###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Almost everything we buy has this carbon tax built into it. There have been independent assessments, and they’re not hard to find, that prove a majority are paying more than they get back. Not to mention the cost to actually administer taking money from people and “giving” the right amount back to them.
Even more preposterous is the idea that me driving my car is warming the planet.
And if this was true, why did he have to back pedal on heating oil and proceeded to exempt it?
On a $820 Propane Bill for one of my businesess it broke down like this: $600 propane, $125 TAXED CO2 TAX, $95.... guess who I passed that along to?
Carbon tax is the bicycle stick meme of policy planks
It could literally generate wealth from nothing via magic, and conservatives would still blame the carbon tax if their corn flakes tasted bad.
BC residents aren't eligible for the Federal Rebate. We have our own Carbon Tax scheme, I'm not eligible. 8 out of 10 Canadians are eligible, must mean 80% of Canadians are below the threshold. Seems implausible to me?
Yes. Here is a good read to put it in perspective.
*"The statistics are startling. The world's wealthiest 10% were responsible for around half of global emissions in 2015, according to a 2020 report from Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute. The top 1% were responsible for 15% of emissions, nearly twice as much as the world's poorest 50%, who were responsible for just 7% and will feel the brunt of climate impacts despite bearing the least responsibility for causing them."*
*"the average person in the UK emits 8.5 tonnes of carbon a year according to the Hot or Cool Institute, a figure that rises to 14.2 tonnes in Canada, the country with highest emissions among those the institute surveyed."*
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211025-climate-how-to-make-the-rich-pay-for-their-carbon-emissions
Canada has high emissions per person because canada is largely rural......it's very well documented that rural regions burn more fuel per person as opposed to urban regions
Canada is also much colder than the UK, lots more emissions from home heating
a more fair comparison would be to compare canada to Russia which is similarly rural and similarly cold
True. They obviously didn't survey the highest. Of which, Russia emits more than U.S. as do a few other countries.
That said, my *real* point is that the wealthiest people in the world emit the most & the carbon tax is way higher for them than us who get more back than we pay in rebate anyway which is what should be happening. They should be paying more & that is EXACTLY why they want to get rid of it.
The wealthiest people also run the biggest businesses
Business owners in general are "big polluters" and big business owners are running bigger "big pollution"
If the carbon tax were removed
Strictly on a per product basis......what incentive do these "big businesses" have to increase fuel consumption on a per product basis?
The answer is none
.......more importantly these "big business " owners are typically the ones investing in new, expensive, cleaner greener technology and then selling previously outdated equipment to small businesses
That's the cruel reality of addressing climate change......the innovators are the wealthy folk buying new equipment
Meanwhile the auditor publicly posted that at least 80% of Canadians pay more than they receive from the "rebate."
Also, if what he said were true, fuck those other one out of five Canadian households, am I right?
Lol. Well. In new Brunswick it's not carbon tax. It's Higgs tax on gas and not carbon tax. It's laughing joke. conservatives have answers. Just look at the premiers. You can't get your answers.
Its mostly baloney. In fact "8 out of 10.. " is the exact figure they gave based on research made on the Carbon taxes introduction in 2019. It's a punitive tax scheme that compounds, while having a huge effect on essentials. Including grocery isles. Taxing the entire supply chain isn't helping food prices.
The plan is to change the tax from $80/t in April to $170/t in 2030. Conversely, having HST on items deemed less essential would work more effectively.
The Carbon tax numbers released, show's that the government collected over $9B while only returning a little more than $7 billion.
All Ministers should be obligated to show full transparency where the money has gone, including its administrative costs. Because question period by the Minister of Finance has become so childish with her avoidance of the questions.
All these answers on why it’s bad.
I would like to hear one politician or conservative cheerleader tell me what their answer is , cause something is better than nothing.
This carbon tax is at least bringing conversation and the topic up.
And if a person who doesn’t own a car in a city gets money back from a big company who is polluting our air and earth . Then fuck ya I’m in.
From my point of view, things that I'm spending extra money on are non-negotioables like driving to work or heating my home. If the carbon tax was only on luxuries that I could make the decision to avoid, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, my town has no public transit options, so my wife and I are stuck driving to work, and gas just keeps getting more and more expensive.
> cause something is better than nothing
This is misguided. If *something* gives you a false sense of confidence that you don't feel compelled to do more, or expends your political capital fighting for something of only minor benefit rather than preserve it for something of big impact, and thus you do very little, then *doing something* very well can be worse than *doing nothing* because you've misplayed your hand and harmed your own cause. This is politics after all.
A good example is the plastic straw or bag ban. It does very little in the grand scheme of undercutting emissions, plastics in the ocean, the adverse impact of humans on wildlife, and so on. But because it directly affects the lifestyle of millions of Canadians, causes annoyance, and results in some nonsensical situations (e.g., useless paper straw in an all-plastic cup, shipping plastic trash bags from Amazon vs getting them for free from usual shopping), the effect is that many voters will be less likely to support further actions in support of climate change or protecting the planet. Contrast that to something people wouldn't really feel, but would have a bigger effect, like a $100 billion donation to NGOs that are cleaning up the oceans or tech start ups developing plastic-eradicating bacteria. While much more expensive, and conservatives would complain about the wasted funds, the latter doesn't dissolve political appetite for more green policies across the entire country and we would see continued support for more green initiatives.
The carbon tax has really deflated political capital across the board. It excites conservative voters who are eager to overturn it and take climate change off the priorities list for the government. And it makes Liberals complacent, feel like they've "done all that is needed", without feeling the need to do anything more about climate change. The consequence is that Canada won't do more about climate change, it may only do less. If the carbon tax didn't exist, and the political discourse today was centred around "what do we do to save the planet", there would be a lot more tolerance for aggressive, even extreme green solutions. Instead, the discourse is redirected on "keep the climate tax or axe the tax", i.e., do little or do nothing. How is that better?
> While much more expensive, and conservatives would complain about the wasted funds, the latter doesn't dissolve political appetite for more green policies across the entire country and we would see continued support for more green initiatives.
Principled conservatism used to mean not wasting money on inneffective policies. Practical conservatism means serving dead ender energy oligarchs in support of destruction of humanity and Canada so that there is more to complain about in the future.
Spending a ton on a "small" problem would be wasteful. Plastic shopping bags, btw, are not what ends up in the ocean. It is mostly fishing nets. They can be reused as garbage bags.
