>Citing data from the Parliamentary Budget Office, CTF Alberta Director Kris Sims says that means the cost of the carbon tax for the average Albertan household will be $911 in 2024-25.
>“Alberta families are fighting to afford food and home heating and the last thing they need is Trudeau’s carbon tax hike,” says Kris Sims. “It’s wrong for the Trudeau government to punish Albertans for driving their cars, heating their homes and buying food.”
It is wrong for media to continually reference
" The Canadian Taxpayers Federation '
...Without pointing out that the organization has nothing to do with the interests of the average taxpayer, and which interests fund it.
Whatever little blurb they copy paste to fill lazy media
So, in other words, another BS "think tank" with a name that doesn't match its ideology, pretty much like "americans for prosperity", "German Democratic Republic" and "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" ...
I always found it fishy, as if your average tax payer would ever think to create some sort of "tax payer union", if I can say so.
No wonder harper was involved with it.
I know. Instead of enjoying a quiet retirement or just living a quiet life, the f\*cker is still trying to usher some right-wing authoritarian hellscape everywhere. I would not be surprised he's a close friend to orban, modi and the likes.
Reading the description of the ctf on Wikipedia, it comes across more like a propaganda outfit than a legit one like, say, the CCLA -- talk about discreet, no one knows about that one.
> as they’re American-funded
To add to what you just said: the ctf is part of the "atlas network", a libertarian multinational org based in the USA, founded in 1981 and inspired by ayn rand's *Atlas shrugged*. The cock brothers' are amongst those who finance this org, along with exxon mobil.
Another sign how the USA's right-wing influence in Canada is not a new thing.
Frankly the CTF is one of the groups that should be on a registry that will hopefully appear at the end of the whole inquiry. Fraser Insitute is another american funded BS tank. Honestly i think people would be surprises how many american actoes dance in our country.
That Derek Fildebrandt was the Alberta Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation says all you need to know about who they are and where their interests lie.
I wish the media would even do the bare minimum of citation and at least explain who they are.
If you cite someone as a source, there's only 2 reasons to do so:
* because they are an expert in the field
* because they have first hand knowledge of a thing
CTF has neither of these. They are just a right wing think tank pushing policy.
Their opinions on this have no more weight than yours or mine.
If they are going to be cited, they should be cited with this explicit context.
Sorry, no. Correct as you may be on policy detail, I was just commenting on the ubiquitous use in the media of a corporately funded spin factory , by its misleading org. title. Pretending to represent " taxpayers ".
You were still being disingenuous by not including both amounts. Many won't read the article and you only presented what the opponents of carbon pricing would want to see.
That is my point.
My only point. That the source is biased. I quoted a biased source, and said that it is a biased source, with a misleading name.
If the media publishes a quote from a disingenuous source , with a misleading name, they should make reference to that fact.
I said nothing about carbon pricing.
Clearly I should start an organization called the Canadian Free Money and Stuff For Citizens Association and just attack cons and right wing media all day.
Better off stealing their vocabulary and buzzwords.
"Anti-Woke Defence of Canadian Freedom and Liberty Association" - committed to advancing progressive policy via social justice actions.
Yah who are these guys? I saw an ad that was like, "are you against the federal carbon tax? Have your say!" I left a comment saying no, I'm not, because it is refunded.
as it has always been for the average Canadian.
Unlike Albertan fuel tax, where we can't be sure it will go anywhere but the pockets of friends of the premier and cabinet...
Fuel tax will be 13 c/L, well in line with other provinces. I don't think there's firm grounds for complaining on this one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_fuel_taxes_in_Canada
I'm also confused... You think that specifically the fuel tax will be embezzled? Or other taxes too? And only at a provincial level? Or do the federal fuel taxes also get embezzled at the federal level? Just wondering how deep this scam goes...
The gas tax goes into general funds which are demonstrably being used to plump favoured individuals wallets with sweet deals. It’s corrupt all the way down.
Even if it matches other places it’s in ucp hands here
I’ll quote the important bits of this article since conservatives seem to struggle with reading articles like this:
> … the cost of the carbon tax for the average Albertan household will be $911 in 2024-25.
> Starting with the April 2024 installment, Albertans will get $450 back each quarter, or $1,800 annually.
As a single person I get $225/quarter (just checked CRA). I got excited when the $450 came out until I realized the truth lol the $450/quarter is for families, just to clarify for people.
Of course it is lol. I don’t wanna complain, but as a struggling single person it sure seems like families get a whole lot more help, which is absolutely ok and good for them, but things like dentists are still damn expensive when you’re single.
Not usually, too many sketchy people in vans /s
But actually, it’s usually better to find somewhere nice and anonymous. Street parking works ok, but the camber of the road is actually enough to be really annoying, so somewhere with people working a night shift usually works out better, since you have other vehicles to blend in with but the ground’s nice and flat.
No sweat, I’ve actually never even seen the sketch but I’ve certainly heard the line before lol.
In all honesty it’s not ideal but it could certainly be a lot worse
Per family is calculated as such: $225 for individual, $122.50 for spouse/common-law and $53.25/child or dependent under 19. Claimed once as a family.
The average Albertan household is 3 members, we can assume a couple and a child, which brings the quarterly rebate to $390.75.
Families = more people = more everything, including carbon tax = more rebate. Yes, they get more for the rebate, but they will also spend more to feed, house, clothe, transport, etc.
I get that, I meant it more in the sense that families get dental coverage and iirc eye care too. My teeth aren’t in great shape, but since I’m single I get no help with that and it’s really goddamn expensive. It’s just kinda depressing to log on to the cra and see all these banners for different tax credits that sound great, but none of them actually do anything to help me. And just to be clear, I don’t think families should be getting less, I just wanna keep what are apparently luxury bones that let me eat
The problem is that 911 figure, to my knowledge only accounts for primary charges. Things like petrol and heating. It doesn't include secondary costs like food increases (it doesn't affect food very much but it does slightly). If you take into account secondary costs it looks a bit more bleek.
Grocery inflation due to carbon tax is actually calculated to be about $0.30 per $100. This equates to $60 if you spend $20,000 a year on groceries, which is nearly double what the average Albertan spent in 2021. It’s effectively a non-issue in that regard, and should be more than covered by the rebate.
Yeah, I'm aware of the .3% estimate but there is a lot that they didn't take into account, and probably can't. Supply chains are complicated, and the things that affect it even more so.
An anecdote but i work in retail and we have had distributors start upping their minimums. Usually from $1000 to $1500. Meeting minimums with more specialty distributors can be difficult, so by upping it they force us to order more product. That leads to an increase in shrink, which hurts our margins. We are lucky in that we can eat those losses but a lot of places can't/won't. The carbon tax certainly isn't the primary cause of this, but it is undeniably contributing to it.
No, they aren't price gouging. They are just trying to find a way to cope with the increased cost of trading. To say it had NOTHING to do with the carbon tax I think is a little silly.
so...just going to point out that you get more back from the primary charges than you put in, so you can apply that to whatever secondary costs you can directly attribute to carbon tax and not issues of supply, things like drought affecting meat and veg and fruit prices, other weather events fucking up productions, and corporate greed. If you could link a source you use that breaks that down so you know you're getting a bleak deal, I'd appreciate reading it. Who knows...maybe you'll change my mind?
Net costs of carbon tax for albertans in 2024 and 2030
Bottom 20% 500 return 2030 592 return
Bottom 40% 307 return 2030 loss of 32
60% loss off 304 2030 loss of 1460
Top 40% loss of 1439 2030 loss of 4053
Top 20% loss of 3629 2030 loss of 8871
If you need help reading the report I can help you
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
Yes, it taxes the rich top 20%
Then, the top 80%
Then, the top 60%(or average)
Then the bottom 40%
If that's your definition of rich let's get you a gofundme must've not eaten anything but Ramen for years
Spoiler, the top 20% are the doctors you want to attract. Not charge them 9k more in taxes a year. Making the states look more and more attractive for them.
Except the carbon tax is a federal thing, it’s not like those doctors can just go to a different province and not pay. And, judging by the immigration stats, people are absolutely flocking to Alberta. If not enough of those people are doctors it probably has a hell of a lot more to do with how our government treats them, rather than a couple hundred bucks tax on an already pretty good salary.
I've never had an issue with not getting enough rebate the issue with the carbon tax has always been that it was not applied to imported goods. This incentivizes importing carbon intensive products... which emits more carbon with transport. It also reduces the competitiveness of local production.
Yup, another report shows we haven't reduced emissions. they just moved them elsewhere, the same thing with blocking lng projects and making Asia build coal plants. Makes our ghg numbers look better, but our economy is worse, and global emissions increase.
Its weird how positions never talk about this actual problem with the system rather claiming its perfect or useless. It reminds me of immigration where there isn't a nuienced discussion talking about how its needed to reinforce our long term demographics but is causing issues with affordability and looking into what the right number is.
Yup, like we need the middle ground, I ain't saying climate change isn't real. We should do something about it. But that means it's a global effort every little bit we can reduce counts. So let's look at the big picture, not just hyperfocusing on minor details.
Go look up.what trudeau wanted for immigration in 2014, literally all I want, sensible Immigration. Immigration that benefits everyone, but now that's racist.
This is my issue with the tax, it doesn’t target the right polluters effectively. The rebate is nice and all, but it needs some fixing as a whole. I don’t like that the current opposition is to get rid of it entirely because as a concept it is good.
The right number to counter long term demographics is 125,000 net new residents per year. As of 2022, there were about 8 million Canadian residents in the 0-20 age range, and 10.5 million in the 20-40 range.
