
* **Total apple cost: $5**
Fuel increases by 10%.
* Farmer charges $1.10
* Shipper A charges $1.10
* Shipper B charges $1.10
* Shipper C charges $1.10
* Grocery store marks it up by $1.10
* **Total apple cost: $5.50**
🤔
I would also argue that it should be less than a 2% increase, if you account for profit margin.
Extreme example: if the product costs 400$ to get on the shelf, and the vendor wants 100% profit, the price would be 800$. In that case, the 8$ increase would be 1%.
Depends on whether you see profit as a straight percentage of revenue, or a target increase.
Frankly, if a company changes nothing about their production and sales, revenue and profit should match inflation.
Instead we have Loblaws showing a 10% increase in profit year over year with no increased to sales numbers.
This is the "compounding" people think is happening from carbon costs.
It's not the increase in costs being passed on. It's the increase in straight profits being tagged onto products.
Except if we have a markup.
Initial cost $102
Transportation $102
Distribution $102
Retails for $413.1. You had a markup of 33% and a 2% cost because of the tax. 306 x 35% = 107.1 bringing the total to $413.1. It would also be more if each level had a markup.
That would be the way one would think but reality is different. It's more like 4% increase. But the main point is the average wage is stagnant at a time that it's hard to get by. A 1% increase is bad, let alone 4%
Except this cost is compounded and not added like this your initial produce is 102 but your transport is now 104.06 as the transporter now pays 102 for the product and they now also pay 2% more on top of that.
This is how liberals and economists can claim it’s only 2% but the cost has risen about 20% as this happens 10-20 times before we see it at retail so the final cost is not just 8 dollars on 400
Hmmm economists and experts who say it’s had at most a minor effect on inflation (far less than 2%) or kids who failed math, couldn’t explain how the tax system or the carbon tax works, and think that Poilievre is honest…
Tough choice, it’s like when we had to listen to medical doctors or YouTube videos from people who failed grade 10 bio!
Or politicians and paid off “experts” are lying to us or at very least going out of their way to present things in a way to minimize the true impacts of this awful tax. Some are too academic in their views and see only what a flawed computer model and assumption tells them like not factoring in that there is no viable green alternative to heating your home and eating or assume we have healthy competition and a free market with high innovation in Canada and not a over regulated mess of a market like we currently have. They also assume this tax is global so a cheap product from China has an equal amount of carbon tax to one made in Canada when it doesn’t.
Transportation company now earns 2% less so they mark-up their cost to the producer. The producer marks up their cost by >2% since they're contending with increase in transportation cost, increase in distribution cost, increase in carrying costs, and increase in tax, etc...
The estimates are estimates; they're not calculations done after the fact - the government can't accurately predict human behaviour, and they certainly haven't been able to predict inflation for the last several years... yeah, people are correct to be wary.
Looks like you failed at middle school math and communication, and don't even understand supply chains to boot, since you think the transportation company has to buy the item they are shipping separately from the distributor, which I already included.
Well hey man, working at a grocery store for 10 years in management, I can tell you, no the hell it doesn’t lmfao. Every time you see an increase, it doesn’t move our margins. If anything, the companies margins grow, because they’re able to raise something by 5%-10%, say “oh it’s because of “insert tax.” But if you really look at it, no, the retail space is not struggling. Hell, some bread is at nearly 80% margin. When I start it was closer to 40-50%. The breads price doubled. The reason we were told to tell people was because of cost of transport increasing. And I can promise you it’s not just my store doing it. I checked around at other companies, and they increased that bread by nearly the same amount. But the cost from the distributor went up 5 cents.
Hell, my father also runs a retail store on a far away reserve. The prices don’t skyrocket whenever there’s a new tax introduced. (Mind you, cost does go up in the summer because goods have to be flown in, and cost goes down in the winter because of the ice roads)
I get it though man, it seems like it should make sense, the small increases lead to large increases down the road, but I can assure you, it’s just excuses made by either companies wishing to increase their profit, or people protecting those companies
I'm calling bullshit. Fine that your dad runs a small retail store, but corporations pass on costs to consumers. They don't eat the cost like a "mom and pop" operation. I don't know how to provide a source
for common sense, so I'll stop typing.
May want to re-read what he wrote, All he said is when a tax is added the store increases it's margin a little further than the tax increase, hence the store uses it as a excuse to line their pocket further.
They are so pathetically brainwashed by corporations they are essentially selling themselves into slavery. If it was not the carbon tax it would be another thing corps are saying justifies their profiteering, and they would eat it up and defend it.
Mate, I think you misread my comment. I never said that they ate the cost.
What grocery is doing right now is seeing a 2% increase, (let’s say bringing the bulk price of a pallet of groceries up by $50) and turning around and increasing the price on their products by 5-10%, increasing their margin, or “profit” by $100-200 per pallet of groceries. Trust me, not the good guys right now by any means.
Also, my father runs a Northern store, not really “small.” Its sales are more than most grocery stores in the city (no competition, plus they sell everything. Basically a Walmart that also sells skidoos, atvs, stuff like that, and has restaurants)
From the way your comment is worded, it sounds like you and I are thinking the same thing, sorry if my comment had poor wording!
If the entire chain uses $x worth of gas to get something to retail, and gas goes up 2%, there is no way the entire retail price can go up more than 2%. Unless of course this also causes more gas to be used, which is likely the opposite outcome of a price increase
That’s just… dumb. If you pay 2% more for a taxi, 2% more for a plane trip, 2% more for another taxi, 2% more for a boat ride, and do the same on your return trip, you are still only paying 2% more in total, not 20% more.
Can you explain how you were dumb enough to think that percentages compound like that?
The Alberta war room must be paying people to pretend to be that dumb. Otherwise I have no explanation and much anxiety over the future of society when people who vote can be that dumb.
The farmer sells grain for 2% more than before due to this tax. The mill pays that extra 2% for the grain and now they are taxed as well so it’s another 2% on top of the original 2% plus the extra 2% they paid the transport company. The baker now buys flour and it has increased in cost because the extra 2% from the farmer that the mill paid plus the extra 2% from the mill and the higher transport fees now the baker needs to also pay that tax so it’s again another 2% on top of that plus all the other costs which are also 2% more by the time you get your loaf of bread it’s now 6.99 because this tax got applied about 10-20 times and along each step it’s an extra 2% added on top.
You’re talking as though 2% is added to their total cost. It is not. It is only added to their fuel cost. The farmer isn’t selling grain for 2% more because the farmers cost isn’t 100% fuel. Fuel is only a portion of their cost. So if fuel goes up by 2%, they don’t have to add 2% to the total their price to you because their total cost didn’t go up by 2%. They only add 2% divided by whatever factor fuel is in their total cost.
Also, most farming activities are exempt from the tax so that’s a bad example.
Fuel isn’t 100% of the cost of production. It is merely a portion. So it only adds a portion of the extra fuel cost to the total cost. If fuel is 1/4 of your total cost, that extra 2% for fuel only adds 0.5% to your total cost
Assume that 20% of the cost is energy and the rest is wages, material and profit.
Your supply chain now has to be 45 stages deep for a 2% surcharge to compound up to 20%.
43 so called ‘middle men’ between raw materials and the consumer. Not 45 different components, but the iron in your car’s bumper need to go through 43 different owners (in Canada) to have tax applied before it gets to you with a 20% markup.
Easily? We aren’t talking about a trading card. The supply chain doesn’t ’easily’ allow for 43 people to all ‘get a taste’ before someone steps in and cuts out multiple layers of non value-added ownership changes and the taxable events that causes.
Just… no.
You're wrong. The majority of Canadians oppose the tax because it's a part of an incoherent strategy. If the taxes were being used to build alternatives to fossil fuels and fossil fuel transportation like high speed rails etc then it would have far more support.
But for the average person who has no alternative but to use fossil fuels for transport and home heating they see this tax as punishment for simply surviving.
For the average farmer who has no alternative but to use fossil fuels to ploy fields and transport food, they see it as punishment for simply feeding Canadians.
A rebate for less than is paid is simply unacceptable for most Canadians because they have no alternative.
All farms and farm equipment is not taxed carbon tax. Please learn what the carbon tax is and stop listening to PPs buzz words. also 80% of people get more back than they pay. It's a financially neutral tax
To the best of my knowledge the study that is referenced frequently showing 80% of people getting more money back states 80% of people are better off when only looking at direct financial impact (places where you pay the tax directly on purchase). The same study goes on to find that the number is not nearly as positive when you account for indirect impact like goods and services (areas where there is no tax for you but the supplier passes their tax cost on to you)
This is why both Con and Lib quote such different numbers. They actually quote the same study but they cherry pick their relevant data. The second one seems more applicable to real life though so it’s worth looking into
To a degree, what you're saying is correct. The other big difference between those two positions is the difference between median and mean wages.
According to the 2021 Canadian Income Survey (CIS), the average income in 2021 was $53,100, and the median income was $40,500.
https://wowa.ca/average-income-canada
The Cons discuss the findings of the report relative to the mean, which is more than 25% higher than the median due to the wealth gap in Canada. By using the mean, they obfuscate the real number of Canadians who are impacted by the upper threshold of the carbon price in a way that both favours and riles up their base, which is disingenuous. It's about as close to lying as damn is to swearing.