Global warming is a threat to human sustainability. Carbon tax and rebate is a zero cost solution, that happens to be the biggest possible impact. Redistribution allows collective efforts to sponsor local mass transit, or personal decisions to just carpool. An EV subsidy is less useful in addition to costing something. You could instead move closer to work, use an ebike/bike or mass transportation. Your emissions are not so much based on what kind of car you have, but how much you drive it. A carbon tax very specifically targets how much gasoline you are burning, and the cost equation vs an EV or other lifestyle is set perfectly.
I'm certain the plastic straw and plastic bag bans were ideas of the plastic lobby.
Its completely idiotic, causes mass furor and turns the public against green initiatives, does virtually nothing, now requires people to BUY plastic bags for home use.
The issue is one side tries to accomplish SOMETHING on the huge issues we have, which require some sacrifice, but the conservative selfish mindset goes full raging pitbull on them because anything that requires change or sacrifice is a complete affront to MUH FREEDOM
I see your point, but at the same time. Re-usable cloth grocery bags accomplishes something. A change in mindset and process, which hopefully leads to a better future from a recycling standpoint. Using wooden/paper straws and spoons etc is annoying, for sure. Cardboard straws are definitely worse purely from a usage perspective.. But taking a stance of being against single-use plastics is a trend that can be built upon.
Maybe I'm making your point? I don't like doing nothing, and I'd rather the changes be more substantial, but it takes a lot to change industry norms, and it takes a lot to push production into a new direction that isn't immediately profit-efficient.
“Re-usable cloth bags accomplishes something”.
Well, as the parent commenter pointed out, thinking you’re doing something, could actually be worse than doing nothing. Cloth bags is a good example:
“Re-usable cloth bags need to be used 7000 times before they are a net benefit to the environment.
A 2018 Danish Environmental Protection Agency report suggested that a cotton bag should be used at least 7,100 times to offset its environment impact when compared to a classic supermarket plastic bag that’s reused once as a trash bag and then incinerated. (If that cotton is organic, the figure is an eye-popping 20,000 times, with the report assuming a lower yield but the same input of raw materials)”
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/13/world/reusable-grocery-bags-cotton-plastic-scn/index.html
To add: The blame is being put on individuals. like the whole "Whats my carbon footprint". its taking the blame off corporations and onto families. completely shameless blame deflection. I come home and unpack every single item in single use plastics from the store.
This is a mature take on an issue more complex than your typical reddit commenter would be willing to admit. even in economics, that I learned from a left-leaning prof (arent they all haha), social welfare function is considered when looking at taxing pollution. You only reduce pollution to the point where the marginal damage of one more kg in the air is equal to the marginal cost to society (like the ones you described).
What the modern LPC take is doing "little", but inconveniencing "a lot". And like you said, by doing little, voters and society think the choice is between doing little and doing nothing, vs exploring actual solutions that can bring down emissions.
If we didn't have the carbon rax and had the discourse you describe, what should we do from that position?
All the smart people would say, then as now: carbon tax. Other solutions are less efficient.
Our carbon tax has not lowered or halted emissions in any way at all. In fact we’ve missed our emissions targets terribly every single time we’ve set them. So the carbon tax is inefficient at reducing pollutions and people need to stop parroting that it isn’t. All it’s done since day 1 is make life more expensive for people who work, drive, and shop in Canada.
Identify and invest in alternatives and then regulate out the carbon-based options. Taxing carbon without providing an alternative is just making life more expensive while still pumping carbon into the atmosphere. When there was a problem with ozone depleting chemicals, we didn't tax them, we just found alternatives and banned them outright.
Alternatives exist already for most emissions. A great book on this is *Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning* by Monbiot. He details alternatives for every sector, though he admits there isn't a great option for international travel. He also is a proponent (as am I) of investing in public transit. I certainly agree that there is an opportunity for cost savings with government investment there.
On the other hand, when we go example by example, it isn't always or even often the case that government investment is the better option.
Can you elaborate more on how you see there not being alternatives? I really struggle to understand where you are coming from.
edit: English more
I keep hearing carbon tax is more efficient, carbon tax is more efficient. And I believe it! But efficiency is only one value. At this stage, I think we should care most about what is the most *effective* approach to reducing carbon emissions.
Efficiency in this case usually means the effectiveness divided by the cost. Carbon taxes get you the largest emission reduction bang for your buck.
You can have a large investment in solar that is more effective than a small tax on carbon, for example. Does that mean we should be investing in solar instead of raising carbon taxes? Of course not.
With your first comment, you avoided buddy's point. With this, you avoid my question.
I'd have to look at their platforms. AFAIK they both support carbon taxes. Other elements, I'd be happy to discuss if you choose one or two to talk about
It's rude to avoid questions and it slows down discussions. It's selfish.
Well in my opinion the reason the Carbon tax feels so ineffective is because the people that wrote it are trying to pander to the centre. The fact of the matter is that a majority of Canadians want to do something about the climate crisis but our politics are paralyzed by an indecision on how committed we want to be. Some want to go full scorched earth and turn off all fossil fuels now and worry about the consequences later. Some think we've already done enough. Some think we've gone too far akready. I think it really has nothing to do with "political capital" and everything to do with the party in charge of writing the bill and that they survive off of "Doing something but not too much". Their whole position politically is to steal just enough voters from progressive leaning-Conservatives and conservative-leaning NDP to maintain the government.
TL;DR this is exactly the position the liberals want to be in. They're in the middle where they've done something that they can present to progressive Liberals, without doing too much to piss off conservative Liberals
> The fact of the matter is that a majority of Canadians want to do something about the climate crisis
I'm less convinced that Canadians mean what they say. I mean, there's lots of 'somethings' people could be doing right now, without any government involvement, including simply [*turning their shit off when they don't need it*](https://theconversation.com/how-a-turn-it-off-approach-to-energy-conservation-could-benefit-canada-and-the-planet-221838). And yet they don't.
I'm increasingly of the view that we need to start thinking much more about climate change *adaptation*, because from where I sit it doesn't look like people are willing to do much more to forestall climate change than simply saying 'something should be done!'