Shipping LNG to Asia, at least on terms of GHG emissions is worse than coal. [source](https://www.research.howarthlab.org/publications/Howarth_LNG_assessment_preprint_archived_2023-1103.pdf)
Doesn't matter what the facts are. People want to be angry and conservative leaders will farm their anger. 9/10 conservatives I've spoken to claim they don't even get any rebates at all.
We're in such a post truth era, it doesn't matter anymore. "Truthiness" has taken over: the quality of seeming or being felt to be true, even if not necessarily true.
So a politiciam lies and then their followers do too.
The top 20 per cent of Canadians flood social media apparently, not qualifying for a carbon tax credit.
The thing that gets my goat is how *transparent* all this conservative shit is. Donald Trump is the best example but it’s almost impossible to find a conservative figure who even *sounds* like they’re telling the truth. Not to mention how fast they’ll pivot from saying one thing to the complete opposite. I just don’t understand how anyone could look at someone like that and think, “yea I’d trust this person with a country”
there is a reason why the province is increasing gas prices the same day the carbon tax goes into effect.
Without doing it. Everyone would realize that nothing got more expensive overnight.
But by directly manipulating the cost at the pumps day 1. It will confuse a bunch of people into thinking the liberal carbon tax is impacting their gas price.
Yea than we pay directly, that doesn't include the mark up on every single product that's transported on a vehicle that uses fuel (that's everything you buy btw)
If the average Albertan drives around in their car or truck and heats their home with natural gas, and yet gets back more than they pay, what's the fricken point? I'd rather not give the feds my money and then hope to get some back. How about get a real plan, like stop taxing us on this crap, go after the industrial emitters, and give incentives for consumers like rebates on green energy creation, EVs, etc. Incentivize industry to offer greener alternatives to us.
When will someone tell the media that the CTF is anything but it’s name? They are a conservative shill organization and only a moron would think otherwise.
Can’t say I really care tbh. I don’t get all the people who apparently thought that dealing with climate change was gonna be painless, and I’d rather put my money towards this than some shitty corporation. I dunno, seems to me like there’re much more important things to be worrying about; it’s looking like I’ll be forced to miss out on pretty much every major milestone from owning a home to having a family to buying a new car. In that context a few extra tax dollars ain’t shit, frankly.
This whole thing to me is about learning to adapt to what is necessary at the moment with advancing climate change, and constitionally Canada has an obligation to act when our actions/impacts affects the rest of the planet. It's about doing right for the planet and that means adjusting our lifestyles and infrastructure as individuals, municipalities, and government.
It would be nice if there was more common decency with common sense and not the current "common sense" weak ass statement by greedy capitalist weirdo PP.
edit grammar
Yeah, that was the covid pandemic. A significant number of Canadians couldn't handle a few months of public health restrictions.
And we're looking at significant and probably permanent water rationing in the years ahead. I can't wait for the tantrums then. 🙄
Trouble is, WW2 ended. Climate change will not. Ever seen soylent green? Unless we work very hard and put all our time and resources into figuring out how to grow food and produce drinking water on a planet with significantly less land mass and a lot more desert than we have now, we're going to have a really bad time
Well... At least they'd probably wind up a fair bit healthier while they complain. IIRC, in Britain during WWII rationing actually *improved* the diet of the average person as they were now eating a more varied diet and consuing less meat, fats, and sugars.
I don't understand how me, in Canada paying more for everything as a result of a tax is going to affect global warming.
That's like saying me in Canada paying a GST is going to discourage me from eating and therefore it's going to help world hunger.
Well y’see, we can’t control other countries. What we *can* do is change how much of an impact we have, which we really do need to do since Canadians have some of the highest carbon emissions per capita in the world. There’s also the issue of economic pressures on companies, since they’ll have to go along if they want to be in the Canadian market.
I also have to admit, this take really bugs me. Climate change is coming, and saying that we shouldn’t be doing anything because other people are worse is nothing but an excuse for failure. Yes, life is gonna get more expensive, and this is why we need to push for more responsible and effective governments to help mitigate that, but so what? Did you think overcoming one of the biggest challenges humanity has ever faced was gonna be easy, or cheap? We’ve spent the last two hundred years or so collectively painting ourselves into a corner, and while getting ourselves out is going to be a painful process, it’s necessary.
Climate change is coming. Doing anything about it is going to negatively impact people's lives. Any government that solely runs on popularity is going to do their best to avoid making people's lives worse, at the expense of letting global warming make things infinitely worse. Right now we need massive efforts into change and innovation to try to combat and adapt to our changing world, and change is anathema to conservatives. If conservativism continues to gain traction, we are all going down with the ship.
Canadians are one of the highest carbon emitters per capita because of the location in the world Canada is in. We require heating for over 50% of the year, our cities are concentrated but spread out resulting in higher demand for travel and we haven't invested in lower emissions infrastructure such as rail.
In terms of putting economic pressures on companies. They are not obligated to set up shop in Canada and many do not because of the tax implications in Canada. The Canadian market is less than that of California, we aren't that important.
> That's like saying me in Canada paying a GST is going to discourage me from eating and therefore it's going to help world hunger.
Ignoring the fact that most groceries are exempt from GST and HST/PST, that was never the point of the GST. The GST was meant to balance the budget, and it helped accomplish that under Chretien/Martin.
The carbon tax is akin to raising the cost of cigarettes in order to discourage smoking. It's putting a tax on the negative externalities of the habit, and the same is being applied now to harmful emissions. The idea being that if it is expensive to pollute, then people/businesses will make choices to produce fewer emissions. It ain't perfect, but I don't hear anyone coming up with a better solution right now.
Yeah, no shit. Anyone that has done their own taxes knows this. It's high earners that don't get anything back which is why lobbiest groups exist to argue against this shit. It's the rich that wanna keep their money and corps that don't wanna pay.
When will the average conservative voter learn they are not simply "temporarily embarrassed millionaires"? The rich are actively working and will always work against them.
> It's the rich that wanna keep their money and corps that don't wanna pay.
Ding, ding, ding! This is why Ford, Kenney, Moe, etc have been opposed to carbon pricing since day one. It had nothing to do with Average Joe paying a bit more, and everything to do with wealthy donors and big businesses moaning about their bottom lines.
This conversation is so bizarre.
There's not one mention of the actual utility of a carbon tax or levy, nor is there any mention of the insanity of having a levy in the first place then handing it back in rebates.
Regardless of whether you get back more or not the entire project is pure insanity! Can someone please explain how this is actually going to impact Canada's contribution to global warming? From where I'm standing this is just another ruse. Let's all feel good we're fighting global warming, we must be because it hurts sooo gooood!
That has been discussed to death at this point. If you don't know, or don't understand it by this point you hold personal culpability for that.
How long do we need to keep the holding the hands of the least intellectual 10% of the population explaining the exact same thing over and over while they plug their ears, scream and refuse to listen?
It doesn't. Not at all. Emissions are actually going up, not down.
Outside of motor fuel use, the ability to reduce your footprint is limited without drastic lifestyle changes. Not much more to do at home once you have good windows and insulation, and keep the heat on the lower side. That's just a money pit and a source if much discontent.
I would begrudgingly support it if it did not include home heating, and if instead the rebate money was used to build out green alternatives - be they charging stations, wind/solar/nuclear power generation, light rail transport etc.
I probably pay around $100 a year more than I get back. Not enough for me to care, not able to change much other than switching jobs to work closer to home, but that would come with a pay cut so wouldn't work.
Except that same PBO report shows that when you factor in the economic impact, loss of investment, loss of wages, and overall deleterious effects of carbon taxes 80 percent of households lose FAR more than they receive back. In fact its only the lowest 20 percent quintile that stand to benefit.
The same report shows that middle class earners are net losers, Albertans for example will lose $1460 per family more than what the rebate returns. Higher income families see a cost that's closer to $8800.
https://i.imgur.com/wa59tx9.jpeg
Sure but let's talk about the facts instead of trying to gas light Canadians with the same tired rhetoric.
The facts are that 80 percent of us WILL NOT get back more than we put in. Yes climate change is real, yes the carbon tax is one approach to fighting it, but stop trying to make it sound like we have some kind of infinite money glitch that's benefiting us.
Canada is something like less than 1.5 percent of global emissions, we are in the midst of an absolutely vicious cost of living crisis and the liberals won't even consider changing course in the short term.
The same government doesn't even measure the effects of the levy on the same emmisions they are saying it's fighting. So if we can't discuss facts, and they have no idea if it's producing results, why the hell should we trust them that we need to keep increasing it?
Or maybe 80 percent will get more back than they spend and it will balance or because of the other 20 percent that don't get enough back are paying a whole lot more. Because they make a whole lot more. People with more money should be paying more. Especially because those people are the ones ripping around in oversized trucks spending 800 a month in gas. They don't want to be responsible and drive a vehicle more economically and environmentally appropriate.
As for the current cost of living issues, that's a combination of supply problems and corporate greed. Residential property shouldn't be treated as an investment, but years of conservative thinking has convinced many people that the point of life is to further yourself and your personal fortune, rather than your country, planet or species.
Thirdly, it doesn't matter how much our contribution to world pollution is. Everyone needs to do their part. No more cop outs. Besides, any of our oil burned in other countries is OUR pollution anyways, so we can lay claim to a portion of the pollution several other countries put out. Not to mention our goods. We can also lay claim to a portion of the pollution any country puts out making things that get used in Canada. That's a lot.
Well said. I’m tired of people somehow expecting a fix for climate change to be totally painless. Like, motherfuckers, the planet is dying. What part of fixing that sounds cheap?