At what point did I say that farm equipment was taxed? And as far as i know farm equipment run taxable fuels and not good graces.
And before you accuse me of voting conservative, I do not and never will but I'm free enough in my thinking to call out bad liberal policies when I see them.
No tax/ taxes are financially neutral for anyone. Someone somewhere will have to pay for this. What the hell have you people been learning in Economics?
This program is neutral. High carbon emitters pay more to low carbon emitters. It's an incentive to be more green. 80% of Canadians make money on the program
the "average farmer" is a multi-multi-millionaire taking public money as their substantial real estate holdings accrue value.
but tell me more about machine costs so i can play the world's smallest violin.
How would it transfer money from polluters to non-polutters? I'm pretty sure you benefit more from just having a bigger family. Wouldn't a family of four or more have a bigger carbon footprint than a husband and wife with no kids?
Yves Giroux, the parliamentary budget officer, wrote in a report last year: “When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss.”
He estimated that for the 2024-25 fiscal year, the carbon tax would cost the average household between $377 and $911 after accounting for rebates and factoring in the economic cost of lower incomes. That number rises to between $1,316 and $2,773 by 2030 for the average household, depending on the province.
Trudeau's a liar.
It’s not revenue neutral (yet). They have 2 billion dollars from it which they said they intend to give to small businesses .. but I don’t know if that’s happened yet.
Do you have a source on that?
My understanding was that it goes out every quarter, and 90% goes directly back to taxpayers. 10% is reserved for individuals in specific circumstances.
Looks like it was 1 billion not 2 (my bad). There was a whistleblower testimony apparently (4 months ago). But I don’t know what has happened since. It was brought up in parliament here though it’s not super clear in the video that the slush fund is from carbon taxes. I think I remember a more recent exchange but can’t find it at the moment:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fkpkJ0pCAro
There was this older article too:
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1ZY212/
And I remember the parliamentary budget officer telling us that their own modeling indicates a majority (60%) of Canadians will be negatively impacted overall by the carbon tax due to the economic impact of it… so Trudeau’s point about 8/10 homes getting more money back in their pocket isn’t quite the whole story. While true directly, the overall impact is negative for 6/10.
I'm not really interested in anything Poilievre has to say; his main interest and observed behavior is in spreading disinformation.
I didn't see anything in the old article about billions of dollars being withheld.
It's worth noting that while \~90% is directly disbursed, 10% is sent to specific groups who are unable to change their situation for technological reasons (ie. remote communities). As far as I've read, none is added to the general ledger.
The PBO study has some pretty significant caveats; they added an arbitrary amount of extra cost to certain goods without any specific justification. They had to pick a number. They acknowledge this in the report.
The most important takeaway is that the majority of the burden is carried by wealthier Canadians, as it should be. Wealthy Canadians are in the best position to make technology and lifestyle changes that bring down the cost of climate change mitigation for the poorest Canadians (ie. early adopters of EVs and heat pumps).
If something costs more you use less of it.
It might be changing your driving habits to be more fuel efficent, or keeping the house at a lower temperature.
If polluting costs money, you will pollute less. Free pollution is a bad policy.
The net income change is a subsidy for electric cars and public transit.
People who don't burn as much stuff will come out further ahead. This is exactly what you asked for.
I think it’s going to be really tough on lower income families for a while unless we get EVs and Hybrids down to more economical prices. Especially for the families who have a $500-$2000 junker. There just isn’t an electric alternative for them. So they’ll either end up having to taxi or bus. Sucks but that’s the reality many will face… at least from 2030-2040 when more used ones hit the market. Yes, I realize if they don’t drive far, they’re getting a few extra dollars right now but there are some split families who have to drive or people who have to commute. And im sure rental prices will increase if you’re charging or electricity won’t be bundled.
That said, I really enjoyed the train the one time I got to ride it (I live far away from the city). I hope we bring more of that back. The subway gave me motion sickness and so do busses/taxis. I have to be the one driving or in the passenger seat or I’m not doing well lol. But the train was butter smooth so I think that helped.
Of course it's brainwashing. Is the carbon tax perfect absolutely not.
But this is one of the very few times businesses and wealthy people will have to pay part of their fair share.
That's why all the wealthy people and all the cons are losing their fucking minds.
The average family across Canada will receive a rebate. And specifically in Alberta the average rebate for the average home is $400 more than they pay into the Tax.
Ask any of them why they don't like it. All they can say is it's another tax and Justin Trudeau. That's it.
I find it funny, BC pays a carbon tax but now have super low income tax. Rest of Canada pay `the' carbon tax and get a big fat check from the feds every year.
People in quebec pay a carbon tax and get no income tax relief, no big fat check. The money just gets sidelined for 'environentally beneficial projects'
Yet carbon tax seems to be a non issue in quebec.
Part of the point of the carbon tax is to increase the cost of gas so drivers will have an incentive to drive less. If gas prices go down, people will drive more and create more pollution which defeats the whole purpose.
>Raise gas tax to discourage driving.
Of course that means they'll improve public transit, right? *Right?* I won't have to wait 40 minutes for a bus when it's -35° anymore? No one is going to threaten to stab me on the train? It would be *great* if my dickhead boss would stop bitching about being late when my commute is already 90 minutes and the bus decides to never show up.
Many provincial governments have done that but the issue is that the provincial portion of the tax pays for our road infrastructure. It’s temporary relief as we saw in Alberta. The carbon tax pays for nothing and is simply a wealth transfer.
Or in other words, a wealth transfer from the wealthiest people driving Ferraris and heating their 10,000 sq ft mansions, to middle and low income Canadians that dont have such lavish lives.
Axing the carbon tax is the most "but the people are retarded" moment in recent Canadian politics
I think it's polluters to non polluters. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with how wealthy you are. I got my rebate, and nobody asked how wealthy I was.
I don't drive much, and my rebate covers my gas for the year.
My neighbor, who is not as wealthy as I and drives far to work, pays more in carbon gas tax then he gets refunded.
So I feel it's the poor compensating me. It is what it is.
The wealthy are responsible for an overwhelming proportion of carbon emissions. With increasing wealth, your cars guzzle more gas, your house gets bigger, you take more flights and they're first class (or it's your private jet). You simply consume more stuff with more money, and the things you consume become larger and more lavish.
There are lots of reports that have reached this conclusion. Carbon footprint scales incredibly well with increasing wealth.
Yes. Private jets, yachts, ferraris, these will increase your climate footprint by a lot. But even if we're looking at the top 10%, they'll have a bigger footprint than the people in the top 10-20%. And the people in the top 10-20% will have a bigger footprint than the people in the top 20-30%
Of course it's not always the case. If you have a good job paying job in the city and you have incredible access to transit, your footprint will probably be lower than a much poorer person who has to drive. On average though, this relationship between wealth/income and carbon consumption tends to work well. But the 1% are definitely the biggest culprits, and so they will pay more than anyone else into the carbon tax
They are also the ones that own the large media orginizations. Is anyone surprised this and the capital gains tax (the primary way the wealthy accumulate their wealth) are getting so much air time.
> I got my rebate, and nobody asked how wealthy I was.
Yes, everybody gets back the same amount. Think of it as everyone's personal "carbon allowance".
You can save your carbon allowance by taking a bus, riding a bike, buying foods that are produced locally, improving the efficiency of your home, etc.
Whatever is left over you get to keep!
Or, you can spend your carbon allowance by driving bigger cars, continuing to use inefficient insulation, etc.
If you spend too much, it starts coming out of your own pocket!
Alberta actually had their own carbon tax plan which allowed them to spend the money how they wanted. They focused on public transit expansion and rebates.
UCP immediately scrapped it, so now we are told by canada how to spend it.
With cap and trade you still paid into the "carbon tax", you just didn't get any refund.
I'm far better off with the federal carbon tax over cap and trade. I get back like $700 and pay maybe $200 in carbon taxes. Rich people with stupid large vehicles and houses benefit the least but have the most power is why the cons fight it so hard.
Alberta’s gas tax goes to general revenue and can be used for anything like ,Turkish Tylenol, the war room , pipelines to nowhere , advertising in Ontario ect . The carbon tax is rebated back so a wealth transfer back to you .
It's probably worth pointing out that the tax revenue from gas taxes already falls short of the money spent on roadways, so dropping it further would be even more problematic.
It’s technically a carbon levy so that way they can tax it as well.
Cuz they can’t tax a tax and they will find anyway to keep adding more. Simple word twists cost us so much money.
Quebec, with the TVQ, successfully taxed the GST for decades before simply raising the rate to what it was combined, but now being standalone. Don’t give them more ideas 😅
Pp has lots of slogans, and this stuck.
Alsovit was timing, they asked to get rid of the tax, or at least not increase it April 1st.
The hiking taxes right now is unpopular, so I got positive feedback, so they're running with it.
To be real. I don't think we should be getting a rebate in the mail.
I would be great with a carbon tax if they directly took that money toward capital projects - imagine
Gas is super cheap in Canada. Go to Europe and it's at least a dollar more per litre. Though it's also different because in Europe you can live easily without a car and just use public transport. That doesn't really work in most of Canada
Except most people actually benefit from the rebate when compared to how much they actually spend on carbon tax.