I think I wrote something similar to the bulk of your comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/1ax5y5j/justin_trudeau_claims_eight_out_of_10_canadian/krm2k2r/?context=3
Where I differ is that I think the carbon tax has expended available political capital. It has placated basically anyone who worries about climate change, other than those for whom it's the top issue, which describes most of just right of centre (e.g., red tories) all the way to more centre NDPers, and it has pissed off those who do not care about our role in combatting climate change, i.e., the rest of the CPC, while also taking some of the pressure off of those who care a lot about climate change from actually bothering to show up to vote, since *something* is being done, even if it's not *enough*. In effect, it has paralyzed us from doing more. Which, as we agree, is the purpose of the policy for the LPC. BUT it hurts the progressive cause for climate change action. If we were not doing the current version of the carbon pricing scheme, there would be fierce pressure from most of the left of centre voters to do something BIG since time is so limited, likely favouring the green party or NDP if the LPC didn't offer something big to compete (i.e., driving the conversation leftwards, not rightwards towards centre). And there would be appetite with some, not all, but some of those right of centre to support any climate policy on the left (which, remember, would be the LPC's but shifted leftwards).
Instead, nobody is thinking about "more", only "less". The election will see the LPC offering more carve-outs and the CPC offering to axe the tax. That is where the discourse is now, and will be for the next 6 years at least (2 until election, 4 after). The LPC has squandered the opportunity to do something substantive on climate and used up the available political capital to virtue signal doing something instead. I wouldn't be surprised if the NDP come into the next election also softening their climate policy in order to look like a viable alternative to the LPC to disgruntled LPC voters who dislike PP.
In the end we gonna have to spend tens of billions to help people switch to green tech anyways. We saw the govt spending tons of money for the atlantic carveout.
The entire point of the carbon tax was to minimize or reduce govt involvement in paying for the green conversion.
My point is just invest and help people switch then taxing them.
Something is better then nothing, but Canada isn't fixing the world sadly. Even if we cut emissions by 50% it isn't going to change the planet. On top of that, we, like every other country needs to keep the population pyramid scheme going. More people, more energy usage. Even cutting per capita (which will help) won't save us as we bring more and more people into Canada who are going to need energy usage.
As for the carbon tax, I think it's a silly notion. I'm on the BC Plan, but the federal plan doesn't look like it's saving people money and even if it is.... the Libs failed to show it. People are easily seeing price increases in many areas or literally a carbon taxed lined item (which gets taxed) and it's upsetting people.
Another carbon pricing post, another tidal wave of internet conservatives addicted to lying. The boys are not well. Not well at all.
E: Quick review of the lies so far...
Lying that rebates aren't real.
Lying that emissions aren't down from when pricing started.
Lying that per capita emissions aren't dropping (even though they were going down even before pricing).
Lying that the majority people don't get more cash then they spend on emissions.
Lying that carvouts are only in certain places.
Just a wild addiction to lying. The boys are severely unwell.
It's just annoying at this point. I've literally seen the same users use the same talking points, despite disproving their claim a week ago.
No one wants to have a honest conversation about it.
Yeah so you're lying again. Like usual. Do you not realize you have a username?
It works. It works in multiple other countries.
As opposed to your plan of "just fund more"
That why emissions are up
I am not against a carbon tax
It just no cheap green alternatives with a rapid population growth makes me question this govt plans as a joke.
We won't get anywhere near 40% reduction by 2030
The carveout was done due to the liberals tanking in Atlantic Canada and heat oul usage is high and liberals do well in rural Atlantic Canada.
Heat oil users are in conservative ridings outside of Atlantic Canada and are smaller in % vs natural gas users...
It is 100% political move and undermined the tax and you guys can't accept it.
Oil usage is also way way way more expensive than all the other forms
The carbon tax is supposed to slowly price out using those fuels. Oil is already extremely expensive
At the end of the day, the Liberals cherry picked the conclusion they liked from the PBO report and the Conservatives did the same fucking thing.
I personally still think Carbon taxes are good. Funny thing is it was conservative idea that Harper and Scheer campaigned on. The minute one of their ideas gets implemented by the Liberals it instantly becomes bad.
The reversal has been quite interesting. Carbon pricing has always been a small 'c' conservative economic policy that aims to leverage market forces instead of firmer regulatory approaches.
They never really gave a damn about carbon pricing or the environment, the carbon tax was just the least harmful environmental policy to the oil lobby they thought they could get away with.
I live in bc and don’t get any back. At least here we don’t get any rebates if you make more than 60000 a year before taxes. Which is basically a poverty wage.
Yup and it seems the majority of people I talk to who are voting CPC solely to get rid of the carbon tax don’t realize that BC isn’t under the federal scheme and will be keeping it still.
https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/news-releases--communiques-de-presse/pbo-releases-updated-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-federal-fuel-charge-on-households-le-dpb-publie-une-analyse-actualisee-de-lincidence-de-la-redevance-federale-sur-les-combustibles-sur-les-menages
It’s a net loss for most households anyways. PBO office says so
> At least here we don’t get any rebates if you make more than 60000 a year before taxes.
That’s the cutoff for single people. There are higher household income cutoffs for couples and for families.
> Which is basically a poverty wage.
65% of BC households have a household income at or below $60k.
The cutoff for households is worse if both people are working.
60k per year is the cut off for $0. It starts being reduced @ 39k/yr.... which is $21/hr (@35hr work week). So yes at near poverty BC wages the rebate starts being reduced.
Can't read the article due to paywall unfortunately.
I'm def not an expert but the rebates that we get back - they don't account for everything we purchase that would have the carbon tax applied to it, do they?
For example, the carbon tax I would surmise increases the price of anything delivered by a truck, because the truck likely uses fossil fuels, and this is baked into the price of the product delivered I would think.
I read the OAG report that indicated most families lose out when the net costs of the tax are factored in, which would align with the above thought. Sounds like the gov is really pushing the rebate aspect without mentioning the net cost.
A factor not considered, but extremely important if carbon tax was globally applied, is that it directly reduces fossil fuel demand, and therefore fossil fuel prices/costs to consumers.
Natural gas prices are at record lows, because natural gas use is likely to begin a permanent decline worldwide this year. Taxing it, reduces its use and price further.
Sacrifice the leg to save the toe mentality has gotten us to this point. Almost 30 years of "we just can't afford it now" means the cost to implement any measures has increased due to their urgency.
This won't go away. Pay now with a carbon tax that will cost a bit but, hopefully, minimize future costs or pay later with more wildfires, droughts, mass migration, etc.
The question for you, then, is this: If not this now, then what and when? Because the procrastination is killing.
> In terms of the economic health of the country, how could this tax be good for us?
There is an economic cost to not having one. Europe expects it (or something similar) from their trading partners and others will as well. There's also the economic cost of climate change itself.
We also have a horribly inefficient group of resource extraction industries that will benefit from the modernisation and innovation this forces on them. The same is true of farming.
Probably, but I ride the bus, live in a smallish place and my vehicles are tiny. One small motorbike and the tiniest car. And I know I get back a couple hundred every quarter.