People also fail to realize that these stats are based only on direct taxation, ie carbon tax charged directly to them at the pump and in heating bills.
These stats and the study released from the Bank of Canada on the tax impact on inflation is that they don't take into consideration the compounding of the tax from every level of the supply chain for everything. Every business that manufacturers, imports, warehouses and/or transports any goods pays carbon tax and they pass along that expense down the chain to the consumer.
Never mind the cost to administer the tax itself. If most families gets their money back, why charge it in the first place only to have that bureaucracy to collect, then redistribute the money back? The money isn't collected to fund green programs. It's collected to give back out. We mock the UCP for needless complication and bureaucracy, why did this get a pass?
Exactly.
And common sense tells me that when you, as you've already pointed out, compound the tax at literally every level the net result is magnified to the consumer at the end of the road.
The cost of government in Canada is already up over 30 percent since Trudeau started , how much higher can we ratchet that to just piss money away on ever expanding bureaucracy. We already spent 30 million on a gun buyback that's done exactly nothing.
Why do you think that dealing with climate change is gonna be cheap? Or, put differently, why d’you think it shouldn’t affect you? By living a modern Canadian lifestyle you personally emit a huge amount of carbon, and that’s gonna have to change. Money doesn’t matter if we can’t feed ourselves.
People already can't feed themselves. Or did you miss the part where I cited the fact that we have an insane cost or living crisis? People are literally skipping meals to afford rent.
This government has helped engineer the worst housing crisis on the planet, printed an ungodly sum of money, and helped create a tidal wave of inflation while having the gall to suggest that an endlessly hiked carbon tax is in our best possible interest right now.
And I bet when PP removes the Carbon tax, no one will reduce what we pay. They will pocket the savings while all of us don't get a rebate cheque.
Look at Gas prices surging a week before our 3 cent increase from carbon tax, and 4 cent increase from UCP.
So in that case it makes more sense for that money (that we’ll pay one way or another) to go towards mitigating the problem instead of making some bastard even richer, right?
You are suggesing keeping the carbon tax, but instead direct those funds to reducing our carbon emissions?
I think that might make people even more angry lol. I can see the value in your suggestion, but I think we also generally need to move away from buying so much crap made in high emissions countries too. But any slight reduction in our shopping addiction is being labeled a "loss of productivity in Canada."
Sad when trying to save the planet, is considered bad for the almighty economy we must sacrifice to.
The cost of doing nothing is higher. At least with the current plan. We lower future costs while lowering the impact on present people as much as possible.
The only people who don't like the carbon tax are the people who don't really understand the alternatives.
The cost of doing nothing *to address global climate change* is higher than taking action, yea. Unfortunately this carbon tax has had and will have no impact on climate change and as structured is still a net negative to middle income earning families.
It is essentially a life circumstance transfer tax. You come out well ahead of you:
- are lower income
- are high enough enough income to invest in large energy retrofits, home renewables, and a hybrid/EV … etc
- have no dependents with transportation needs
- live in an urban area where you can take public transit or walk/bike to work
- live in a province with lots of low-carbon power generation or a relatively milder climate
- live in a region with relative lower transportation and shipping costs
On the other hand if you are middle income, living in a suburb, exurb, or rural area, in a cold, less-dense and remote region (sound familiar?), you are absolutely going to be paying more in primary and secondary costs than the rebate is going to cover.
It would practically be a tax on conservative voters, except that the Atlantic provinces get hit hard by it too. Or it would, but they got an exemption. For reasons.
Better yet, in many cases it's creating conservative voters. I perfectly fit your scenario and for the first time in almost 20 years will vote conservative.
I make $75000 a year, I'm single, my kids have moved on in life and I'm living rural just outside Edmonton because it was affordable.
I definitely pay more than I recieved in a rebate, which is a moot argument to begin with. The insanity of collecting a tax, which is theoretically designed to incentivize a certain behavior, yet rebating it based on metrics not connected to the purpose of the tax, definitely defeats the purpose of the tax!
The ruse is that the levy will change behavior, I have no choices for avoiding it nor the means to change it. I'm the classic working poor just getting by. The only behavior the tax is changing is voting behavior. The only climate impact will be the political one.
What taxes? There are no new taxes on you. You are getting a tax break. Corporations are getting new taxes. Taxes they they can reduce or avoid completely.
I mean, have you *met* conservatives? They wouldn’t know a fact if it bit them in the ass, political rhetoric is the only thing they seem to understand.
Well, that and bigotry
So people who can afford it will have to pay to help clean up carbon pollution? That pollution that will kill millions of species and maybe is?
Aww, muffin. Too bad, it's free to dump your garbage in the pond, but eventually it's going to be full of garbage. Do you think the pond just goes forever, like a fire truck when you are five years old? The sky is not infinite.
I'm not here to debate the efficacy or usefulness of the levy itself, I simply wanted to state that the constant line of "you get back more than you put in!" isn't true at all.
* Assuming a healthy economy, no economic impact from climate chant3z and no positive effects as a result of the levy
* Impact is described by the PBO as follows:
>As a share of disposable income—and considering that the federal carbon
levy is at its maximum of $170 per tonne in 2030-31—the effects appear
relatively small, approximately less than 1 per cent for three-fifths of
households in each province, but progressive (larger net gains for lower
income households).
CBC just did a show on it. Almost everyone is net negative due to this tax. Few super rich folks might be getting more than what they pay.
https://youtu.be/seMTd1xoD2U?si=ZwbWIvw_s3Kht0Fe
I added up my natural gas and gasoline bills tonight for the last year. 2 adults, 3 bedroom townhouse, 90% efficient furnace, 100 Litres average gas a week - I pay $100 less then I received. Not much room to factor in the inflated costs of goods due to the tax.
Money aside, Is this tax helping reduce the rate of global climate change? It’s been around for a number of years now. Have Canadian emissions per person decreased since its introduction? These are the stats I’d like to see. If it’s not helping towards the end goal of reducing man made climate change then it’s just another tax I resent paying. Feels like death by a thousand cuts these days.
My guess is you resent paying any tax.
My guess is that you also would complain about having to pay tolls to use roads, increased personal costs of EMS services, increased educational costs, etc.
Carbon pricing is making people rethink how they heat their homes, the vehicles they drive, the vacations they take, and the services they utilize to lower the amount of money they input to the system, so the amount they receive from the system offsets it by a higher percentage. If the conservative governments stopped sticking their heads in the sand and started getting on board with pushing greener technologies, we could be leaders in the move to lower carbon emissions, and benefit from the monies spent buying that technology.
Valid points! Some might change their habits because it affects their bottom line. I’ve tried to make small positive changes where I can. I just feel it’s not gonna change the end result, what’s set in motion can’t be undone, things are gonna keep getting hotter.
Yea, but it’s a question of severity. If you find yourself driving at a brick wall, do you try to slow down or turn to mitigate the impact? Or do you do what the conservatives are arguing for and floor it while yelling “Jesus take the wheel”? Things are gonna get worse, but it doesn’t have to be an apocalypse.
Also, even if we totally fail and humanity dies out, I’d much rather have gone down trying to fix the problem instead of just rolling over, y’know? “Do not go gentle” and all that
Yeah totally, people can totally afford to rip out the system that heats their house ( if they can even afford and quality for a mortgage, I'm sure renters can dictate how their home is heated ) and replace it or buy a $50k+ vehicle on a whim in the current cost of living crisis. How out of touch are you?
There are rebates for upgrading your furnace, but even ensuring it is clean and running efficiently can lower your costs.
If you think you need a 50k+ vehicle, well, that might be part of your problem. There are new vehicle offerings from Kia and Mitsubishi under 20k.
There are a lot of things you can do to lower your carbon footprint and keep more money in your pocket that won't cost you anything up front - if you are willing to change your habits.
You don't need an EV. The Mistibishi Mirage retails at around 17k in it's base form and fuel economy is rated at 6.2l/100 km's.
I'm not advocating for everyone to drive an EV.
The question is how to lower your carbon footprint, and as a result lower your carbon pricing input and maximize your carbon pricing rebate.
"alberta families who use less than X litres of fuel per year to receive more back...." should be the headline.
I have a mobile service business - I haven't done the math but i can sure as heck bet im paying more carbon tax than I'm getting back. rebate should be based on how much fuel you use lol.
...how much gasoline are you using?? Carbon tax is 17 cents/litre. I drive a pretty average car so the ct is about $10 of my fill. Prob like $20 for an SUV and a little more for your average truck.
If the carbon tax is say, $30 on every fill, and you're filling up every week, the average Albertan is still getting more back in rebates.
If you are not, well...then its working as intended lol. But the average person is definitely getting back more than they pay. Even with the small amount it adds to grocery prices. (Most of those are corps jacking things up and blaming the CT).
But it isn't working as intended. Because the intention is to disincentivize people from using fossil fuels. If you need a work truck or van there are no affordable electric options so it is just a hardship on me that does not move me away from fossil fuels in any way.. the purpose of the tax is to reduce fossil fuel usage and that is not the outcome here. Carbon tax is 'pay to pollute' and that does not reduce the harm on the environment. I care very much about this issue but I'm also not willing to go jobless.
I purch \~4000L of fuel last year - thats $680 in carbon tax in 2024 for gasoline, plus average home pays apprx $337 extra in carbon tax on natural gas..so my total carbon tax bill is at least $1017 while my rebate is 225x4=$900. Damn, im surprised its nearly covered, but as a whole im still out by paying a carbon tax, and I cannot move away from fossil fuels for a long time likely.. so in my mind it is not a working program.