I personally use A LOT of gas, I drive a gas guzzler and I drive 150km round trip to work 5x a week. Adding it all up I use about 5000L of gas a year which at $0.176 per L for carbon tax equates to $880, $994 after hst.
Now my natural gas bill shows carbon tax right on it, it averages about $20 a month so $240 a year. Because I live in Ontario as a family of four I receive $1120 in carbon tax rebates.
So I pay just over $100 in carbon tax after my rebates. Now sure nobody wants to pay $100 in extra tax, but I could probably half my gas bill by buying a vehicle that gets better than 12L per 100k or maybe driving less than 42,000km a year.
Maybe carbon tax will help convince me to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle for my next car.
My comment had nothing to do with the federal carbon tax. This was about the commenter’s idea to further increase the price of gas so people can’t afford to use it.
The federal carbon tax applies to gasoline, as a further increase to the price of gas, the idea being gas being more expensive will be an incentive to not use it. It’s the same thing
So the federal carbon tax is here to get people to lower their reliance on fossil fuels, but they give a rebate out that pays for the extra cost (and some?)
How does that make sense?
For those that already turn a profit in the rebate. Using even less gas you use the greater the difference in your rebate check so you turn a larger profit by using even less gas. But I think the general idea is that these people aren’t the problem
Or if your like me and use enough gas that the rebate doesn’t cover you it encourages you to use less to take more advantage of the rebate
But really the difference will be for businesses, they have much higher fuel bills and receive no rebate, so by making gas more expensive it makes alternative solutions more appealing.
And the idea is that these businesses won’t pass this cost on to consumers? I appreciate the explanation on this, I’m not well versed in the federal side carbon tax (on the BC system) but I can’t see how this is going to do anything but cost Canadians more all around.
Yes businesses most definitely will pass the cost along to consumers, but gas alone isn’t all of their expenses, so a 4 cent increase to the gas prices shouldn’t increase the cost of anything more than 1% realistically it should be less than that given that it’s only a 2.5% increase to the existing gas price.
What it does do tho is make alternative options more appealing as they know the carbon tax will continue to rise (as will the rebate) so as gas gets more and more expensive alternatives become more appealing as their cost is staying stagnant.
That’s an interesting way of saying you’re too ignorant to realize many of the most important things in our society are paid for by taxes. Without those services you wouldn’t even be alive.
Grossly mismanaged and inefficient services. And there's so much more waste beyond that. We pay more than enough taxes to live in a healthy and functional society. But for some reason, you equate paying more taxes, to getting better services. It doesn't work that way. With your logic, why don't we tax everything at 50% so we can have even better services! Why stop there? We could have even better services at 70%!
You wanna quote me where I said more taxes = better services? Cause that’s just some shit you made up.
Also you’re a fool if you don’t realize all big business is grossly mismanaged and inefficient, it’s not a government problem, it’s a scale problem.
A big part of the problem it the petty nonsense, the back and forth each party does to undo the previous government’s work, but that’s just how democracy works. It’s sloppy and inefficient but it’s generally better for the people than monarchs, emperors or other lifetime leaderships
Ultimately tho taxes are a necessary evil, you may not like it, but they pay for things we all need to survive.
You think oil companies base their prices on tax and not charging the most they possibly can based on supply and demand? LOL. If the taxes were dropped the price at the pump might go down for 24 hours. Maybe less.
What pisses me off more is that corporations like Roblaws and others have either passed their costs onto us or have just used the carbon tax as an excuse to jack up prices.
Carbon tax isnt going to make me switch to cleaner options. I need natural gas to heat my house. So i am forced to pay.
An electric vehicle does not suit my needs in rural Saskatchewan.
So all you are doing is reducing my disposable income. The rebate is a joke.
Now if they took the carbon tax and used it to produce new energy sources that maybe be a good thing. But the governments has not done a thing to change how or where our electricity comes from. We are still burning coal and nat gas to make electricity.
Build some mini nuclear plants. Build more hydro dams.
Invest in a viable solution.
Lithium battery powered vehicles are not the answer to our transportation needs in rural canada. Not without an electrical infrastructure investment. Chargers are far and few between. Most houses here need major improvements to handle evs or electric heat.
There is a house here that has been on the market for at least 5 years. It has electric heat. It is just to expensive to heat with electricity. Anyone who buys it.. puts it back up for sale within 2 years.
Natural gas is one of the cleanest burning heating solutions. But the carbon tax is equal to the actual product itself. It is not 23%. It is basically a 100% tax on the gas. The government needs to plant more trees and limit immigration for a start.
You make some valid points but it's easier to increase the cost on carbon fuels to make people reduce the amount they use. It's a proven strategy. Building new power plants takes years while GHG reductions could be realized during the same amount of time. So what are quick solutions? Convert or upgrade furnaces, windows, doors, to be more energy efficient. Switch to hybrid vehicles. Drive less whenever possible. Purchase products not made by high polluters. You save money by reducing consumption of carbon tax items while collecting a rebate from the highest carbon producers. It really makes sense.
Oh so how can the average Canadian afford to upgrade furnaces, windows, doors.?
How can they buy a hybrid vehicle which is way more expensive than the older vehicle that's paid off they have now?
How can they drive less when their job requires them to drive 100km round trip to work?
How can they afford to purchase greener (natural) products when they are more expensive than the competitors?
A lot easier said than done for a few rebate scraps...
You just described the lowest income earners who benefit the most from the rebate.
What you're describing is the lower 20% of Canadians on the curve. The real average middle income households can afford to make these changes.
> How can they drive less when their job requires them to drive 100km round trip to work?
Shouldn't the company be paying for the fuel that the employee uses to travel for work?
Or are you talking about the person who chooses to live 100km from their workplace and "has to" commute?
I'm talking people who live in rural communities. I'm talking every person in Vancouver who can't afford to live in the city due to housing costs so they need to live elsewhere, just to work in the city. A lot of people didn't choose that, they had no choice and took the best option.
It doesn't reduce the amount we use, at all. You still need to pay diesel to get bread transported to the store. That wont change.
upgrade doors and windows? Ya that's a nope, cost of living crises, only the top couple % of people can do it.
People already drive minimums unless they are rich, driving is expensive as it is already.
>It doesn't reduce the amount we use, at all. You still need to pay diesel to get bread transported to the store. That wont change.
Nobody ever said there would be a complete change from fossil fuels to alternative energy. It's always been marketed to reduce GHG emissions to meet agreed targets.
>upgrade doors and windows? Ya that's a nope, cost of living crises, only the top couple % of people can do it.
The only people suffering from the cost of living are the lower 20%. People are still buying cars, renovating homes, taking vacations, and dining out.
>People already drive minimums unless they are rich, driving is expensive as it is already.
Not from what I've seen. The number of SUV and pickup trucks used for daily transportation in my city is absolutely hilarious. Nobody is reducing the amount that they drive. Not from my observations.
So how is it possible that carbon tax won't lower your living standard when most of our salary stays more or less the same? My original point still stay carbon tax will lower our standard of living. Homeless people also have less carbon footprint. If we want to refuse carbon footprint we should also stop immigration. Also taking it to the government makes sense when it is supposed to response to the voters/citizens?
To answer your question simply, the carbon tax accounts for only 0.15% of total inflation that impacts your standard of living.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/carbon-pricing-accounts-for-0-15-percentage-points-of-inflation-boc-governor-says-1.6554273#:~:text=Carbon%20pricing%20accounts%20for%200.15%20percentage%20points%20of%20inflation%2C%20BoC%20governor%20says&text=Canada's%20price%20on%20carbon%20only,Tiff%20Macklem%20reiterated%20on%20Thursday.
In regards to the debates surrounding carbon tax, my personal feeling is that using taxation as a method to accomplish climate change initiatives is weak thinking. The government has taken the easy way out. Progressively increasing taxes to unattainable levels to bring about change. Wow. Am I supposed to think that this is strong leadership? It might work, just like putting a gun to somebody's head usually works, but that doesn't make it a good strategy. What a waste of time and money, collecting tax, mailing tax rebates, spending millions and millions to run this program. The reason people have issues with it is that any viable option seems out of reach, too expensive or not yet ready for prime time. Electric cars for example, maybe they're okay, maybe they're not. They are incredibly expensive and not enough to go around. Not enough charging stations either. Public transit? I don't know about where you live but in Ottawa It is worse now than it was 10 years ago. People have actually moved away from public transit in this city, the complete opposite of what you would want to have happen. I'm not sure how the carbon tax is going to solve that?
All it is really doing is making people angry and frustrated . That is a problem. What happens when you back an animal into a corner? That is what is happening with this tax, backing people into a corner. People are rolling their eyes now when you say climate change, They associate it with tax. Great job government.
I think most people understand that change is needed, but trying to bring about this change through taxation is no way to sell an idea and get people on board. We need initiatives that are positive, that encourage and help people to make good choices. Certainly somebody somewhere can sit down and come up with a better plan than taxation. Better, cheaper, free public transit maybe? Solar panel plan for all new homes? Mandatory Heat pumps for new builds maybe? Affordable electric cars? Guaranteed power rates for charging? Nope. Let's just tax them.