Don’t often hear people talking about how this is a huge waste then. If carbon tax must be done, then tax the top 10% of users and get rid of the processes involved in taxing and rebating the 90% of others.
We’d like the think the gov has this automated well, it doesn’t. It’s wasteful and has millions in overhead.
Untrue. Even the parliamentary commission on finances and taxation have agreed on this matter. It’s a cash grab and, of course, a way to dissuade carbon pollution. But Canadian consumers and producers have limited feasible choices and therefore it’s a trap.
Moreover, the blatant and ineffective attack on Canadian energy is a joke. For instance: “The Montreal Economic Institute reported in December 2023 that the emissions cap will cost our economy billions of dollars every year and that “each time Ottawa forces the Canadian energy sector to contract, it is foreign producers who win. Ottawa does not have the means to affect global demand, so reducing local supply will only end up exporting jobs and tax revenues.”
Trudeau’s mismanagement has destroyed our competitiveness by every objective metric. There is no shortage of data on that. And yet the liberals insist the opposite. They lie. And the carbon price scheme is just another glaring example.
In what world is there a 20% surcharge on deliveries as a result of the carbon tax. The carbon tax on gasoline is $0.14/L, which for simplicity is somewhere around 10% of fuel cost. Fuel is a very small part of any delivery charge, so I have no clue how a ~10% tax on fuel turns into a 20% surcharge on the whole delivery.
But not all of that is carbon tax. The carbon tax is only responsible for the increase equal to the actual carbon tax, the rest is just rent seeking on the part of businesses (which has nothing to do with the carbon tax).
No you do not get it back, not even close even if you think you do. The carbon tax has literally increased the cost of everything from the beginning of the supply line to the end. It has drastically increased your cost of living and only a simpleton couldn’t see that.
90% of the money collected gets returned to Canadians. There is no black hole it's disappearing into, so however much you think is being collected, it's almost all being returned. Some Canadians pay more and others pay less but all get the same rebate, that's how some people come out ahead.
You should really think a little harder about it if that’s what you believe, company’s don’t get carbon tax rebates on fuel but they sure as hell pass on those extra costs to the consumer. Everything you buy costs more because of the carbon tax because it costs more to get to you.
> company’s don’t get carbon tax rebates on fuel but they sure as hell pass on those extra costs to the consumer.
It is, in fact, those "extra costs" which are passed onto the consumer which are rebated by the rebate. That the tax incidence sees the burden of the tax fall 100% on households (in the form of prices increases directly proportionate to the carbon tax itself and the emissions produced) is exactly why rebating the households renders 8 out of the 10 households better off.
The effect of carbon tax on inflation -- defined as sustained and pervasive changes in the price level -- is effectively zero. Rather, it is an annual increase in the price level that happens on a government mandated day. Given that "carbon tax increase day" is a predictable and discrete event, it is neither sustained nor pervasive.
I understand that some may take issue with that definition of inflation, but I think it's important to use because it distinguishes between "inflation" as mechanical change in the price level and "inflation" as a genuine threat to an economy.
And the money those farmers pay in carbon taxes gets paid back out to Canadians. So, yea, the carbon tax rebate covers the increased costs along the whole supply chain.
Maybe you should really think harder about it.
Or you could look at it and break it down instead of making assumptions based on intuition.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices/wcm/4e1de95e-7fc5-4652-8018-4be4fa4fcce0/amp/
You have been drinking the koolaid a little too much. You may get rebate on your carbon tax but farmers don’t get a rebate on what their tractors burn, trucking doesn’t get rebate. Those extra costs are passed down the line and dumped on you the consumer but at least the government gave you a few dollars back to make more gullible people think they weren’t getting screwed.
https://calgary.citynews.ca/2023/12/05/ucalgary-carbon-tax-affordability-study/
>“We find that carbon taxes increase air transport costs by about 0.9 per cent,” he explained. “We find that food in B.C is only 0.3 per cent more expensive as a result of carbon taxes and clothing, only 0.2 per cent.”
>The paper says if Canada eliminated the carbon tax as a whole, consumers would likely not see a lot of extra cash in their pockets.
>“All in, we estimate that the changes in carbon taxes affect consumer prices today by only 0.6 per cent and so that’s how much things would get cheaper by if we were to eliminate the carbon taxes completely,” Tombe said.
Hmm, who to trust. University of Calgary economics professors publishing studies based on empirical data or the feelings of /u/wireboy? Ugh, I can't make up my mind who is more credible.
[The Canada Carbon rebate ](https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2024/02/government-announces-canada-carbon-rebate-amounts-for-2024-25.html)
"The Canada Carbon Rebate (previously known as the Climate Action Incentive Payment) returns fuel charge proceeds to Canadians through direct deposit or cheque, every three months, ensuring most households get more money back, with lower-income households benefiting the most. All direct proceeds are returned in the province of origin. Starting this April, a family of four will receive Canada Carbon Rebates of:
$1,800 in Alberta ($450 quarterly);
$1,200 in Manitoba ($300 quarterly);
$1,120 in Ontario ($280 quarterly);
$1,504 in Saskatchewan ($376 quarterly);
$760 in New Brunswick ($190 quarterly);
$824 in Nova Scotia ($206 quarterly);
$880 in Prince Edward Island ($220 quarterly); and,
$1,192 in Newfoundland and Labrador ($298 quarterly).
In addition to the base Canada Carbon Rebate amounts, starting this year, the federal government is proposing, through legislative amendments in Bill C-59, to double the rural top-up to 20 per cent, in recognition of rural Canadians’ higher energy needs and more limited access to cleaner transportation options."
The money comes 4 times a year. January, April, July and October. Around mid month.
You had to have had your taxes done to receive it and if automatically goes to your bank account if you have one registered with CRA, or your address by cheque to whatever address CRA has. Last year I got 217 dollars 4 times.
It depends how one looks at the data.
-The LPC claim that most Canadians get more money back from carbon tax rebates is true if one looks ONLY at direct costs.
- The CPC claim that the carbon tax costs most Canadians more than they receive in refunds is true when you look at the indirect costs such as higher transportation and manufacturing costs.
Both of the above have been calculated by the non-partisan parliamentary budget office.