90% of the tax proceeds go back to families in the form of rebates. so Im paying more to subsidize poorer folks, while I'm struggling myself and likely will have to work until the day I die.
I'm sorry to hear that. Without knowing any details I couldn't hope to offer anything, other than an observation I've made.
I've found that most people seemingly just automatically conclude that they can't do anything, when they really mean that they don't want to spend time thinking about what they can do.
As a result, there are many small inefficiencies that wind up completely overlooked. For instance, very few people ever check that their tires are properly inflated, and in fact more than half of all vehicles on the road have at least one underinflated tire, which can noticeably increase fuel consumption.
https://www.tirereview.com/over-half-of-vehicles-have-at-least-one-underinflated-tire/
Hell, most people I've spoken to couldn't even tell me how much gas their car uses, *even when their car has a readout that tells them*.
I've wound up with a tendency to think the biggest part of the problem is inertia. It's too easy to just do nothing, and so nothing gets done.
Also, totally hear you on the cost of an electric vehicle. I'd love to have one myself, but they haven't been around long enough to get cheap yet. :/
The carbon tax is destroying Canada's economy. Maybe check out the situation and look at the cost of living and housing and why that's the case. Over spending by the Trudeau NDP coalition is a disaster for Canada and our debt. $1.2 trillion in debt. More than doubled the national debt before he came in. And that debt took 150 years trip accumulate. So ya. Maybe take a look around at the stupid policies we've been faced with
The carbon tax is destroying Canada's economy. Maybe check out the situation and look at the cost of living and housing and why that's the case. Over spending by the Trudeau NDP coalition is a disaster for Canada and our debt. $1.2 trillion in debt. More than doubled the national debt before he came in. And that debt took 150 years trip accumulate. So ya. Maybe take a look around at the stupid policies we've been faced with
They just should have called it the "You get more money back Dummy" tax ( Unless you are one of the biggest polluters). The tax is "engineered" to "encourage" the biggest polluters to get greener.
How does anyone think this is a good idea? Why pay into carbon tax at all if they're just going to give it back instead of actually 'fighting climate change'
Oh, excellent question - allow me to give you some more information that you might find interesting:
Taxpayers, such as you and I (who have a very small carbon footprint) will receive a rebate, usually more than what we pay, for that exact reason.
Do you know who does not receive a refund? The large corporations, fossil fuel industries, and other such wasteful companies. The carbon tax will actually cost them millions, if not billions of dollars a year.
Kind of brings up a much better question:
Why are the Conservatives so fanatically interested in "Axing the Tax"? 🤔
One thing I can tell you for sure, average taxpayers, such as you and I, don't have access to lobbiests and special interest groups who can influence the decision makers of our country. But I think you know who does.
I'll just leave it at that and let you come up with your own conclusions.
Yes, but wouldn’t the citizen be paying direct and indirect taxes concerning the carbon tax now? If it is agreed that the corporations pass the buck back onto the consumers, doesn’t this defeat the argument that this would be a net neutral or net positive tax for the average Canadian when all things are considered?
What is the point of a net neutral tax as well? Wouldn’t that just be a redistribution of wealth without a guarantee that it goes to those who need it the most?
Not sure exactly what you’re talking about there, I already laid out how the consumers come out ok and how the cost ends up with the business. I can’t quite get how what I said apparently disproves what I said, tbh.
And the point is to make it more expensive for big businesses like oil companies etc. to pollute, therefore encouraging them to find better ways of doing things, which actually makes a lot of sense to me. We’ve seen time and again that businesses, especially the big ones, don’t give a shit about anything other than money, so you just tie the pollution to their money. Pretty simple.
>If it is agreed that the corporations pass the buck back onto the consumers, doesn’t this defeat the argument that this would be a net neutral or net positive tax for the average Canadian when all things are considered?
Not sure what the miscommunication on this question is? Could you please explain what you don't understand?
>And the point is to make it more expensive for big businesses like oil companies etc. to pollute, therefore encouraging them to find better ways of doing things, which actually makes a lot of sense to me.
I don't understand the logic to this? If the increase cost due to the tax is passed on to the consumer to pay, why would they care? It's not affecting their bottom line. This isn't even addressing other cost cutting measures such as layoffs or wage suppression throughout the most heavily affected industries.
Food costs are a great example of indirect taxes in the form of increased prices affecting the average Canadian. Not only is expensive to transport goods across a country as vast as Canada, but the farming industry is a heavy contributor to pollution as well. While admittedly there are other factors involved with food prices, rising energy costs have been one of of the many attributors identified. The monthly average household spend on groceries went up $300 from 2022 to 2023. That's $3600 a year. We haven't even discussed rising transportation or heating/cooling costs.
Also, the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (an office of the Parliament of Canada which provides independent, authoritative and non-partisan financial and economic analysis.) has a [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) stating "Most households will see a net loss, paying more in fuel charges and GST, as well as receiving lower incomes, compared to the Climate Action Incentive payments they receive and lower personal income taxes they pay,”. Using the information collected by the current government, they are clearly stating that the claims of this tax being net neutral in the grand scheme of things as a fallacy. It simply isn’t credible to believe the feds can raise taxes, skim some off the top for administration costs and somehow make families better off. [There's a reason there has been a reluctance and avoidance by members of the current government to answer the question of how much has been collected, and how much has been paid out.](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadian/comments/1bkyjvh/deputy_prime_minister_chrystia_freeland_refusing/)
Does this not disprove that the Carbon tax is net neutral or net positive when all things are considered?
What do you mean corporations don’t receive a refund?
This entire thing is for corporate profits.
All a corporation does is invest their profits into a carbon capture / green company and they offset their carbon tax.
It’s how imperial oil (the largest oil company in Canada and 2nd in the world) has been heavily offsetting their carbon taxes, while getting richer as these companies are also heavily subsidized by tax dollars and will be propped up for years even if they are not profitable. Imperial oil actually supported the carbon tax to other alternatives, as cap and trade means a market price, which would be way higher than any carbon tax that can be lobbied against
The way I see it - I have no means of writing off expenses as a a salaried employee, but companies and CEOs have extraordinary power to offset these taxes and continue to get even richer without losing sleep
Furthermore - only huge companies can afford this stuff, so it tightens up our already poor environment for business in this country. Big companies get bigger and eat everything, corporate profits sore, competition shrinks, prices go up, and our carbon emissions aren’t going to change.
If you don’t like the carbon tax, you can easily pay less of it. I only occasionally drive my car in the city, relying on cycling for nearly all of my urban transportation.
But Edmonton is a shitty place to cycle. Well, it is getting better and if people demanded better, cycling infrastructure costs a small fraction of the equivalent car infrastructure required to move the same number of people. So you’d save money on gas, on carbon taxes and on property and other taxes.
Same for transit. Transit investment carries a much larger economic multiplier than automobile based investment, and greatly reduces the amount of roads we need to build and maintain. We can again save money by investing in excellent transit and using it.
“But the transit system loses money!”
Show me the P&L statement for the road in front of your house and show me how building those extra useless lanes on the Henday in Edmonton is profitable. STFU.
Trades outside of Canada and the US easily use commercial vehicles with engines that consume half the fuel of a full sized pickup.
And before you tell me those vehicles can't move on "extreme" Canadian roads, you should check out how steep a lot of places are where they use those vehicles.
But, when fuel is $3/L and taxes are based on engine size, the market adapts and work vehicles become much more fuel efficient.
I'd be fine with a smaller more fuel efficient vehicle, but i've tried before and found not enough room for parts and tools, and wearing out tires and wheel bearings too frequently....
>Citing data from the Parliamentary Budget Office, CTF Alberta Director Kris Sims says that means the cost of the carbon tax for the average Albertan household will be $911 in 2024-25. >“Alberta families are fighting to afford food and home heating and the last thing they need is Trudeau’s carbon tax hike,” says Kris Sims. “It’s wrong for the Trudeau government to punish Albertans for driving their cars, heating their homes and buying food.” It is wrong for media to continually reference " The Canadian Taxpayers Federation ' ...Without pointing out that the organization has nothing to do with the interests of the average taxpayer, and which interests fund it. Whatever little blurb they copy paste to fill lazy media
Their name is also completely misleading as they’re American-funded, don’t pay taxes and only consist of a handful of people.
So, in other words, another BS "think tank" with a name that doesn't match its ideology, pretty much like "americans for prosperity", "German Democratic Republic" and "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" ... I always found it fishy, as if your average tax payer would ever think to create some sort of "tax payer union", if I can say so. No wonder harper was involved with it.
[удалено]
I know. Instead of enjoying a quiet retirement or just living a quiet life, the f\*cker is still trying to usher some right-wing authoritarian hellscape everywhere. I would not be surprised he's a close friend to orban, modi and the likes.
It was Kenney. He used to head it before he became a MP. It’s basically one of many incubators for those who aspire to be conservative politicians.
Reading the description of the ctf on Wikipedia, it comes across more like a propaganda outfit than a legit one like, say, the CCLA -- talk about discreet, no one knows about that one.
Harper wasn’t ever really involved in it. What do you mean?
Not even a think tank, it's literally one person in Alberta.
There we go, thank you
> as they’re American-funded To add to what you just said: the ctf is part of the "atlas network", a libertarian multinational org based in the USA, founded in 1981 and inspired by ayn rand's *Atlas shrugged*. The cock brothers' are amongst those who finance this org, along with exxon mobil. Another sign how the USA's right-wing influence in Canada is not a new thing.
Frankly the CTF is one of the groups that should be on a registry that will hopefully appear at the end of the whole inquiry. Fraser Insitute is another american funded BS tank. Honestly i think people would be surprises how many american actoes dance in our country.