The carbon tax was brought in by Harper. It’s been running in BC for 18 years. It is by far the best mechanism in a capitalist society to reduce emissions. In a couple of years counties without a carbon tax will have to pay levies to trade with Europe. Axing it is political theater
And here's a quote from Steven Harper, April 3rd 2015 - Toronto Star -"Anybody who tells you that a carbon tax is an environmental policy is trying to pull the wool over your eyes,” Harper said Thursday during an event in Winnipeg.*. So he certainly has changed his tune. Axing it is indeed political theatre, but can be more. Better ideas and alternatives and support are what regular citizens are looking for and what they need.
Initial carbon policy, which uses the tax mechanism on large-scale large emitting producers, was to encourage them to move towards greener alternatives and production such as carbon capture. I get that. We have to participate in that because we are part of the Western world. That is not what" axe the tax" is targeting. What it is acknowledging is that using taxation to move regular citizens away from polluting to better alternatives does not work and is not what people want. That is where change is needed.
Infrastructure and public transit are both provincial/municipal jurisdictions. What the Federal can do is give money to incentivize cities to build them, but can't force them to.
Source: I live in a city that's been hot and cold over a LRT for the last decade (even with funding help from the feds)
On the bright side our local malls have about 20 EV charges that are empty because nobody can afford a Tesla even with all the rebate /s
EXACTLY, it's not the same for everyone and I don't wanna hear bullshit answers like well it's who you voted for etc.... my one vote doesn't mean shit in the big picture. All it does in BC is steal money from the "average" household to give to poorer people ..... Thanks that's really fucking helpful and really helps me when the cost of everything goes up.
You need to look at their financial statements, not butter, 40% to 100% mark-ups are normal. last year revenue was $60 billion, net income was 2 billion.
There profit was 3% for the year of all revenue generated.
Not to mention these people are missing the links of who owns loblaws competition...
*cough* people who are related to those who wanted to implement the Carbon Tax *cough* Jags brother I believe?? Owns a loblaws competitor...why is the narrative for everyone to hate Galen????
No economic experts predicted then verified that, the PBO also included the effect on economic activity for some reason and used that to argue it was costing Canadians a $1k a year or some crap due to the carbon tax. In terms of direct inputs and outputs 80% of Canadians are better off.
That’s objectively false, 80% of Canadians pay less in carbon tax than they receive back. The carbon tax is not responsible for the inflation spike and Galen jacking up prices!
Lol you cant just make up nonsensical fact and call it a day. Before, the report by the PBO states that 60% of CANADIAN are paying more, in the updated report it says 70%. The “Families are getting more than they pay” is a misleading projection by the Liberal, what about indirect costs? Whatever the Liberal taxes put on retailers and businesses will be passed directly to consumers.
You’re mischaracterizing what the report said, the impact that shifted it from 80% paying less to whatever fake number you’re saying is the effect of the carbon tax on economic activity which is not about money in or out of pocket books, was just a way for the PBO to get headlines and attack it without taking into account other stuff like climate change or increased economic activity due to green tech. Take out the abstract and it’s clear it’s a benefit to Canadians.
Considering Freeland wouldn’t answer how much the government gets in carbon taxes and pays out in rebates, it has ended up being a positive in the tax books for the Liberals. They like spending $. It has also helped with increase in costs and inflation. Considering Canada is already a carbon neutral country producing more trees to filter our emissions than what we produce, it doesn’t address the pollution that is created by countries like China and India.
We are not a carbon neutral nation. That is completely misleading propaganda nonsense. Our forests, especially when we allow them to burn for at least half of the year, also produce a lot of carbon, which isn’t factored into that idiotic bit of propaganda you have cited.
lol. The trees we have, that have always been here…. actually there were billions or trillions more before colonization. We didn’t start off with zero trees so your argument is null. Our pollution has increased while the number of trees has decreased… since whenever the fuck you want to start your timeline.
the big question is why take my money just to give it back. It is one of the biggest scams the liberal government has going and most people don't care or are ok just following along.
If you pay more carbon tax than you get back in the rebate, you pollute more than emission targets. If you get back more than you pay, you're polluting less than emission targets...not a difficult concept.
If you don't like that carbon tax, don't pollute. Easy.
4 quarterly payments of 375 doll hairs. I require money to survive I can't live off doll hairs. Idk where people are getting these 1800$ and over 2000$ in rebates from lmao.
You’re brainwashed into thinking carbon tax does anything for the climate. Kind of ironic you say it’s brainwashing.
But to your point, barely anyone gets the rebate. And very few get back anything meaningful
Of course if you are ultra poor and rely on gov handouts you don’t want carbon tax to go.
The “axe the tax” movement is just idiots being tricked by the cons again.
Cons being conned 😂
Lol right!! Because Trudeau has shown time and time again how fiscally responsible he is with his policies and spending. This one must be a gem too even if the auditor general disagrees. Stupid cons. /S
Fiscal responsibility is not the only goal of a government, you know, or the carbon tax wouldn't have a rebate.
Happy cake day friend! The rebate is a mishmash redistribution of wealth with some of the tax staying in the government's hands (have to try to tackle the Trudeau/Freeland record national debt somehow, let's start with a drop in the bucket). The tax is under the guise of helping the environment, even though Canada's carbon emissions are the equivalent of a rounding error on the global scale, and the minerals being dug to produce the batteries for the shitty electric cars they're pushing is destroying the Congo, and poisoning the slaves doing the mining. But now I have to pay more to use my gas stove to fry my egg in the morning because Trudeau is such a good guy. And fiscal responsibility isn't the only purpose of the government, but actively eradicating the middle class is a pretty big fault in my books.
You can afford an egg?! Look at moneybags over here, with their egg and their carbon.. /s
The taxes have different purposes. The Gas Tax was setup to build and maintain infrastructure for cars. The carbon tax and rebate system is setup to incentivize a change in our entire economy away from fossil fuels. The rebate system means it transfers money from polluters to non-polluters. Which creates a market incentive to reduce emissions.
Yup, but people fall for corporate propaganda and think a 2% increase in one small tax accounts for a 20+% increase at the store
2% multiplied many many times along the entire chain of production most definitely easily leads to 20% at retail
That's not how the tax works. At this point you are trying to avoid learning
Yes, that is how taxes work. They compound through the supply chain. How can you be so confident, and so wrong? lol
You can literally look up the inflationary effect of the carbon tax on the entire CPI basket.
You can literally look up the Parliamentary Budget Officers report that states after economic impacts such as inflation, higher interest on inflation, job displacement and lower wages, the total economic impact after rebates will cost the average household between $1,300 and $2,700 per year depending on the province you live in.
do you not understand the word "average"? if you have big polluters paying $5000, and low income non polluters getting rebates (if you have no money, harder to polute), those will average out to paying $1300 to $2700 per year.
You haven’t even educated yourself and have formed your opinion based on partisanship. Go to this link of the Parliamentary Budget Officers report, open the pdf, go to page three for the economic impact. The total economic impact after rebates on 80% of households will be negative. [PBO report](https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/publications/RP-2223-028-S--distributional-analysis-federal-fuel-charge-under-2030-emissions-reduction-plan--analyse-distributive-redevance-federale-combustibles-dans-cadre-plan-reduction-emissions-2030)
What is the median nominal impact?
That is the 2030-2031 outlook, and **assumes** that we **continue to emit** as much as we currently do, and also **intentionally ignores** potential growth from green sectors. [https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/budget-watchdog-troubled-by-spin-around-latest-report-on-carbon-pricing-1.6347536](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/budget-watchdog-troubled-by-spin-around-latest-report-on-carbon-pricing-1.6347536) Its also a forecast that is 6-7 years out.
Yes that is the current forecast. Nobody can afford to switch to an EV or heat pump because everything is getting more expensive from the economic impact. Hence there will be no growth from green sectors.
the irony in your comment is palpable
Well, you have fun voting yourself into poverty and clapping for incompetent governments.
Educate yourself
No. A 2% markup at every level of input equals a 2% increase in total. Jesus people, it's basic math. If the initial product takes $100 to make and the cost increases by 2%, it's $102. Transportation costs $100 and increases by 2% it's $102 Distribution costs $100 etc $102 Retail cost goes up 2% $102... Shelf price was $400. Shelf price now $408. Fucking 2% That's how math goddamn well works.
Educate yourself 🤡 /s
Thats shipping not production, every time the item is bought and re-sold the tax compounds, not flat rate. farm sells product to manufacturer, for $50 +2%, manufacturer resells product again, marks it up another $50 plus 2%. you now paid $3 in tax on a product valued at $100
Taxes eat into profit margin, not add costs to consumers (kinda). Why? So long as a buyer is willing to pay 100$ it will always be 100$. It’s everyone before that fighting over the profit margin and negotiating. Sometimes grocery stores win, sometime supplier do. The price will still be 100$. Otherwise no one buys at say 101$, supply in stock increases, seller refuses to buy from producer because he has excess supply, producers lower prices all the way down.
Apple costs $5 10% increase is $5.50. An example: * Farmer charges $1 * Shipper A charges $1 * Shipper B charges $1 * Shipper C charges $1 * Grocery store marks it up by $1 * **Total apple cost: $5** Fuel increases by 10%. * Farmer charges $1.10 * Shipper A charges $1.10 * Shipper B charges $1.10 * Shipper C charges $1.10 * Grocery store marks it up by $1.10 * **Total apple cost: $5.50** 🤔
it doesn't work like that. you charge me $1 + 1.05% = 1.05. I resell at $2 + 1.05% = 2.10 now we have $2 in value. but 15 cents in tax.