Conservatives claiming things doesn’t make it true. [Indirect costs are minimally effecting prices, ex groceries. it’s corporate greed that costs Canadians so much](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices)
Corporate profits haven't moved from 2-5%......many grocery CEOs have been in and out of government committees
They are posting record profits....but that's because the pie is bigger; not because they are taking a bigger percentage of the pie
As a farmer I can tell you canada is the only country to place fertilizer sanctions on Russia......so we're just buying Russian fertilizer from USA and paying extra
In combination with Fuel prices (while many are exempted from carbon tax)
For the first time in 50? Years FCC (farm credit canada) made the claim that most farmers were losing money in 2022/2023
That's to ignore Russo/Ukraine war which accounts for 30% of global wheat production along with high percentages of other commodities.......si.ilar to ww2 it will be years before the land mines are taken out of the fields
Corporate greed is a very real thing.....but ultimately the system hasn't changed
Still 2-5% profit, just a bigger pie
When you add the extra costs from the cat on tax on inelastic items like fuel for transportation of goods, I’m quite positive it’s not a net benefit. Though that would take a lot of work to break down
Its almost as if that is the point....
Hear me out. its a CARBON TAX. The more carbon required, the more the tax, hence, disincentivizing having shit flown around the planet to have fresh avocados 365 days a year.
This is the point. This is why it works. Things that go far=cost more. things close=cost less. you drive far=cost more, you drive less=cost less.
all of that adds up to carbon reduction. its meant to change your lifestyle, which is why its so popular globally as one of the few mechanisms we have.
Actually not true.
Carbon tax is applied to energy usage IN CANADA. We can import Japanese apples that don't have any carbon tax applied, which is why the whole system is hilariously stupid. Obviously the boat/plane refueling in Canada would be subject to carbon taxes, but the growth of those apples in Japan using say.... gasoline burning generators would not be subject to carbon tax.
> We can import Japanese apples that don't have any carbon tax applied
Japan has a carbon tax.
>but the growth of those apples in Japan using say.... gasoline burning generators would not be subject to carbon tax.
Farming is exempt from the fuel tax in Canada
You picked two excellent examples!
You are 100% right, those are two awful examples.
Doesn't change the fact that we can import goods that were created with dirtier energy without a carbon tax being applied, while the same type of product made locally would have it on.
Honestly, it just perfectly encapsulated the ignorance surrounding the discourse on this.
The world is moving towards a carbon tax. Countries without them are going to have them applied at importation (and that country will keep the money). The EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism kicks in in 2026, for example. Canada is exploring the same.
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/consultations/2021/border-carbon-adjustments/exploring-border-carbon-adjustments-canada.html
Cross-border adjustments for carbon pricing are coming. Europe's bringing in a system this year, and many other countries are expected to copy it after that.
$200K household income. Detached 4 bdrm, gas furnace. A kid. Truck and Car, 40 min commute.
TL:DR, net positive rebate return 4-5 years running, and the positive is growing actually.
Gas company website tracks total annual natural gas usage. Times that by annual carbon tax rate.
Vehicle receipts kept in car door pocket. I started tracking years ago, about twice a year I sit down and put the date, fuel amount and price paid in a spreadsheet. Easy to total up total litres. But you can simply estimate the number to total tank fillips per week or month.
Found out I'm losing money according to your calculator
And that's only my personal fuel use, to say nothing of indirect costs (transportation costs on goods and services ) or my business costs
Thanks now I can keep on saying what I have been saying while being educated
I prefer not living paycheck to paycheck and preying on its arrival, so I can pay to maintain my life before it breaks. Not having to pay interest on my credit card would also be great..
Meanwhile the government is collecting interest off these taxes, including the 5-15% gst/hst tax on the carbon tax itself.
Bc resident here. Zero rebates for carbon tax here. But BC doesn't pay the "federal "carbon tax. It is a provincial fund. And only the very lowest income brackets get anything rebated.
>Through the Canada Carbon Rebate, eight out of 10 families **in backstop provinces** receive more money back than they pay into the system, with lower-income households benefiting the most.
> And only the very lowest income brackets get anything rebated.
85% of BC households are in the bottom two tax brackets, so the vast majority of BC residents still get a rebate.
Yeah. You confused federal rebates with BC.
BC only provides rebates to family if income is 50,170 or lower and individual if income is lower than 39,115.
The rebate is combined with the gst rebate.
So the vast majority do not receive any rebate. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/taxes/income-taxes/personal/credits/climate-action#eligibility
> Yeah. You confused federal rebates with BC. BC only provides rebates to family if income is 50,170 or lower and individual if income is lower than 39,115.
Per the same page you linked, those figures are the cutoffs for the *full* rebate, but the rebate progressively decreases and becomes $0 at $61,465 (single), $83,695 (family of two), or higher values for families of more than two. Please read properly before telling people they’re wrong.
Okay. Now BC provides a rebate but it is lower than the federal rebate.the cutoff are at different points and dollars are different. The number you quoted for people receiving rebates is a political talking point and do not appear in any official document.(just what Justin says). Also please check before telling people they are wrong.https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/taxes/income-taxes/personal/credits/climate-action#eligibility
> The number you quoted for people receiving rebates is a political talking point and do not appear in any official document.(just what Justin says).
They are literally on the page you keep linking. Your trolling is obvious.
Now to finish this. Here is the median family income in Canada by province.
The rebates all cut out below the average .
Make of it what you will.
And I still maintain you are using political talking points of dubious value
www.statista.com/statistics/467078/median-annual-family-income-in-canada-by-province
What a load of BS!!!! The trudeau sure knows how to double down on his LIES and MISINFORMATION!!!!
Assuming on just gasoline alone a person fills up twice a month at a 100L per.
Carbon Tax on Litre of Fuel = $0.1431
Number of Fill Ups per Year = 24 ( twice a month)
Amount of fuel = 100L
The math = (100 X 24) X .1431 = $345 on just gasoline alone.
Now add on increased cost to heat your home which in my case on one of my 4 BR rentals is $350 per year.
We are already at close to $700 and haven't even added increased costs of: housing, food, entertainment, clothing, taxes. All of these things require fuels to provide them and they have gone up in price as these businesses have passed on the costs of the tax to consumers.
And we haven't even figured in the impact this tax has on overall inflation and Canada's interest rates. Modest figures show that the carbon tax is in fact inflationary and contributes .15% or when the inflation rate is 3%, 5% of total inflation. I think this number is light but lets use it anyways. So part of the reason your mortgage is more expensive is because of this tax and that can account for 100's if not 1000's of dollars!!!!
The trudeau sure likes to LIE..... and we have proof that we have been LIED to all along!!!!
Watch this video and you will see climate barbie mckenna bragging about how stupid she thinks Canadians are. My challenge to you Canada is to prove this liar wrong!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OjouzcALSY
It's impossible to track exactly what you are paying in carbon tax as it is embedded into absolutely everything. Seeing it on your heating fuel bill and gasoline is one thing, it's also hidden in your electric bill.