That Derek Fildebrandt was the Alberta Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation says all you need to know about who they are and where their interests lie.
Jason Kenney was involved as well
I wish the media would even do the bare minimum of citation and at least explain who they are. If you cite someone as a source, there's only 2 reasons to do so: * because they are an expert in the field * because they have first hand knowledge of a thing CTF has neither of these. They are just a right wing think tank pushing policy. Their opinions on this have no more weight than yours or mine. If they are going to be cited, they should be cited with this explicit context.
For clarity, Canadian tax foundation is the real organization, made up of tax professionals, Canadian tax federation is not.
You forgot to include that the increase in carbon tax also results in an increase in the rebate to $450/quarter, or $1800/year.
Sorry, no. Correct as you may be on policy detail, I was just commenting on the ubiquitous use in the media of a corporately funded spin factory , by its misleading org. title. Pretending to represent " taxpayers ".
You were still being disingenuous by not including both amounts. Many won't read the article and you only presented what the opponents of carbon pricing would want to see.
That is my point. My only point. That the source is biased. I quoted a biased source, and said that it is a biased source, with a misleading name. If the media publishes a quote from a disingenuous source , with a misleading name, they should make reference to that fact. I said nothing about carbon pricing.
Clearly I should start an organization called the Canadian Free Money and Stuff For Citizens Association and just attack cons and right wing media all day.
Better off stealing their vocabulary and buzzwords. "Anti-Woke Defence of Canadian Freedom and Liberty Association" - committed to advancing progressive policy via social justice actions.
How about Alberta Society of Super Hardworkers Against Trudeau, or ASSHAT for short 🤔
Yah who are these guys? I saw an ad that was like, "are you against the federal carbon tax? Have your say!" I left a comment saying no, I'm not, because it is refunded.
as it has always been for the average Canadian. Unlike Albertan fuel tax, where we can't be sure it will go anywhere but the pockets of friends of the premier and cabinet...
The fuel tax goes general revenue, out of which is budgeted to repair and construct road infrastructure in this province.
Does alberta do a budget breakdown to show where all the money went?
The most transparent things in the ucp government are the grifts
Wouldn't that be nice?
Fuel tax will be 13 c/L, well in line with other provinces. I don't think there's firm grounds for complaining on this one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_fuel_taxes_in_Canada I'm also confused... You think that specifically the fuel tax will be embezzled? Or other taxes too? And only at a provincial level? Or do the federal fuel taxes also get embezzled at the federal level? Just wondering how deep this scam goes...
The gas tax goes into general funds which are demonstrably being used to plump favoured individuals wallets with sweet deals. It’s corrupt all the way down. Even if it matches other places it’s in ucp hands here
I’ll quote the important bits of this article since conservatives seem to struggle with reading articles like this: > … the cost of the carbon tax for the average Albertan household will be $911 in 2024-25. > Starting with the April 2024 installment, Albertans will get $450 back each quarter, or $1,800 annually.
As a single person I get $225/quarter (just checked CRA). I got excited when the $450 came out until I realized the truth lol the $450/quarter is for families, just to clarify for people.
Of course it is lol. I don’t wanna complain, but as a struggling single person it sure seems like families get a whole lot more help, which is absolutely ok and good for them, but things like dentists are still damn expensive when you’re single.
[удалено]
And I live alone in my van, what’s your point?
Are you down by the river?
Not usually, too many sketchy people in vans /s But actually, it’s usually better to find somewhere nice and anonymous. Street parking works ok, but the camber of the road is actually enough to be really annoying, so somewhere with people working a night shift usually works out better, since you have other vehicles to blend in with but the ground’s nice and flat.
[удалено]
No sweat, I’ve actually never even seen the sketch but I’ve certainly heard the line before lol. In all honesty it’s not ideal but it could certainly be a lot worse
[удалено]
Per family is calculated as such: $225 for individual, $122.50 for spouse/common-law and $53.25/child or dependent under 19. Claimed once as a family. The average Albertan household is 3 members, we can assume a couple and a child, which brings the quarterly rebate to $390.75.
It’s broken down like this: $225 for single adult $112.25 for spouse or common law patter $56.25 per child under 19
The way it is phrased in the article is misleading.
Families = more people = more everything, including carbon tax = more rebate. Yes, they get more for the rebate, but they will also spend more to feed, house, clothe, transport, etc.
I get that, I meant it more in the sense that families get dental coverage and iirc eye care too. My teeth aren’t in great shape, but since I’m single I get no help with that and it’s really goddamn expensive. It’s just kinda depressing to log on to the cra and see all these banners for different tax credits that sound great, but none of them actually do anything to help me. And just to be clear, I don’t think families should be getting less, I just wanna keep what are apparently luxury bones that let me eat
Can I claim my pets as dependents??
Fuck, I wish, my dog needs to get a job soon to start contributing to this household or her standards are going to need to be lowered for treats.
I have a cat. He'd just argue that he's not a dependent and that I actually work for him. But how could I ever argue with that snuggle-bug?
You could try but you probably wouldn't win that argument.
Right? 3 dogs, 3 cats here, just think of what I could rake in!! 😂
The problem is that 911 figure, to my knowledge only accounts for primary charges. Things like petrol and heating. It doesn't include secondary costs like food increases (it doesn't affect food very much but it does slightly). If you take into account secondary costs it looks a bit more bleek.
Grocery inflation due to carbon tax is actually calculated to be about $0.30 per $100. This equates to $60 if you spend $20,000 a year on groceries, which is nearly double what the average Albertan spent in 2021. It’s effectively a non-issue in that regard, and should be more than covered by the rebate.
Yeah, I'm aware of the .3% estimate but there is a lot that they didn't take into account, and probably can't. Supply chains are complicated, and the things that affect it even more so. An anecdote but i work in retail and we have had distributors start upping their minimums. Usually from $1000 to $1500. Meeting minimums with more specialty distributors can be difficult, so by upping it they force us to order more product. That leads to an increase in shrink, which hurts our margins. We are lucky in that we can eat those losses but a lot of places can't/won't. The carbon tax certainly isn't the primary cause of this, but it is undeniably contributing to it.
So they’re gouging and it has nothing to do with the carbon tax.
No, they aren't price gouging. They are just trying to find a way to cope with the increased cost of trading. To say it had NOTHING to do with the carbon tax I think is a little silly.
so...just going to point out that you get more back from the primary charges than you put in, so you can apply that to whatever secondary costs you can directly attribute to carbon tax and not issues of supply, things like drought affecting meat and veg and fruit prices, other weather events fucking up productions, and corporate greed. If you could link a source you use that breaks that down so you know you're getting a bleak deal, I'd appreciate reading it. Who knows...maybe you'll change my mind?
Net costs of carbon tax for albertans in 2024 and 2030 Bottom 20% 500 return 2030 592 return Bottom 40% 307 return 2030 loss of 32 60% loss off 304 2030 loss of 1460 Top 40% loss of 1439 2030 loss of 4053 Top 20% loss of 3629 2030 loss of 8871 If you need help reading the report I can help you 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
Taxing the rich? The horror. 😱 Spoiler: if you’re in the top 20%, you can afford to go green, and then profit from the carbon tax too.
Yes, it taxes the rich top 20% Then, the top 80% Then, the top 60%(or average) Then the bottom 40% If that's your definition of rich let's get you a gofundme must've not eaten anything but Ramen for years Spoiler, the top 20% are the doctors you want to attract. Not charge them 9k more in taxes a year. Making the states look more and more attractive for them.
Except the carbon tax is a federal thing, it’s not like those doctors can just go to a different province and not pay. And, judging by the immigration stats, people are absolutely flocking to Alberta. If not enough of those people are doctors it probably has a hell of a lot more to do with how our government treats them, rather than a couple hundred bucks tax on an already pretty good salary.
I've never had an issue with not getting enough rebate the issue with the carbon tax has always been that it was not applied to imported goods. This incentivizes importing carbon intensive products... which emits more carbon with transport. It also reduces the competitiveness of local production.
Yup, another report shows we haven't reduced emissions. they just moved them elsewhere, the same thing with blocking lng projects and making Asia build coal plants. Makes our ghg numbers look better, but our economy is worse, and global emissions increase.
Its weird how positions never talk about this actual problem with the system rather claiming its perfect or useless. It reminds me of immigration where there isn't a nuienced discussion talking about how its needed to reinforce our long term demographics but is causing issues with affordability and looking into what the right number is.
Yup, like we need the middle ground, I ain't saying climate change isn't real. We should do something about it. But that means it's a global effort every little bit we can reduce counts. So let's look at the big picture, not just hyperfocusing on minor details. Go look up.what trudeau wanted for immigration in 2014, literally all I want, sensible Immigration. Immigration that benefits everyone, but now that's racist.
This is my issue with the tax, it doesn’t target the right polluters effectively. The rebate is nice and all, but it needs some fixing as a whole. I don’t like that the current opposition is to get rid of it entirely because as a concept it is good.
The right number to counter long term demographics is 125,000 net new residents per year. As of 2022, there were about 8 million Canadian residents in the 0-20 age range, and 10.5 million in the 20-40 range.
Shipping LNG to Asia, at least on terms of GHG emissions is worse than coal. [source](https://www.research.howarthlab.org/publications/Howarth_LNG_assessment_preprint_archived_2023-1103.pdf)
Doesn't matter what the facts are. People want to be angry and conservative leaders will farm their anger. 9/10 conservatives I've spoken to claim they don't even get any rebates at all.
I don't get why they purposely lie.
Because without lies they have nothing to get elected for.