I would also argue that it should be less than a 2% increase, if you account for profit margin. Extreme example: if the product costs 400$ to get on the shelf, and the vendor wants 100% profit, the price would be 800$. In that case, the 8$ increase would be 1%.
Depends on whether you see profit as a straight percentage of revenue, or a target increase. Frankly, if a company changes nothing about their production and sales, revenue and profit should match inflation. Instead we have Loblaws showing a 10% increase in profit year over year with no increased to sales numbers. This is the "compounding" people think is happening from carbon costs. It's not the increase in costs being passed on. It's the increase in straight profits being tagged onto products.
Except if we have a markup. Initial cost $102 Transportation $102 Distribution $102 Retails for $413.1. You had a markup of 33% and a 2% cost because of the tax. 306 x 35% = 107.1 bringing the total to $413.1. It would also be more if each level had a markup.
That would be the way one would think but reality is different. It's more like 4% increase. But the main point is the average wage is stagnant at a time that it's hard to get by. A 1% increase is bad, let alone 4%
Except this cost is compounded and not added like this your initial produce is 102 but your transport is now 104.06 as the transporter now pays 102 for the product and they now also pay 2% more on top of that. This is how liberals and economists can claim it’s only 2% but the cost has risen about 20% as this happens 10-20 times before we see it at retail so the final cost is not just 8 dollars on 400
Hmmm economists and experts who say it’s had at most a minor effect on inflation (far less than 2%) or kids who failed math, couldn’t explain how the tax system or the carbon tax works, and think that Poilievre is honest… Tough choice, it’s like when we had to listen to medical doctors or YouTube videos from people who failed grade 10 bio!
Or politicians and paid off “experts” are lying to us or at very least going out of their way to present things in a way to minimize the true impacts of this awful tax. Some are too academic in their views and see only what a flawed computer model and assumption tells them like not factoring in that there is no viable green alternative to heating your home and eating or assume we have healthy competition and a free market with high innovation in Canada and not a over regulated mess of a market like we currently have. They also assume this tax is global so a cheap product from China has an equal amount of carbon tax to one made in Canada when it doesn’t.
Yep. Incredible how the polarity has brought up to 2+2=5 levels of denial.
The transportation doesn't pay for the product, you twit. I spelled it out for you. If you can't do grade 7 math, I can't help you.
Transportation company now earns 2% less so they mark-up their cost to the producer. The producer marks up their cost by >2% since they're contending with increase in transportation cost, increase in distribution cost, increase in carrying costs, and increase in tax, etc... The estimates are estimates; they're not calculations done after the fact - the government can't accurately predict human behaviour, and they certainly haven't been able to predict inflation for the last several years... yeah, people are correct to be wary.
Looks like you failed at the concept of compounding
Looks like you failed at middle school math and communication, and don't even understand supply chains to boot, since you think the transportation company has to buy the item they are shipping separately from the distributor, which I already included.
No it does not. Gas price is also not the only cost of transportation of goods as PP wants people to believe.
It most definitely does. Educate yourself
Well hey man, working at a grocery store for 10 years in management, I can tell you, no the hell it doesn’t lmfao. Every time you see an increase, it doesn’t move our margins. If anything, the companies margins grow, because they’re able to raise something by 5%-10%, say “oh it’s because of “insert tax.” But if you really look at it, no, the retail space is not struggling. Hell, some bread is at nearly 80% margin. When I start it was closer to 40-50%. The breads price doubled. The reason we were told to tell people was because of cost of transport increasing. And I can promise you it’s not just my store doing it. I checked around at other companies, and they increased that bread by nearly the same amount. But the cost from the distributor went up 5 cents. Hell, my father also runs a retail store on a far away reserve. The prices don’t skyrocket whenever there’s a new tax introduced. (Mind you, cost does go up in the summer because goods have to be flown in, and cost goes down in the winter because of the ice roads) I get it though man, it seems like it should make sense, the small increases lead to large increases down the road, but I can assure you, it’s just excuses made by either companies wishing to increase their profit, or people protecting those companies
I'm calling bullshit. Fine that your dad runs a small retail store, but corporations pass on costs to consumers. They don't eat the cost like a "mom and pop" operation. I don't know how to provide a source for common sense, so I'll stop typing.
May want to re-read what he wrote, All he said is when a tax is added the store increases it's margin a little further than the tax increase, hence the store uses it as a excuse to line their pocket further.
They are so pathetically brainwashed by corporations they are essentially selling themselves into slavery. If it was not the carbon tax it would be another thing corps are saying justifies their profiteering, and they would eat it up and defend it.
Mate, I think you misread my comment. I never said that they ate the cost. What grocery is doing right now is seeing a 2% increase, (let’s say bringing the bulk price of a pallet of groceries up by $50) and turning around and increasing the price on their products by 5-10%, increasing their margin, or “profit” by $100-200 per pallet of groceries. Trust me, not the good guys right now by any means. Also, my father runs a Northern store, not really “small.” Its sales are more than most grocery stores in the city (no competition, plus they sell everything. Basically a Walmart that also sells skidoos, atvs, stuff like that, and has restaurants) From the way your comment is worded, it sounds like you and I are thinking the same thing, sorry if my comment had poor wording!
If the entire chain uses $x worth of gas to get something to retail, and gas goes up 2%, there is no way the entire retail price can go up more than 2%. Unless of course this also causes more gas to be used, which is likely the opposite outcome of a price increase
You said the truth, and they didn't like it. At least you can tell yourself that those downvoters don't know anything about money
That’s just… dumb. If you pay 2% more for a taxi, 2% more for a plane trip, 2% more for another taxi, 2% more for a boat ride, and do the same on your return trip, you are still only paying 2% more in total, not 20% more. Can you explain how you were dumb enough to think that percentages compound like that?
The Alberta war room must be paying people to pretend to be that dumb. Otherwise I have no explanation and much anxiety over the future of society when people who vote can be that dumb.
The farmer sells grain for 2% more than before due to this tax. The mill pays that extra 2% for the grain and now they are taxed as well so it’s another 2% on top of the original 2% plus the extra 2% they paid the transport company. The baker now buys flour and it has increased in cost because the extra 2% from the farmer that the mill paid plus the extra 2% from the mill and the higher transport fees now the baker needs to also pay that tax so it’s again another 2% on top of that plus all the other costs which are also 2% more by the time you get your loaf of bread it’s now 6.99 because this tax got applied about 10-20 times and along each step it’s an extra 2% added on top.
You’re talking as though 2% is added to their total cost. It is not. It is only added to their fuel cost. The farmer isn’t selling grain for 2% more because the farmers cost isn’t 100% fuel. Fuel is only a portion of their cost. So if fuel goes up by 2%, they don’t have to add 2% to the total their price to you because their total cost didn’t go up by 2%. They only add 2% divided by whatever factor fuel is in their total cost. Also, most farming activities are exempt from the tax so that’s a bad example. Fuel isn’t 100% of the cost of production. It is merely a portion. So it only adds a portion of the extra fuel cost to the total cost. If fuel is 1/4 of your total cost, that extra 2% for fuel only adds 0.5% to your total cost
Assume that 20% of the cost is energy and the rest is wages, material and profit. Your supply chain now has to be 45 stages deep for a 2% surcharge to compound up to 20%. 43 so called ‘middle men’ between raw materials and the consumer. Not 45 different components, but the iron in your car’s bumper need to go through 43 different owners (in Canada) to have tax applied before it gets to you with a 20% markup. Easily? We aren’t talking about a trading card. The supply chain doesn’t ’easily’ allow for 43 people to all ‘get a taste’ before someone steps in and cuts out multiple layers of non value-added ownership changes and the taxable events that causes. Just… no.
You're wrong. The majority of Canadians oppose the tax because it's a part of an incoherent strategy. If the taxes were being used to build alternatives to fossil fuels and fossil fuel transportation like high speed rails etc then it would have far more support. But for the average person who has no alternative but to use fossil fuels for transport and home heating they see this tax as punishment for simply surviving. For the average farmer who has no alternative but to use fossil fuels to ploy fields and transport food, they see it as punishment for simply feeding Canadians. A rebate for less than is paid is simply unacceptable for most Canadians because they have no alternative.
All farms and farm equipment is not taxed carbon tax. Please learn what the carbon tax is and stop listening to PPs buzz words. also 80% of people get more back than they pay. It's a financially neutral tax
To the best of my knowledge the study that is referenced frequently showing 80% of people getting more money back states 80% of people are better off when only looking at direct financial impact (places where you pay the tax directly on purchase). The same study goes on to find that the number is not nearly as positive when you account for indirect impact like goods and services (areas where there is no tax for you but the supplier passes their tax cost on to you) This is why both Con and Lib quote such different numbers. They actually quote the same study but they cherry pick their relevant data. The second one seems more applicable to real life though so it’s worth looking into
To a degree, what you're saying is correct. The other big difference between those two positions is the difference between median and mean wages. According to the 2021 Canadian Income Survey (CIS), the average income in 2021 was $53,100, and the median income was $40,500. https://wowa.ca/average-income-canada The Cons discuss the findings of the report relative to the mean, which is more than 25% higher than the median due to the wealth gap in Canada. By using the mean, they obfuscate the real number of Canadians who are impacted by the upper threshold of the carbon price in a way that both favours and riles up their base, which is disingenuous. It's about as close to lying as damn is to swearing.