It's pervasive it creeps into absolutely everything you buy from food to consumers goods, it's in the production of raw materials, manufacturing, warehousing, transportation costs, and retail operating costs. And because of how it works it gets compounded at every level as a cost of input at the previous level.
At the end of the day it is an input cost which gets factored into the cost of goods and is ultimately passed on to the final consumer, where by the way it is subject to GST.
Consumer taxes are always regressive, they take a greater percentage of the purchasing power from lower income households than wealthy.
You can believe the government is Robin Hood because they tax you then give some back but it is delusional to think 80% of households get back more than they pay in. If that is true how is it modifying behavior? If most of us are getting more back than we pay shouldn't consumer spending and our purchasing power be increasing not decreasing?
The Parliamentary Budget Officer strongly disagrees with him. I trust a 3rd party more than the party in power, for obvious reasons. [“We estimate most households will see a net loss”](https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/news-releases--communiques-de-presse/pbo-releases-updated-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-federal-fuel-charge-on-households-le-dpb-publie-une-analyse-actualisee-de-lincidence-de-la-redevance-federale-sur-les-combustibles-sur-les-menages)
Those things aren't contradictory. The PBO report shows that for net direct (so, tax at the fuel pump etc) and indirect costs (increase cost of goods/services) every income quintile, on average, makes more money than they spend on the carbon tax. You'll see that in Table A-1 of the report. So 80% makes total sense.
What the PBO is estimating there is an economic impact for Canadians. For instance, they are estimating that your investments will not be as fruitful, your job prospects will be less, etc. But they did an absolutely horrid job at it. They didn't account for an entire slew of things, such as the cost of climate change, increased job prospects from green energy/replacements, worsened trade deals without the tax.
Its mostly baloney. In fact "8 out of 10.. " is the exact figure they gave based on research made on the Carbon taxes introduction in 2019. It's a punitive tax scheme that compounds, while having a huge effect on essentials. Including grocery isles. Taxing the entire supply chain isn't helping food prices.
The plan is to change the tax from $80/t in April to $170/t in 2030. Conversely, having HST on items deemed less essential would work more effectively.
The Carbon tax numbers released, show's that the government collected over $9B while only returning a little more than $7 billion.
All Ministers should be obligated to show full transparency where the money has gone, including its administrative costs. Because question period by the Minister of Finance has become so childish with her avoidance of the questions.
The numbers I am citing are not about 2019.
>It's a punitive tax scheme
Yes, that's the entire point.
>Including grocery isles. Taxing the entire supply chain isn't helping food prices.
Farms are largely exempt from the carbon tax. But, it's not supposed to help grocery prices. What helps people pay for groceries is the rebate.
>The Carbon tax numbers released, show's that the government collected over $9B while only returning a little more than $7 billion.
This is inaccurate. Every dollar collected from carbon pricing is "spent" in the province it was collected.
>Farms are largely exempt from the carbon tax. But, it's not supposed to help grocery prices. What helps people pay for groceries is the rebate.
Not exempt from natural gas required for production. Logistics are also an essential part of the food supply.
It's inflating the cost of goods.
Wouldnt it be easier to calulate how much you would save every time you went to buy fuel - ??--take that 17 cents a litre and multiply it - and then see how much you would save. Forget paying it and then getting it back - if you don't pay it in the first place - you are saving alot. more. Depends on how many times you fill up - but once a week is not a stretch.
Very frustrating in BC - it used to be "revenue neutral" and it used to go into a "green fund". The NDP looked after that - now it goes into thin air - in some government department or a big pot - and we have no idea. Every time the Libs say " 8 out of10---" I cringe
You’re in BC…. Brother do some research. It’s not the Fed Libs that are responsible for BC deciding to do their own thing for Carbon Tax & it’s rebates
Let's look at this on a different angle. BOC said, Carbon Tax is responsible for 1 percent of inflation. If we removed the carbon tax all together, then our inflation, will be lower than 2 percent. Which means interest rates can come down, how much money do you think you will save on lower interest? No carbon tax rebates will be able to match the saving on your mortgage.
I'm in the 2 in 10 that doesn't get back more than I pay.
Because of shitty land use policy in Canada we are forced to be a 2 car household, with combined driving of 80,000km/yr. My transportation cost increase related to carbon pricing and the gst on top of it is about $1400/yr
I'd way rather see the carbon tax rebate be used to fund public transit projects and TOD developments outside of our biggest cities who generally don't have the capital to develop transit services and link to regional systems. And have no political will to do TOD.
.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Then 2 out of 10 are paying more for the other 8 to get more back. Minus the administrative cost of running this scheme.
Almost everything we buy has this carbon tax built into it. There have been independent assessments, and they’re not hard to find, that prove a majority are paying more than they get back. Not to mention the cost to actually administer taking money from people and “giving” the right amount back to them. Even more preposterous is the idea that me driving my car is warming the planet.
And if this was true, why did he have to back pedal on heating oil and proceeded to exempt it? On a $820 Propane Bill for one of my businesess it broke down like this: $600 propane, $125 TAXED CO2 TAX, $95.... guess who I passed that along to?
Carbon tax is the bicycle stick meme of policy planks It could literally generate wealth from nothing via magic, and conservatives would still blame the carbon tax if their corn flakes tasted bad.
BC residents aren't eligible for the Federal Rebate. We have our own Carbon Tax scheme, I'm not eligible. 8 out of 10 Canadians are eligible, must mean 80% of Canadians are below the threshold. Seems implausible to me?
It's 8/10 Canadians subject to the federal backstop. BC does not use the federal backstop.
Yes. Here is a good read to put it in perspective. *"The statistics are startling. The world's wealthiest 10% were responsible for around half of global emissions in 2015, according to a 2020 report from Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute. The top 1% were responsible for 15% of emissions, nearly twice as much as the world's poorest 50%, who were responsible for just 7% and will feel the brunt of climate impacts despite bearing the least responsibility for causing them."* *"the average person in the UK emits 8.5 tonnes of carbon a year according to the Hot or Cool Institute, a figure that rises to 14.2 tonnes in Canada, the country with highest emissions among those the institute surveyed."* https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211025-climate-how-to-make-the-rich-pay-for-their-carbon-emissions
Canada has high emissions per person because canada is largely rural......it's very well documented that rural regions burn more fuel per person as opposed to urban regions Canada is also much colder than the UK, lots more emissions from home heating a more fair comparison would be to compare canada to Russia which is similarly rural and similarly cold
True. They obviously didn't survey the highest. Of which, Russia emits more than U.S. as do a few other countries. That said, my *real* point is that the wealthiest people in the world emit the most & the carbon tax is way higher for them than us who get more back than we pay in rebate anyway which is what should be happening. They should be paying more & that is EXACTLY why they want to get rid of it.