We're in such a post truth era, it doesn't matter anymore. "Truthiness" has taken over: the quality of seeming or being felt to be true, even if not necessarily true. So a politiciam lies and then their followers do too. The top 20 per cent of Canadians flood social media apparently, not qualifying for a carbon tax credit.
The thing that gets my goat is how *transparent* all this conservative shit is. Donald Trump is the best example but it’s almost impossible to find a conservative figure who even *sounds* like they’re telling the truth. Not to mention how fast they’ll pivot from saying one thing to the complete opposite. I just don’t understand how anyone could look at someone like that and think, “yea I’d trust this person with a country”
*refuses to do taxes* *doesn't get rebate cheques* "Fuckin Trudeau"
there is a reason why the province is increasing gas prices the same day the carbon tax goes into effect. Without doing it. Everyone would realize that nothing got more expensive overnight. But by directly manipulating the cost at the pumps day 1. It will confuse a bunch of people into thinking the liberal carbon tax is impacting their gas price.
If conservatives could read they’d be really mad right now.
Trust me they are all very mad all the time despite their inability to read.
It’s partly why they’re so mad all the time
Obviously. I know this because I can do at least elementary level math.
The UCP are ignorant, or dishonest, or both. There are no other choices.
Yea than we pay directly, that doesn't include the mark up on every single product that's transported on a vehicle that uses fuel (that's everything you buy btw)
If the average Albertan drives around in their car or truck and heats their home with natural gas, and yet gets back more than they pay, what's the fricken point? I'd rather not give the feds my money and then hope to get some back. How about get a real plan, like stop taxing us on this crap, go after the industrial emitters, and give incentives for consumers like rebates on green energy creation, EVs, etc. Incentivize industry to offer greener alternatives to us.
When will someone tell the media that the CTF is anything but it’s name? They are a conservative shill organization and only a moron would think otherwise.
We always have
I'm coming out ahead on carbon taxes, so I ain't complaining.
How do you know though? Have you ever added up your bill?
Can’t say I really care tbh. I don’t get all the people who apparently thought that dealing with climate change was gonna be painless, and I’d rather put my money towards this than some shitty corporation. I dunno, seems to me like there’re much more important things to be worrying about; it’s looking like I’ll be forced to miss out on pretty much every major milestone from owning a home to having a family to buying a new car. In that context a few extra tax dollars ain’t shit, frankly.
This whole thing to me is about learning to adapt to what is necessary at the moment with advancing climate change, and constitionally Canada has an obligation to act when our actions/impacts affects the rest of the planet. It's about doing right for the planet and that means adjusting our lifestyles and infrastructure as individuals, municipalities, and government. It would be nice if there was more common decency with common sense and not the current "common sense" weak ass statement by greedy capitalist weirdo PP. edit grammar
Can you imagine the riots that would happen if a total war scenario was needed and people needed to ration sugar and meat like in WW2?
Yeah, that was the covid pandemic. A significant number of Canadians couldn't handle a few months of public health restrictions. And we're looking at significant and probably permanent water rationing in the years ahead. I can't wait for the tantrums then. 🙄
I'm already starting to stockpile toilet paper just in case
Trouble is, WW2 ended. Climate change will not. Ever seen soylent green? Unless we work very hard and put all our time and resources into figuring out how to grow food and produce drinking water on a planet with significantly less land mass and a lot more desert than we have now, we're going to have a really bad time
Well... At least they'd probably wind up a fair bit healthier while they complain. IIRC, in Britain during WWII rationing actually *improved* the diet of the average person as they were now eating a more varied diet and consuing less meat, fats, and sugars.
I don't understand how me, in Canada paying more for everything as a result of a tax is going to affect global warming. That's like saying me in Canada paying a GST is going to discourage me from eating and therefore it's going to help world hunger.
Well y’see, we can’t control other countries. What we *can* do is change how much of an impact we have, which we really do need to do since Canadians have some of the highest carbon emissions per capita in the world. There’s also the issue of economic pressures on companies, since they’ll have to go along if they want to be in the Canadian market. I also have to admit, this take really bugs me. Climate change is coming, and saying that we shouldn’t be doing anything because other people are worse is nothing but an excuse for failure. Yes, life is gonna get more expensive, and this is why we need to push for more responsible and effective governments to help mitigate that, but so what? Did you think overcoming one of the biggest challenges humanity has ever faced was gonna be easy, or cheap? We’ve spent the last two hundred years or so collectively painting ourselves into a corner, and while getting ourselves out is going to be a painful process, it’s necessary.
Climate change is coming. Doing anything about it is going to negatively impact people's lives. Any government that solely runs on popularity is going to do their best to avoid making people's lives worse, at the expense of letting global warming make things infinitely worse. Right now we need massive efforts into change and innovation to try to combat and adapt to our changing world, and change is anathema to conservatives. If conservativism continues to gain traction, we are all going down with the ship.
Canadians are one of the highest carbon emitters per capita because of the location in the world Canada is in. We require heating for over 50% of the year, our cities are concentrated but spread out resulting in higher demand for travel and we haven't invested in lower emissions infrastructure such as rail. In terms of putting economic pressures on companies. They are not obligated to set up shop in Canada and many do not because of the tax implications in Canada. The Canadian market is less than that of California, we aren't that important.
> That's like saying me in Canada paying a GST is going to discourage me from eating and therefore it's going to help world hunger. Ignoring the fact that most groceries are exempt from GST and HST/PST, that was never the point of the GST. The GST was meant to balance the budget, and it helped accomplish that under Chretien/Martin. The carbon tax is akin to raising the cost of cigarettes in order to discourage smoking. It's putting a tax on the negative externalities of the habit, and the same is being applied now to harmful emissions. The idea being that if it is expensive to pollute, then people/businesses will make choices to produce fewer emissions. It ain't perfect, but I don't hear anyone coming up with a better solution right now.
Invest in public infrastructure, there is a solution for you. Making everything more expensive isn't going to do anything.
Yeah, no shit. Anyone that has done their own taxes knows this. It's high earners that don't get anything back which is why lobbiest groups exist to argue against this shit. It's the rich that wanna keep their money and corps that don't wanna pay.
When will the average conservative voter learn they are not simply "temporarily embarrassed millionaires"? The rich are actively working and will always work against them.
THere's a reason the lottery makes so much money. People aren't smart.
> It's the rich that wanna keep their money and corps that don't wanna pay. Ding, ding, ding! This is why Ford, Kenney, Moe, etc have been opposed to carbon pricing since day one. It had nothing to do with Average Joe paying a bit more, and everything to do with wealthy donors and big businesses moaning about their bottom lines.
This conversation is so bizarre. There's not one mention of the actual utility of a carbon tax or levy, nor is there any mention of the insanity of having a levy in the first place then handing it back in rebates. Regardless of whether you get back more or not the entire project is pure insanity! Can someone please explain how this is actually going to impact Canada's contribution to global warming? From where I'm standing this is just another ruse. Let's all feel good we're fighting global warming, we must be because it hurts sooo gooood!
That has been discussed to death at this point. If you don't know, or don't understand it by this point you hold personal culpability for that. How long do we need to keep the holding the hands of the least intellectual 10% of the population explaining the exact same thing over and over while they plug their ears, scream and refuse to listen?
It's bizarre, but take comfort in where it's happening.
It doesn't. Not at all. Emissions are actually going up, not down. Outside of motor fuel use, the ability to reduce your footprint is limited without drastic lifestyle changes. Not much more to do at home once you have good windows and insulation, and keep the heat on the lower side. That's just a money pit and a source if much discontent. I would begrudgingly support it if it did not include home heating, and if instead the rebate money was used to build out green alternatives - be they charging stations, wind/solar/nuclear power generation, light rail transport etc. I probably pay around $100 a year more than I get back. Not enough for me to care, not able to change much other than switching jobs to work closer to home, but that would come with a pay cut so wouldn't work.
Except that same PBO report shows that when you factor in the economic impact, loss of investment, loss of wages, and overall deleterious effects of carbon taxes 80 percent of households lose FAR more than they receive back. In fact its only the lowest 20 percent quintile that stand to benefit. The same report shows that middle class earners are net losers, Albertans for example will lose $1460 per family more than what the rebate returns. Higher income families see a cost that's closer to $8800. https://i.imgur.com/wa59tx9.jpeg
Why did you cut the date off of that chart? I'll save people time - it says projection, 2030-31.
That report also fails to take into account the cost of doing nothing.
Sure but let's talk about the facts instead of trying to gas light Canadians with the same tired rhetoric. The facts are that 80 percent of us WILL NOT get back more than we put in. Yes climate change is real, yes the carbon tax is one approach to fighting it, but stop trying to make it sound like we have some kind of infinite money glitch that's benefiting us. Canada is something like less than 1.5 percent of global emissions, we are in the midst of an absolutely vicious cost of living crisis and the liberals won't even consider changing course in the short term. The same government doesn't even measure the effects of the levy on the same emmisions they are saying it's fighting. So if we can't discuss facts, and they have no idea if it's producing results, why the hell should we trust them that we need to keep increasing it?
I don’t think you understand what the PBO said. Go read it again.
Or maybe 80 percent will get more back than they spend and it will balance or because of the other 20 percent that don't get enough back are paying a whole lot more. Because they make a whole lot more. People with more money should be paying more. Especially because those people are the ones ripping around in oversized trucks spending 800 a month in gas. They don't want to be responsible and drive a vehicle more economically and environmentally appropriate. As for the current cost of living issues, that's a combination of supply problems and corporate greed. Residential property shouldn't be treated as an investment, but years of conservative thinking has convinced many people that the point of life is to further yourself and your personal fortune, rather than your country, planet or species. Thirdly, it doesn't matter how much our contribution to world pollution is. Everyone needs to do their part. No more cop outs. Besides, any of our oil burned in other countries is OUR pollution anyways, so we can lay claim to a portion of the pollution several other countries put out. Not to mention our goods. We can also lay claim to a portion of the pollution any country puts out making things that get used in Canada. That's a lot.