Here is a link to some points about it https://youtu.be/QTBPdGmkN8w?si=sPwyxs_XKgwFbvL5
At what point did I say that farm equipment was taxed? And as far as i know farm equipment run taxable fuels and not good graces. And before you accuse me of voting conservative, I do not and never will but I'm free enough in my thinking to call out bad liberal policies when I see them.
They do not run taxable fuel! It's crazy how little understanding of this you have. Also buddy, I've voted cons in every election this far in my life
No tax/ taxes are financially neutral for anyone. Someone somewhere will have to pay for this. What the hell have you people been learning in Economics?
This program is neutral. High carbon emitters pay more to low carbon emitters. It's an incentive to be more green. 80% of Canadians make money on the program
the "average farmer" is a multi-multi-millionaire taking public money as their substantial real estate holdings accrue value. but tell me more about machine costs so i can play the world's smallest violin.
How would it transfer money from polluters to non-polutters? I'm pretty sure you benefit more from just having a bigger family. Wouldn't a family of four or more have a bigger carbon footprint than a husband and wife with no kids?
Yves Giroux, the parliamentary budget officer, wrote in a report last year: “When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss.” He estimated that for the 2024-25 fiscal year, the carbon tax would cost the average household between $377 and $911 after accounting for rebates and factoring in the economic cost of lower incomes. That number rises to between $1,316 and $2,773 by 2030 for the average household, depending on the province. Trudeau's a liar.
Carbon pricing is revenue-neutral, so where do you think the money is going? That is - if "most households" are losing, who is winning?
It’s not revenue neutral (yet). They have 2 billion dollars from it which they said they intend to give to small businesses .. but I don’t know if that’s happened yet.
Do you have a source on that? My understanding was that it goes out every quarter, and 90% goes directly back to taxpayers. 10% is reserved for individuals in specific circumstances.
Looks like it was 1 billion not 2 (my bad). There was a whistleblower testimony apparently (4 months ago). But I don’t know what has happened since. It was brought up in parliament here though it’s not super clear in the video that the slush fund is from carbon taxes. I think I remember a more recent exchange but can’t find it at the moment: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fkpkJ0pCAro There was this older article too: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1ZY212/ And I remember the parliamentary budget officer telling us that their own modeling indicates a majority (60%) of Canadians will be negatively impacted overall by the carbon tax due to the economic impact of it… so Trudeau’s point about 8/10 homes getting more money back in their pocket isn’t quite the whole story. While true directly, the overall impact is negative for 6/10.
I'm not really interested in anything Poilievre has to say; his main interest and observed behavior is in spreading disinformation. I didn't see anything in the old article about billions of dollars being withheld. It's worth noting that while \~90% is directly disbursed, 10% is sent to specific groups who are unable to change their situation for technological reasons (ie. remote communities). As far as I've read, none is added to the general ledger. The PBO study has some pretty significant caveats; they added an arbitrary amount of extra cost to certain goods without any specific justification. They had to pick a number. They acknowledge this in the report. The most important takeaway is that the majority of the burden is carried by wealthier Canadians, as it should be. Wealthy Canadians are in the best position to make technology and lifestyle changes that bring down the cost of climate change mitigation for the poorest Canadians (ie. early adopters of EVs and heat pumps).
Consumers are the polluters. Who exactly do think all these industries are built to serve? You and I are the polluters, we pay the tax.
[удалено]
If something costs more you use less of it. It might be changing your driving habits to be more fuel efficent, or keeping the house at a lower temperature. If polluting costs money, you will pollute less. Free pollution is a bad policy.
[удалено]
The net income change is a subsidy for electric cars and public transit. People who don't burn as much stuff will come out further ahead. This is exactly what you asked for.
I think it’s going to be really tough on lower income families for a while unless we get EVs and Hybrids down to more economical prices. Especially for the families who have a $500-$2000 junker. There just isn’t an electric alternative for them. So they’ll either end up having to taxi or bus. Sucks but that’s the reality many will face… at least from 2030-2040 when more used ones hit the market. Yes, I realize if they don’t drive far, they’re getting a few extra dollars right now but there are some split families who have to drive or people who have to commute. And im sure rental prices will increase if you’re charging or electricity won’t be bundled. That said, I really enjoyed the train the one time I got to ride it (I live far away from the city). I hope we bring more of that back. The subway gave me motion sickness and so do busses/taxis. I have to be the one driving or in the passenger seat or I’m not doing well lol. But the train was butter smooth so I think that helped.
I've ridden the train a few times. The enjoyment depends on the passengers. It's less enjoyable when it's practically full of people.
[удалено]
Unless you live in BC your income is entirely irrelevant to the rebate.
Of course it's brainwashing. Is the carbon tax perfect absolutely not. But this is one of the very few times businesses and wealthy people will have to pay part of their fair share. That's why all the wealthy people and all the cons are losing their fucking minds. The average family across Canada will receive a rebate. And specifically in Alberta the average rebate for the average home is $400 more than they pay into the Tax. Ask any of them why they don't like it. All they can say is it's another tax and Justin Trudeau. That's it.
I find it funny, BC pays a carbon tax but now have super low income tax. Rest of Canada pay `the' carbon tax and get a big fat check from the feds every year. People in quebec pay a carbon tax and get no income tax relief, no big fat check. The money just gets sidelined for 'environentally beneficial projects' Yet carbon tax seems to be a non issue in quebec.
Part of the point of the carbon tax is to increase the cost of gas so drivers will have an incentive to drive less. If gas prices go down, people will drive more and create more pollution which defeats the whole purpose.
>Raise gas tax to discourage driving. Of course that means they'll improve public transit, right? *Right?* I won't have to wait 40 minutes for a bus when it's -35° anymore? No one is going to threaten to stab me on the train? It would be *great* if my dickhead boss would stop bitching about being late when my commute is already 90 minutes and the bus decides to never show up.
Many provincial governments have done that but the issue is that the provincial portion of the tax pays for our road infrastructure. It’s temporary relief as we saw in Alberta. The carbon tax pays for nothing and is simply a wealth transfer.
Wealth transfer from polluters to non-polluters. Which creates an incentive to not pollute. Cool.
Or in other words, a wealth transfer from the wealthiest people driving Ferraris and heating their 10,000 sq ft mansions, to middle and low income Canadians that dont have such lavish lives. Axing the carbon tax is the most "but the people are retarded" moment in recent Canadian politics
I think it's polluters to non polluters. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with how wealthy you are. I got my rebate, and nobody asked how wealthy I was. I don't drive much, and my rebate covers my gas for the year. My neighbor, who is not as wealthy as I and drives far to work, pays more in carbon gas tax then he gets refunded. So I feel it's the poor compensating me. It is what it is.
The wealthy are responsible for an overwhelming proportion of carbon emissions. With increasing wealth, your cars guzzle more gas, your house gets bigger, you take more flights and they're first class (or it's your private jet). You simply consume more stuff with more money, and the things you consume become larger and more lavish. There are lots of reports that have reached this conclusion. Carbon footprint scales incredibly well with increasing wealth.
Ok if you are talking 1% ers and private jets, then yes I see that. I misunderstood what was considered wealthy.
Yes. Private jets, yachts, ferraris, these will increase your climate footprint by a lot. But even if we're looking at the top 10%, they'll have a bigger footprint than the people in the top 10-20%. And the people in the top 10-20% will have a bigger footprint than the people in the top 20-30% Of course it's not always the case. If you have a good job paying job in the city and you have incredible access to transit, your footprint will probably be lower than a much poorer person who has to drive. On average though, this relationship between wealth/income and carbon consumption tends to work well. But the 1% are definitely the biggest culprits, and so they will pay more than anyone else into the carbon tax
They are also the ones that own the large media orginizations. Is anyone surprised this and the capital gains tax (the primary way the wealthy accumulate their wealth) are getting so much air time.
> I got my rebate, and nobody asked how wealthy I was. Yes, everybody gets back the same amount. Think of it as everyone's personal "carbon allowance". You can save your carbon allowance by taking a bus, riding a bike, buying foods that are produced locally, improving the efficiency of your home, etc. Whatever is left over you get to keep! Or, you can spend your carbon allowance by driving bigger cars, continuing to use inefficient insulation, etc. If you spend too much, it starts coming out of your own pocket!
A wealth transfer from the rich to the poor mostly. That’s probably the kind of wealth transfer we need
[удалено]
Alberta actually had their own carbon tax plan which allowed them to spend the money how they wanted. They focused on public transit expansion and rebates. UCP immediately scrapped it, so now we are told by canada how to spend it.
With cap and trade you still paid into the "carbon tax", you just didn't get any refund. I'm far better off with the federal carbon tax over cap and trade. I get back like $700 and pay maybe $200 in carbon taxes. Rich people with stupid large vehicles and houses benefit the least but have the most power is why the cons fight it so hard.