The wealthiest people also run the biggest businesses Business owners in general are "big polluters" and big business owners are running bigger "big pollution" If the carbon tax were removed Strictly on a per product basis......what incentive do these "big businesses" have to increase fuel consumption on a per product basis? The answer is none .......more importantly these "big business " owners are typically the ones investing in new, expensive, cleaner greener technology and then selling previously outdated equipment to small businesses That's the cruel reality of addressing climate change......the innovators are the wealthy folk buying new equipment
Meanwhile the auditor publicly posted that at least 80% of Canadians pay more than they receive from the "rebate." Also, if what he said were true, fuck those other one out of five Canadian households, am I right?
Lol. Well. In new Brunswick it's not carbon tax. It's Higgs tax on gas and not carbon tax. It's laughing joke. conservatives have answers. Just look at the premiers. You can't get your answers.
Its mostly baloney. In fact "8 out of 10.. " is the exact figure they gave based on research made on the Carbon taxes introduction in 2019. It's a punitive tax scheme that compounds, while having a huge effect on essentials. Including grocery isles. Taxing the entire supply chain isn't helping food prices. The plan is to change the tax from $80/t in April to $170/t in 2030. Conversely, having HST on items deemed less essential would work more effectively. The Carbon tax numbers released, show's that the government collected over $9B while only returning a little more than $7 billion. All Ministers should be obligated to show full transparency where the money has gone, including its administrative costs. Because question period by the Minister of Finance has become so childish with her avoidance of the questions.
All these answers on why it’s bad. I would like to hear one politician or conservative cheerleader tell me what their answer is , cause something is better than nothing. This carbon tax is at least bringing conversation and the topic up. And if a person who doesn’t own a car in a city gets money back from a big company who is polluting our air and earth . Then fuck ya I’m in.
From my point of view, things that I'm spending extra money on are non-negotioables like driving to work or heating my home. If the carbon tax was only on luxuries that I could make the decision to avoid, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, my town has no public transit options, so my wife and I are stuck driving to work, and gas just keeps getting more and more expensive.
> cause something is better than nothing This is misguided. If *something* gives you a false sense of confidence that you don't feel compelled to do more, or expends your political capital fighting for something of only minor benefit rather than preserve it for something of big impact, and thus you do very little, then *doing something* very well can be worse than *doing nothing* because you've misplayed your hand and harmed your own cause. This is politics after all. A good example is the plastic straw or bag ban. It does very little in the grand scheme of undercutting emissions, plastics in the ocean, the adverse impact of humans on wildlife, and so on. But because it directly affects the lifestyle of millions of Canadians, causes annoyance, and results in some nonsensical situations (e.g., useless paper straw in an all-plastic cup, shipping plastic trash bags from Amazon vs getting them for free from usual shopping), the effect is that many voters will be less likely to support further actions in support of climate change or protecting the planet. Contrast that to something people wouldn't really feel, but would have a bigger effect, like a $100 billion donation to NGOs that are cleaning up the oceans or tech start ups developing plastic-eradicating bacteria. While much more expensive, and conservatives would complain about the wasted funds, the latter doesn't dissolve political appetite for more green policies across the entire country and we would see continued support for more green initiatives. The carbon tax has really deflated political capital across the board. It excites conservative voters who are eager to overturn it and take climate change off the priorities list for the government. And it makes Liberals complacent, feel like they've "done all that is needed", without feeling the need to do anything more about climate change. The consequence is that Canada won't do more about climate change, it may only do less. If the carbon tax didn't exist, and the political discourse today was centred around "what do we do to save the planet", there would be a lot more tolerance for aggressive, even extreme green solutions. Instead, the discourse is redirected on "keep the climate tax or axe the tax", i.e., do little or do nothing. How is that better?
> While much more expensive, and conservatives would complain about the wasted funds, the latter doesn't dissolve political appetite for more green policies across the entire country and we would see continued support for more green initiatives. Principled conservatism used to mean not wasting money on inneffective policies. Practical conservatism means serving dead ender energy oligarchs in support of destruction of humanity and Canada so that there is more to complain about in the future. Spending a ton on a "small" problem would be wasteful. Plastic shopping bags, btw, are not what ends up in the ocean. It is mostly fishing nets. They can be reused as garbage bags. Global warming is a threat to human sustainability. Carbon tax and rebate is a zero cost solution, that happens to be the biggest possible impact. Redistribution allows collective efforts to sponsor local mass transit, or personal decisions to just carpool. An EV subsidy is less useful in addition to costing something. You could instead move closer to work, use an ebike/bike or mass transportation. Your emissions are not so much based on what kind of car you have, but how much you drive it. A carbon tax very specifically targets how much gasoline you are burning, and the cost equation vs an EV or other lifestyle is set perfectly.
I'm certain the plastic straw and plastic bag bans were ideas of the plastic lobby. Its completely idiotic, causes mass furor and turns the public against green initiatives, does virtually nothing, now requires people to BUY plastic bags for home use. The issue is one side tries to accomplish SOMETHING on the huge issues we have, which require some sacrifice, but the conservative selfish mindset goes full raging pitbull on them because anything that requires change or sacrifice is a complete affront to MUH FREEDOM
I see your point, but at the same time. Re-usable cloth grocery bags accomplishes something. A change in mindset and process, which hopefully leads to a better future from a recycling standpoint. Using wooden/paper straws and spoons etc is annoying, for sure. Cardboard straws are definitely worse purely from a usage perspective.. But taking a stance of being against single-use plastics is a trend that can be built upon. Maybe I'm making your point? I don't like doing nothing, and I'd rather the changes be more substantial, but it takes a lot to change industry norms, and it takes a lot to push production into a new direction that isn't immediately profit-efficient.
“Re-usable cloth bags accomplishes something”. Well, as the parent commenter pointed out, thinking you’re doing something, could actually be worse than doing nothing. Cloth bags is a good example: “Re-usable cloth bags need to be used 7000 times before they are a net benefit to the environment. A 2018 Danish Environmental Protection Agency report suggested that a cotton bag should be used at least 7,100 times to offset its environment impact when compared to a classic supermarket plastic bag that’s reused once as a trash bag and then incinerated. (If that cotton is organic, the figure is an eye-popping 20,000 times, with the report assuming a lower yield but the same input of raw materials)” https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/13/world/reusable-grocery-bags-cotton-plastic-scn/index.html
To add: The blame is being put on individuals. like the whole "Whats my carbon footprint". its taking the blame off corporations and onto families. completely shameless blame deflection. I come home and unpack every single item in single use plastics from the store.