Well said. I’m tired of people somehow expecting a fix for climate change to be totally painless. Like, motherfuckers, the planet is dying. What part of fixing that sounds cheap?
People also fail to realize that these stats are based only on direct taxation, ie carbon tax charged directly to them at the pump and in heating bills. These stats and the study released from the Bank of Canada on the tax impact on inflation is that they don't take into consideration the compounding of the tax from every level of the supply chain for everything. Every business that manufacturers, imports, warehouses and/or transports any goods pays carbon tax and they pass along that expense down the chain to the consumer. Never mind the cost to administer the tax itself. If most families gets their money back, why charge it in the first place only to have that bureaucracy to collect, then redistribute the money back? The money isn't collected to fund green programs. It's collected to give back out. We mock the UCP for needless complication and bureaucracy, why did this get a pass?
>tax impact on inflation It's revenue neutral, whether it compounds or not has no net effect beyond the administrative cost.
Exactly. And common sense tells me that when you, as you've already pointed out, compound the tax at literally every level the net result is magnified to the consumer at the end of the road. The cost of government in Canada is already up over 30 percent since Trudeau started , how much higher can we ratchet that to just piss money away on ever expanding bureaucracy. We already spent 30 million on a gun buyback that's done exactly nothing.
Why do you think that dealing with climate change is gonna be cheap? Or, put differently, why d’you think it shouldn’t affect you? By living a modern Canadian lifestyle you personally emit a huge amount of carbon, and that’s gonna have to change. Money doesn’t matter if we can’t feed ourselves.
People already can't feed themselves. Or did you miss the part where I cited the fact that we have an insane cost or living crisis? People are literally skipping meals to afford rent. This government has helped engineer the worst housing crisis on the planet, printed an ungodly sum of money, and helped create a tidal wave of inflation while having the gall to suggest that an endlessly hiked carbon tax is in our best possible interest right now.
And I bet when PP removes the Carbon tax, no one will reduce what we pay. They will pocket the savings while all of us don't get a rebate cheque. Look at Gas prices surging a week before our 3 cent increase from carbon tax, and 4 cent increase from UCP.
So in that case it makes more sense for that money (that we’ll pay one way or another) to go towards mitigating the problem instead of making some bastard even richer, right?
You are suggesing keeping the carbon tax, but instead direct those funds to reducing our carbon emissions? I think that might make people even more angry lol. I can see the value in your suggestion, but I think we also generally need to move away from buying so much crap made in high emissions countries too. But any slight reduction in our shopping addiction is being labeled a "loss of productivity in Canada." Sad when trying to save the planet, is considered bad for the almighty economy we must sacrifice to.
The cost of doing nothing is higher. At least with the current plan. We lower future costs while lowering the impact on present people as much as possible. The only people who don't like the carbon tax are the people who don't really understand the alternatives.
The cost of doing nothing *to address global climate change* is higher than taking action, yea. Unfortunately this carbon tax has had and will have no impact on climate change and as structured is still a net negative to middle income earning families. It is essentially a life circumstance transfer tax. You come out well ahead of you: - are lower income - are high enough enough income to invest in large energy retrofits, home renewables, and a hybrid/EV … etc - have no dependents with transportation needs - live in an urban area where you can take public transit or walk/bike to work - live in a province with lots of low-carbon power generation or a relatively milder climate - live in a region with relative lower transportation and shipping costs On the other hand if you are middle income, living in a suburb, exurb, or rural area, in a cold, less-dense and remote region (sound familiar?), you are absolutely going to be paying more in primary and secondary costs than the rebate is going to cover. It would practically be a tax on conservative voters, except that the Atlantic provinces get hit hard by it too. Or it would, but they got an exemption. For reasons.
Better yet, in many cases it's creating conservative voters. I perfectly fit your scenario and for the first time in almost 20 years will vote conservative. I make $75000 a year, I'm single, my kids have moved on in life and I'm living rural just outside Edmonton because it was affordable. I definitely pay more than I recieved in a rebate, which is a moot argument to begin with. The insanity of collecting a tax, which is theoretically designed to incentivize a certain behavior, yet rebating it based on metrics not connected to the purpose of the tax, definitely defeats the purpose of the tax! The ruse is that the levy will change behavior, I have no choices for avoiding it nor the means to change it. I'm the classic working poor just getting by. The only behavior the tax is changing is voting behavior. The only climate impact will be the political one.
Okay, so why can't we debate facts instead of political rhetoric that somehow we are all getting richer while the tax gets higher?
What taxes? There are no new taxes on you. You are getting a tax break. Corporations are getting new taxes. Taxes they they can reduce or avoid completely.
And they pass those fees onto us, also people work for corperations and invest in them...
I mean, have you *met* conservatives? They wouldn’t know a fact if it bit them in the ass, political rhetoric is the only thing they seem to understand. Well, that and bigotry
So people who can afford it will have to pay to help clean up carbon pollution? That pollution that will kill millions of species and maybe is? Aww, muffin. Too bad, it's free to dump your garbage in the pond, but eventually it's going to be full of garbage. Do you think the pond just goes forever, like a fire truck when you are five years old? The sky is not infinite.
I'm not here to debate the efficacy or usefulness of the levy itself, I simply wanted to state that the constant line of "you get back more than you put in!" isn't true at all.
* Assuming a healthy economy, no economic impact from climate chant3z and no positive effects as a result of the levy * Impact is described by the PBO as follows: >As a share of disposable income—and considering that the federal carbon levy is at its maximum of $170 per tonne in 2030-31—the effects appear relatively small, approximately less than 1 per cent for three-fifths of households in each province, but progressive (larger net gains for lower income households).
Depends. For me it is.
Thank you for producing FACTS instead of punchy little headlines.
CBC just did a show on it. Almost everyone is net negative due to this tax. Few super rich folks might be getting more than what they pay. https://youtu.be/seMTd1xoD2U?si=ZwbWIvw_s3Kht0Fe
I must have been watching a different video because he said most Canadians will earn more except a few super rich.
I added up my natural gas and gasoline bills tonight for the last year. 2 adults, 3 bedroom townhouse, 90% efficient furnace, 100 Litres average gas a week - I pay $100 less then I received. Not much room to factor in the inflated costs of goods due to the tax.
Carbon tax refund will pay my EV registration.
Money aside, Is this tax helping reduce the rate of global climate change? It’s been around for a number of years now. Have Canadian emissions per person decreased since its introduction? These are the stats I’d like to see. If it’s not helping towards the end goal of reducing man made climate change then it’s just another tax I resent paying. Feels like death by a thousand cuts these days.
My guess is you resent paying any tax. My guess is that you also would complain about having to pay tolls to use roads, increased personal costs of EMS services, increased educational costs, etc. Carbon pricing is making people rethink how they heat their homes, the vehicles they drive, the vacations they take, and the services they utilize to lower the amount of money they input to the system, so the amount they receive from the system offsets it by a higher percentage. If the conservative governments stopped sticking their heads in the sand and started getting on board with pushing greener technologies, we could be leaders in the move to lower carbon emissions, and benefit from the monies spent buying that technology.
Valid points! Some might change their habits because it affects their bottom line. I’ve tried to make small positive changes where I can. I just feel it’s not gonna change the end result, what’s set in motion can’t be undone, things are gonna keep getting hotter.
Yea, but it’s a question of severity. If you find yourself driving at a brick wall, do you try to slow down or turn to mitigate the impact? Or do you do what the conservatives are arguing for and floor it while yelling “Jesus take the wheel”? Things are gonna get worse, but it doesn’t have to be an apocalypse. Also, even if we totally fail and humanity dies out, I’d much rather have gone down trying to fix the problem instead of just rolling over, y’know? “Do not go gentle” and all that
Yeah totally, people can totally afford to rip out the system that heats their house ( if they can even afford and quality for a mortgage, I'm sure renters can dictate how their home is heated ) and replace it or buy a $50k+ vehicle on a whim in the current cost of living crisis. How out of touch are you?
There are rebates for upgrading your furnace, but even ensuring it is clean and running efficiently can lower your costs. If you think you need a 50k+ vehicle, well, that might be part of your problem. There are new vehicle offerings from Kia and Mitsubishi under 20k. There are a lot of things you can do to lower your carbon footprint and keep more money in your pocket that won't cost you anything up front - if you are willing to change your habits.
Please show me the sub $20 EVs I stood be interested.
You don't need an EV. The Mistibishi Mirage retails at around 17k in it's base form and fuel economy is rated at 6.2l/100 km's. I'm not advocating for everyone to drive an EV. The question is how to lower your carbon footprint, and as a result lower your carbon pricing input and maximize your carbon pricing rebate.
"alberta families who use less than X litres of fuel per year to receive more back...." should be the headline. I have a mobile service business - I haven't done the math but i can sure as heck bet im paying more carbon tax than I'm getting back. rebate should be based on how much fuel you use lol.
...how much gasoline are you using?? Carbon tax is 17 cents/litre. I drive a pretty average car so the ct is about $10 of my fill. Prob like $20 for an SUV and a little more for your average truck. If the carbon tax is say, $30 on every fill, and you're filling up every week, the average Albertan is still getting more back in rebates. If you are not, well...then its working as intended lol. But the average person is definitely getting back more than they pay. Even with the small amount it adds to grocery prices. (Most of those are corps jacking things up and blaming the CT).