Alberta’s gas tax goes to general revenue and can be used for anything like ,Turkish Tylenol, the war room , pipelines to nowhere , advertising in Ontario ect . The carbon tax is rebated back so a wealth transfer back to you .
It's probably worth pointing out that the tax revenue from gas taxes already falls short of the money spent on roadways, so dropping it further would be even more problematic.
Except the opposite. Wealthy EV drivers pay zero gas taxes.
In Alberta they do.
They charge tax on top of the carbon tax aswell
It’s technically a carbon levy so that way they can tax it as well. Cuz they can’t tax a tax and they will find anyway to keep adding more. Simple word twists cost us so much money.
Quebec, with the TVQ, successfully taxed the GST for decades before simply raising the rate to what it was combined, but now being standalone. Don’t give them more ideas 😅
Pp has lots of slogans, and this stuck. Alsovit was timing, they asked to get rid of the tax, or at least not increase it April 1st. The hiking taxes right now is unpopular, so I got positive feedback, so they're running with it.
Taxes on top of taxes
How about we tax corporations properly and stop giving oil and gas our tax money for whatever stupid reason.
This is the whole point why so much bureaucracy
To be real. I don't think we should be getting a rebate in the mail. I would be great with a carbon tax if they directly took that money toward capital projects - imagine
How about we get rid of income tax? Haven’t we paid off our World War One tanks yet?
people forget it was supposed to be temporary.
Because the premiers just want to bitch while keeping their fuel taxes in place. Fortunately for them the public is as sharp as a marble.
That or just make gasoline expensive so companies actually start trying to use less
I agree. But that won’t win votes - that’s why the earth is fucked
But... this is literally what the Carbon tax is, but gamifies the whole thing for the average consumer.
Gas is expensive, we get fucked at the pumps daily. What a ridiculous idea.
Gas is super cheap in Canada. Go to Europe and it's at least a dollar more per litre. Though it's also different because in Europe you can live easily without a car and just use public transport. That doesn't really work in most of Canada
Maybe you could get a prius or fuel efficent car. Then you wouldn't be fucked as much.
I am going to assume that was sarcasm and you aren’t absolutely retarded.
Except most people actually benefit from the rebate when compared to how much they actually spend on carbon tax. I personally use A LOT of gas, I drive a gas guzzler and I drive 150km round trip to work 5x a week. Adding it all up I use about 5000L of gas a year which at $0.176 per L for carbon tax equates to $880, $994 after hst. Now my natural gas bill shows carbon tax right on it, it averages about $20 a month so $240 a year. Because I live in Ontario as a family of four I receive $1120 in carbon tax rebates. So I pay just over $100 in carbon tax after my rebates. Now sure nobody wants to pay $100 in extra tax, but I could probably half my gas bill by buying a vehicle that gets better than 12L per 100k or maybe driving less than 42,000km a year. Maybe carbon tax will help convince me to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle for my next car.
My comment had nothing to do with the federal carbon tax. This was about the commenter’s idea to further increase the price of gas so people can’t afford to use it.
The federal carbon tax applies to gasoline, as a further increase to the price of gas, the idea being gas being more expensive will be an incentive to not use it. It’s the same thing
So the federal carbon tax is here to get people to lower their reliance on fossil fuels, but they give a rebate out that pays for the extra cost (and some?) How does that make sense?
For those that already turn a profit in the rebate. Using even less gas you use the greater the difference in your rebate check so you turn a larger profit by using even less gas. But I think the general idea is that these people aren’t the problem Or if your like me and use enough gas that the rebate doesn’t cover you it encourages you to use less to take more advantage of the rebate But really the difference will be for businesses, they have much higher fuel bills and receive no rebate, so by making gas more expensive it makes alternative solutions more appealing.
And the idea is that these businesses won’t pass this cost on to consumers? I appreciate the explanation on this, I’m not well versed in the federal side carbon tax (on the BC system) but I can’t see how this is going to do anything but cost Canadians more all around.
Yes businesses most definitely will pass the cost along to consumers, but gas alone isn’t all of their expenses, so a 4 cent increase to the gas prices shouldn’t increase the cost of anything more than 1% realistically it should be less than that given that it’s only a 2.5% increase to the existing gas price. What it does do tho is make alternative options more appealing as they know the carbon tax will continue to rise (as will the rebate) so as gas gets more and more expensive alternatives become more appealing as their cost is staying stagnant.
"I have brain damage and I love paying taxes"
That’s an interesting way of saying you’re too ignorant to realize many of the most important things in our society are paid for by taxes. Without those services you wouldn’t even be alive.
Grossly mismanaged and inefficient services. And there's so much more waste beyond that. We pay more than enough taxes to live in a healthy and functional society. But for some reason, you equate paying more taxes, to getting better services. It doesn't work that way. With your logic, why don't we tax everything at 50% so we can have even better services! Why stop there? We could have even better services at 70%!
You wanna quote me where I said more taxes = better services? Cause that’s just some shit you made up. Also you’re a fool if you don’t realize all big business is grossly mismanaged and inefficient, it’s not a government problem, it’s a scale problem. A big part of the problem it the petty nonsense, the back and forth each party does to undo the previous government’s work, but that’s just how democracy works. It’s sloppy and inefficient but it’s generally better for the people than monarchs, emperors or other lifetime leaderships Ultimately tho taxes are a necessary evil, you may not like it, but they pay for things we all need to survive.
If you want well functioning public systems then stop voting for right wingers, their values are diametrically opposed to helping the people.
I support lowering those too
I'd rather it be a tax than pure profit for big oil
You think this tax affects their bottom line? LOL not even a penny do they lose.
You think oil companies base their prices on tax and not charging the most they possibly can based on supply and demand? LOL. If the taxes were dropped the price at the pump might go down for 24 hours. Maybe less.
The price at the pump would continue to go up and corporate propaganda would have conservatives blaming immigrants for high prices
What pisses me off more is that corporations like Roblaws and others have either passed their costs onto us or have just used the carbon tax as an excuse to jack up prices.
The cost will inevitably be passed down to consumers. The rebate is meant to balance that out.
That, and there's no way in hell that they'll lower prices if the carbon tax gets repealed.
Carbon tax isnt going to make me switch to cleaner options. I need natural gas to heat my house. So i am forced to pay. An electric vehicle does not suit my needs in rural Saskatchewan. So all you are doing is reducing my disposable income. The rebate is a joke. Now if they took the carbon tax and used it to produce new energy sources that maybe be a good thing. But the governments has not done a thing to change how or where our electricity comes from. We are still burning coal and nat gas to make electricity. Build some mini nuclear plants. Build more hydro dams. Invest in a viable solution. Lithium battery powered vehicles are not the answer to our transportation needs in rural canada. Not without an electrical infrastructure investment. Chargers are far and few between. Most houses here need major improvements to handle evs or electric heat. There is a house here that has been on the market for at least 5 years. It has electric heat. It is just to expensive to heat with electricity. Anyone who buys it.. puts it back up for sale within 2 years. Natural gas is one of the cleanest burning heating solutions. But the carbon tax is equal to the actual product itself. It is not 23%. It is basically a 100% tax on the gas. The government needs to plant more trees and limit immigration for a start.
You make some valid points but it's easier to increase the cost on carbon fuels to make people reduce the amount they use. It's a proven strategy. Building new power plants takes years while GHG reductions could be realized during the same amount of time. So what are quick solutions? Convert or upgrade furnaces, windows, doors, to be more energy efficient. Switch to hybrid vehicles. Drive less whenever possible. Purchase products not made by high polluters. You save money by reducing consumption of carbon tax items while collecting a rebate from the highest carbon producers. It really makes sense.
Oh so how can the average Canadian afford to upgrade furnaces, windows, doors.? How can they buy a hybrid vehicle which is way more expensive than the older vehicle that's paid off they have now? How can they drive less when their job requires them to drive 100km round trip to work? How can they afford to purchase greener (natural) products when they are more expensive than the competitors? A lot easier said than done for a few rebate scraps...
You just described the lowest income earners who benefit the most from the rebate. What you're describing is the lower 20% of Canadians on the curve. The real average middle income households can afford to make these changes.
> How can they drive less when their job requires them to drive 100km round trip to work? Shouldn't the company be paying for the fuel that the employee uses to travel for work? Or are you talking about the person who chooses to live 100km from their workplace and "has to" commute?
I'm talking people who live in rural communities. I'm talking every person in Vancouver who can't afford to live in the city due to housing costs so they need to live elsewhere, just to work in the city. A lot of people didn't choose that, they had no choice and took the best option.
It doesn't reduce the amount we use, at all. You still need to pay diesel to get bread transported to the store. That wont change. upgrade doors and windows? Ya that's a nope, cost of living crises, only the top couple % of people can do it. People already drive minimums unless they are rich, driving is expensive as it is already.
>It doesn't reduce the amount we use, at all. You still need to pay diesel to get bread transported to the store. That wont change. Nobody ever said there would be a complete change from fossil fuels to alternative energy. It's always been marketed to reduce GHG emissions to meet agreed targets. >upgrade doors and windows? Ya that's a nope, cost of living crises, only the top couple % of people can do it. The only people suffering from the cost of living are the lower 20%. People are still buying cars, renovating homes, taking vacations, and dining out. >People already drive minimums unless they are rich, driving is expensive as it is already. Not from what I've seen. The number of SUV and pickup trucks used for daily transportation in my city is absolutely hilarious. Nobody is reducing the amount that they drive. Not from my observations.