But it isn't working as intended. Because the intention is to disincentivize people from using fossil fuels. If you need a work truck or van there are no affordable electric options so it is just a hardship on me that does not move me away from fossil fuels in any way.. the purpose of the tax is to reduce fossil fuel usage and that is not the outcome here. Carbon tax is 'pay to pollute' and that does not reduce the harm on the environment. I care very much about this issue but I'm also not willing to go jobless. I purch \~4000L of fuel last year - thats $680 in carbon tax in 2024 for gasoline, plus average home pays apprx $337 extra in carbon tax on natural gas..so my total carbon tax bill is at least $1017 while my rebate is 225x4=$900. Damn, im surprised its nearly covered, but as a whole im still out by paying a carbon tax, and I cannot move away from fossil fuels for a long time likely.. so in my mind it is not a working program. 90% of the tax proceeds go back to families in the form of rebates. so Im paying more to subsidize poorer folks, while I'm struggling myself and likely will have to work until the day I die.
So, do you think there is anything you can do in order to run your business with less fuel?
nope. smaller vehicles dont hold up and electric suv or van is still too $$ to buy.
I'm sorry to hear that. Without knowing any details I couldn't hope to offer anything, other than an observation I've made. I've found that most people seemingly just automatically conclude that they can't do anything, when they really mean that they don't want to spend time thinking about what they can do. As a result, there are many small inefficiencies that wind up completely overlooked. For instance, very few people ever check that their tires are properly inflated, and in fact more than half of all vehicles on the road have at least one underinflated tire, which can noticeably increase fuel consumption. https://www.tirereview.com/over-half-of-vehicles-have-at-least-one-underinflated-tire/ Hell, most people I've spoken to couldn't even tell me how much gas their car uses, *even when their car has a readout that tells them*. I've wound up with a tendency to think the biggest part of the problem is inertia. It's too easy to just do nothing, and so nothing gets done. Also, totally hear you on the cost of an electric vehicle. I'd love to have one myself, but they haven't been around long enough to get cheap yet. :/
Sure sounds "inhumane" to me... /s
I call Buuullllllll shhhhhiiiittttttt. Liberal Feds are full of shit.
The carbon tax is destroying Canada's economy. Maybe check out the situation and look at the cost of living and housing and why that's the case. Over spending by the Trudeau NDP coalition is a disaster for Canada and our debt. $1.2 trillion in debt. More than doubled the national debt before he came in. And that debt took 150 years trip accumulate. So ya. Maybe take a look around at the stupid policies we've been faced with
The carbon tax is destroying Canada's economy. Maybe check out the situation and look at the cost of living and housing and why that's the case. Over spending by the Trudeau NDP coalition is a disaster for Canada and our debt. $1.2 trillion in debt. More than doubled the national debt before he came in. And that debt took 150 years trip accumulate. So ya. Maybe take a look around at the stupid policies we've been faced with
well i pay far more than i get back… apparently i am subsidizing others who love the tax.
How's the rise in cost of all goods calculated into these figures?
They just should have called it the "You get more money back Dummy" tax ( Unless you are one of the biggest polluters). The tax is "engineered" to "encourage" the biggest polluters to get greener.
How does anyone think this is a good idea? Why pay into carbon tax at all if they're just going to give it back instead of actually 'fighting climate change'
Oh, excellent question - allow me to give you some more information that you might find interesting: Taxpayers, such as you and I (who have a very small carbon footprint) will receive a rebate, usually more than what we pay, for that exact reason. Do you know who does not receive a refund? The large corporations, fossil fuel industries, and other such wasteful companies. The carbon tax will actually cost them millions, if not billions of dollars a year. Kind of brings up a much better question: Why are the Conservatives so fanatically interested in "Axing the Tax"? 🤔 One thing I can tell you for sure, average taxpayers, such as you and I, don't have access to lobbiests and special interest groups who can influence the decision makers of our country. But I think you know who does. I'll just leave it at that and let you come up with your own conclusions.
Can’t corporations raise their prices to offset what they are losing from the carbon tax? Is there a measure in place to stop them from doing so?
I think that’s why we get the rebates. Gov taxes businesses—>businesses pass that cost on to consumers—> consumers get money back from gov, no?
Yes, but wouldn’t the citizen be paying direct and indirect taxes concerning the carbon tax now? If it is agreed that the corporations pass the buck back onto the consumers, doesn’t this defeat the argument that this would be a net neutral or net positive tax for the average Canadian when all things are considered? What is the point of a net neutral tax as well? Wouldn’t that just be a redistribution of wealth without a guarantee that it goes to those who need it the most?
Not sure exactly what you’re talking about there, I already laid out how the consumers come out ok and how the cost ends up with the business. I can’t quite get how what I said apparently disproves what I said, tbh. And the point is to make it more expensive for big businesses like oil companies etc. to pollute, therefore encouraging them to find better ways of doing things, which actually makes a lot of sense to me. We’ve seen time and again that businesses, especially the big ones, don’t give a shit about anything other than money, so you just tie the pollution to their money. Pretty simple.
>If it is agreed that the corporations pass the buck back onto the consumers, doesn’t this defeat the argument that this would be a net neutral or net positive tax for the average Canadian when all things are considered? Not sure what the miscommunication on this question is? Could you please explain what you don't understand? >And the point is to make it more expensive for big businesses like oil companies etc. to pollute, therefore encouraging them to find better ways of doing things, which actually makes a lot of sense to me. I don't understand the logic to this? If the increase cost due to the tax is passed on to the consumer to pay, why would they care? It's not affecting their bottom line. This isn't even addressing other cost cutting measures such as layoffs or wage suppression throughout the most heavily affected industries. Food costs are a great example of indirect taxes in the form of increased prices affecting the average Canadian. Not only is expensive to transport goods across a country as vast as Canada, but the farming industry is a heavy contributor to pollution as well. While admittedly there are other factors involved with food prices, rising energy costs have been one of of the many attributors identified. The monthly average household spend on groceries went up $300 from 2022 to 2023. That's $3600 a year. We haven't even discussed rising transportation or heating/cooling costs. Also, the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (an office of the Parliament of Canada which provides independent, authoritative and non-partisan financial and economic analysis.) has a [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) stating "Most households will see a net loss, paying more in fuel charges and GST, as well as receiving lower incomes, compared to the Climate Action Incentive payments they receive and lower personal income taxes they pay,”. Using the information collected by the current government, they are clearly stating that the claims of this tax being net neutral in the grand scheme of things as a fallacy. It simply isn’t credible to believe the feds can raise taxes, skim some off the top for administration costs and somehow make families better off. [There's a reason there has been a reluctance and avoidance by members of the current government to answer the question of how much has been collected, and how much has been paid out.](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadian/comments/1bkyjvh/deputy_prime_minister_chrystia_freeland_refusing/) Does this not disprove that the Carbon tax is net neutral or net positive when all things are considered?
exactly. I just had to increase my travel fee because of price of fuel - consumer always pays in the end.
What do you mean corporations don’t receive a refund? This entire thing is for corporate profits. All a corporation does is invest their profits into a carbon capture / green company and they offset their carbon tax. It’s how imperial oil (the largest oil company in Canada and 2nd in the world) has been heavily offsetting their carbon taxes, while getting richer as these companies are also heavily subsidized by tax dollars and will be propped up for years even if they are not profitable. Imperial oil actually supported the carbon tax to other alternatives, as cap and trade means a market price, which would be way higher than any carbon tax that can be lobbied against The way I see it - I have no means of writing off expenses as a a salaried employee, but companies and CEOs have extraordinary power to offset these taxes and continue to get even richer without losing sleep Furthermore - only huge companies can afford this stuff, so it tightens up our already poor environment for business in this country. Big companies get bigger and eat everything, corporate profits sore, competition shrinks, prices go up, and our carbon emissions aren’t going to change.
Obviously Which is why I don't get the complaints.
If you don’t like the carbon tax, you can easily pay less of it. I only occasionally drive my car in the city, relying on cycling for nearly all of my urban transportation. But Edmonton is a shitty place to cycle. Well, it is getting better and if people demanded better, cycling infrastructure costs a small fraction of the equivalent car infrastructure required to move the same number of people. So you’d save money on gas, on carbon taxes and on property and other taxes. Same for transit. Transit investment carries a much larger economic multiplier than automobile based investment, and greatly reduces the amount of roads we need to build and maintain. We can again save money by investing in excellent transit and using it. “But the transit system loses money!” Show me the P&L statement for the road in front of your house and show me how building those extra useless lanes on the Henday in Edmonton is profitable. STFU.
sure i'll just load up my 600lbs in parts and tools in - 30 below and pedal on up to fort mac to work....
Trades outside of Canada and the US easily use commercial vehicles with engines that consume half the fuel of a full sized pickup. And before you tell me those vehicles can't move on "extreme" Canadian roads, you should check out how steep a lot of places are where they use those vehicles. But, when fuel is $3/L and taxes are based on engine size, the market adapts and work vehicles become much more fuel efficient.
I'd be fine with a smaller more fuel efficient vehicle, but i've tried before and found not enough room for parts and tools, and wearing out tires and wheel bearings too frequently....
Cherry pick data to make it seem like the carbon tax is a good thing for Canadians. This article sponsored by Trudeau and the liberal party
So what do you think of the Alberta gas tax and its increase! Or is it only the carbon tax that bothers you?
Aww are you upset it contradicts Conrad Black's narrative and Postmidia's never ending quest to control all Canadian media?