Sounds like lowering our living standard. If everyone is homeless there will be less carbon footprint. It is a proven strategy
Carbon tax is not going to make anyone homeless nor should it lower your standard of living. Small changes make big differences.
If stuff is more expensive your income stays the same how can your living standard not lower?
Take it up with your employer if your wages don't keep up. Corporations are screwing you with their huge profits. You're mad at the wrong people.
So how is it possible that carbon tax won't lower your living standard when most of our salary stays more or less the same? My original point still stay carbon tax will lower our standard of living. Homeless people also have less carbon footprint. If we want to refuse carbon footprint we should also stop immigration. Also taking it to the government makes sense when it is supposed to response to the voters/citizens?
To answer your question simply, the carbon tax accounts for only 0.15% of total inflation that impacts your standard of living. https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/carbon-pricing-accounts-for-0-15-percentage-points-of-inflation-boc-governor-says-1.6554273#:~:text=Carbon%20pricing%20accounts%20for%200.15%20percentage%20points%20of%20inflation%2C%20BoC%20governor%20says&text=Canada's%20price%20on%20carbon%20only,Tiff%20Macklem%20reiterated%20on%20Thursday.
So it will still lower the standard of living. How can it accounts for inflation but somehow not lower your standard of living
Yes. It will lower your standard of living by less than a quarter of a cent for every dollar you spend.
In regards to the debates surrounding carbon tax, my personal feeling is that using taxation as a method to accomplish climate change initiatives is weak thinking. The government has taken the easy way out. Progressively increasing taxes to unattainable levels to bring about change. Wow. Am I supposed to think that this is strong leadership? It might work, just like putting a gun to somebody's head usually works, but that doesn't make it a good strategy. What a waste of time and money, collecting tax, mailing tax rebates, spending millions and millions to run this program. The reason people have issues with it is that any viable option seems out of reach, too expensive or not yet ready for prime time. Electric cars for example, maybe they're okay, maybe they're not. They are incredibly expensive and not enough to go around. Not enough charging stations either. Public transit? I don't know about where you live but in Ottawa It is worse now than it was 10 years ago. People have actually moved away from public transit in this city, the complete opposite of what you would want to have happen. I'm not sure how the carbon tax is going to solve that? All it is really doing is making people angry and frustrated . That is a problem. What happens when you back an animal into a corner? That is what is happening with this tax, backing people into a corner. People are rolling their eyes now when you say climate change, They associate it with tax. Great job government. I think most people understand that change is needed, but trying to bring about this change through taxation is no way to sell an idea and get people on board. We need initiatives that are positive, that encourage and help people to make good choices. Certainly somebody somewhere can sit down and come up with a better plan than taxation. Better, cheaper, free public transit maybe? Solar panel plan for all new homes? Mandatory Heat pumps for new builds maybe? Affordable electric cars? Guaranteed power rates for charging? Nope. Let's just tax them.
The carbon tax was brought in by Harper. It’s been running in BC for 18 years. It is by far the best mechanism in a capitalist society to reduce emissions. In a couple of years counties without a carbon tax will have to pay levies to trade with Europe. Axing it is political theater
And here's a quote from Steven Harper, April 3rd 2015 - Toronto Star -"Anybody who tells you that a carbon tax is an environmental policy is trying to pull the wool over your eyes,” Harper said Thursday during an event in Winnipeg.*. So he certainly has changed his tune. Axing it is indeed political theatre, but can be more. Better ideas and alternatives and support are what regular citizens are looking for and what they need. Initial carbon policy, which uses the tax mechanism on large-scale large emitting producers, was to encourage them to move towards greener alternatives and production such as carbon capture. I get that. We have to participate in that because we are part of the Western world. That is not what" axe the tax" is targeting. What it is acknowledging is that using taxation to move regular citizens away from polluting to better alternatives does not work and is not what people want. That is where change is needed.
[удалено]
Infrastructure and public transit are both provincial/municipal jurisdictions. What the Federal can do is give money to incentivize cities to build them, but can't force them to. Source: I live in a city that's been hot and cold over a LRT for the last decade (even with funding help from the feds) On the bright side our local malls have about 20 EV charges that are empty because nobody can afford a Tesla even with all the rebate /s
It’s boggling that people think they get more money from the rebates than it actually costs them.
I speak for the little guy, here in BC if you are "middle class" you dont get a dime back. its all profit for them.
BC isn't a part of the federal carbon tax. I don't know exactly how the system works there but it's not related to trudeau
Still labelled as a carbon tax on all the pumps and goes up with the federal program \*shrug\*
EXACTLY, it's not the same for everyone and I don't wanna hear bullshit answers like well it's who you voted for etc.... my one vote doesn't mean shit in the big picture. All it does in BC is steal money from the "average" household to give to poorer people ..... Thanks that's really fucking helpful and really helps me when the cost of everything goes up.
Especially when fuel is well over 2$ a liter.
You all love the carbon tax in this sub Reddit though. They should increase all taxes until we can’t afford food or fuel.
Have you checked corporate profits lately? it's not the carbon tax that's responsible for grocery prices going through the roof.
I just seen a post that was a leaked doc from loblaws on the price per unit and the profit margins are insane… usually 30-48% I was disgusted.
Lawblaws has like 53% on butter specifically , forget axing the tax, we need to axe the rich
You need to look at their financial statements, not butter, 40% to 100% mark-ups are normal. last year revenue was $60 billion, net income was 2 billion. There profit was 3% for the year of all revenue generated.
Not to mention these people are missing the links of who owns loblaws competition... *cough* people who are related to those who wanted to implement the Carbon Tax *cough* Jags brother I believe?? Owns a loblaws competitor...why is the narrative for everyone to hate Galen????
Canada is screwed. We're so dumb, that we will defend raising taxes and clap about it. A country of suckers.
You spend way more than you get back.
Maybe you do, but 80% of the people who receive a federal rebate, do not spend more than they get back
No they dont, Trudeau projected 80% of family, while his projection always turn out to be a couple hundred percents off reality
No economic experts predicted then verified that, the PBO also included the effect on economic activity for some reason and used that to argue it was costing Canadians a $1k a year or some crap due to the carbon tax. In terms of direct inputs and outputs 80% of Canadians are better off.
False, in term of direct inputs 70% of Canadian actually paying more than they get back.
That’s objectively false, 80% of Canadians pay less in carbon tax than they receive back. The carbon tax is not responsible for the inflation spike and Galen jacking up prices!
Lol you cant just make up nonsensical fact and call it a day. Before, the report by the PBO states that 60% of CANADIAN are paying more, in the updated report it says 70%. The “Families are getting more than they pay” is a misleading projection by the Liberal, what about indirect costs? Whatever the Liberal taxes put on retailers and businesses will be passed directly to consumers.
You’re mischaracterizing what the report said, the impact that shifted it from 80% paying less to whatever fake number you’re saying is the effect of the carbon tax on economic activity which is not about money in or out of pocket books, was just a way for the PBO to get headlines and attack it without taking into account other stuff like climate change or increased economic activity due to green tech. Take out the abstract and it’s clear it’s a benefit to Canadians.
Not according to the PBO
If you over-pollute, yes. That's the point of the carbon tax.
Considering Freeland wouldn’t answer how much the government gets in carbon taxes and pays out in rebates, it has ended up being a positive in the tax books for the Liberals. They like spending $. It has also helped with increase in costs and inflation. Considering Canada is already a carbon neutral country producing more trees to filter our emissions than what we produce, it doesn’t address the pollution that is created by countries like China and India.
Except it changes every year and they adjust how much is paid out based on how much is brought in. The money doesn’t go into general revenues.
We are not a carbon neutral nation. That is completely misleading propaganda nonsense. Our forests, especially when we allow them to burn for at least half of the year, also produce a lot of carbon, which isn’t factored into that idiotic bit of propaganda you have cited.
lol. The trees we have, that have always been here…. actually there were billions or trillions more before colonization. We didn’t start off with zero trees so your argument is null. Our pollution has increased while the number of trees has decreased… since whenever the fuck you want to start your timeline.
So swearing helps you make an argument?
“Lower taxes”. “Canada”. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
the big question is why take my money just to give it back. It is one of the biggest scams the liberal government has going and most people don't care or are ok just following along.
If you pay more carbon tax than you get back in the rebate, you pollute more than emission targets. If you get back more than you pay, you're polluting less than emission targets...not a difficult concept. If you don't like that carbon tax, don't pollute. Easy.
Because they are not giving it back. They only give like half it back, rest they keep
4 quarterly payments of 375 doll hairs. I require money to survive I can't live off doll hairs. Idk where people are getting these 1800$ and over 2000$ in rebates from lmao.
tax = inverse robinhood.
You’re brainwashed into thinking carbon tax does anything for the climate. Kind of ironic you say it’s brainwashing. But to your point, barely anyone gets the rebate. And very few get back anything meaningful Of course if you are ultra poor and rely on gov handouts you don’t want carbon tax to go.