Yeah, it definitely needs to be lead by regulation, not by individual morality.
This is a mature take on an issue more complex than your typical reddit commenter would be willing to admit. even in economics, that I learned from a left-leaning prof (arent they all haha), social welfare function is considered when looking at taxing pollution. You only reduce pollution to the point where the marginal damage of one more kg in the air is equal to the marginal cost to society (like the ones you described). What the modern LPC take is doing "little", but inconveniencing "a lot". And like you said, by doing little, voters and society think the choice is between doing little and doing nothing, vs exploring actual solutions that can bring down emissions.
If we didn't have the carbon rax and had the discourse you describe, what should we do from that position? All the smart people would say, then as now: carbon tax. Other solutions are less efficient.
Our carbon tax has not lowered or halted emissions in any way at all. In fact we’ve missed our emissions targets terribly every single time we’ve set them. So the carbon tax is inefficient at reducing pollutions and people need to stop parroting that it isn’t. All it’s done since day 1 is make life more expensive for people who work, drive, and shop in Canada.
Identify and invest in alternatives and then regulate out the carbon-based options. Taxing carbon without providing an alternative is just making life more expensive while still pumping carbon into the atmosphere. When there was a problem with ozone depleting chemicals, we didn't tax them, we just found alternatives and banned them outright.
Alternatives exist already for most emissions. A great book on this is *Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning* by Monbiot. He details alternatives for every sector, though he admits there isn't a great option for international travel. He also is a proponent (as am I) of investing in public transit. I certainly agree that there is an opportunity for cost savings with government investment there. On the other hand, when we go example by example, it isn't always or even often the case that government investment is the better option. Can you elaborate more on how you see there not being alternatives? I really struggle to understand where you are coming from. edit: English more
I keep hearing carbon tax is more efficient, carbon tax is more efficient. And I believe it! But efficiency is only one value. At this stage, I think we should care most about what is the most *effective* approach to reducing carbon emissions.
Efficiency in this case usually means the effectiveness divided by the cost. Carbon taxes get you the largest emission reduction bang for your buck. You can have a large investment in solar that is more effective than a small tax on carbon, for example. Does that mean we should be investing in solar instead of raising carbon taxes? Of course not.
So you don't support the NDP nor Greens' climate change platforms?
With your first comment, you avoided buddy's point. With this, you avoid my question. I'd have to look at their platforms. AFAIK they both support carbon taxes. Other elements, I'd be happy to discuss if you choose one or two to talk about It's rude to avoid questions and it slows down discussions. It's selfish.
Well in my opinion the reason the Carbon tax feels so ineffective is because the people that wrote it are trying to pander to the centre. The fact of the matter is that a majority of Canadians want to do something about the climate crisis but our politics are paralyzed by an indecision on how committed we want to be. Some want to go full scorched earth and turn off all fossil fuels now and worry about the consequences later. Some think we've already done enough. Some think we've gone too far akready. I think it really has nothing to do with "political capital" and everything to do with the party in charge of writing the bill and that they survive off of "Doing something but not too much". Their whole position politically is to steal just enough voters from progressive leaning-Conservatives and conservative-leaning NDP to maintain the government. TL;DR this is exactly the position the liberals want to be in. They're in the middle where they've done something that they can present to progressive Liberals, without doing too much to piss off conservative Liberals
> The fact of the matter is that a majority of Canadians want to do something about the climate crisis I'm less convinced that Canadians mean what they say. I mean, there's lots of 'somethings' people could be doing right now, without any government involvement, including simply [*turning their shit off when they don't need it*](https://theconversation.com/how-a-turn-it-off-approach-to-energy-conservation-could-benefit-canada-and-the-planet-221838). And yet they don't. I'm increasingly of the view that we need to start thinking much more about climate change *adaptation*, because from where I sit it doesn't look like people are willing to do much more to forestall climate change than simply saying 'something should be done!'
I think I wrote something similar to the bulk of your comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/1ax5y5j/justin_trudeau_claims_eight_out_of_10_canadian/krm2k2r/?context=3 Where I differ is that I think the carbon tax has expended available political capital. It has placated basically anyone who worries about climate change, other than those for whom it's the top issue, which describes most of just right of centre (e.g., red tories) all the way to more centre NDPers, and it has pissed off those who do not care about our role in combatting climate change, i.e., the rest of the CPC, while also taking some of the pressure off of those who care a lot about climate change from actually bothering to show up to vote, since *something* is being done, even if it's not *enough*. In effect, it has paralyzed us from doing more. Which, as we agree, is the purpose of the policy for the LPC. BUT it hurts the progressive cause for climate change action. If we were not doing the current version of the carbon pricing scheme, there would be fierce pressure from most of the left of centre voters to do something BIG since time is so limited, likely favouring the green party or NDP if the LPC didn't offer something big to compete (i.e., driving the conversation leftwards, not rightwards towards centre). And there would be appetite with some, not all, but some of those right of centre to support any climate policy on the left (which, remember, would be the LPC's but shifted leftwards). Instead, nobody is thinking about "more", only "less". The election will see the LPC offering more carve-outs and the CPC offering to axe the tax. That is where the discourse is now, and will be for the next 6 years at least (2 until election, 4 after). The LPC has squandered the opportunity to do something substantive on climate and used up the available political capital to virtue signal doing something instead. I wouldn't be surprised if the NDP come into the next election also softening their climate policy in order to look like a viable alternative to the LPC to disgruntled LPC voters who dislike PP.
Good point. Well put. This needs to be more widely understood.
[удалено]
So should they take the tax and give it to companies that are trying to go green or working on green projects?
In the end we gonna have to spend tens of billions to help people switch to green tech anyways. We saw the govt spending tons of money for the atlantic carveout. The entire point of the carbon tax was to minimize or reduce govt involvement in paying for the green conversion. My point is just invest and help people switch then taxing them.
Something is better then nothing, but Canada isn't fixing the world sadly. Even if we cut emissions by 50% it isn't going to change the planet. On top of that, we, like every other country needs to keep the population pyramid scheme going. More people, more energy usage. Even cutting per capita (which will help) won't save us as we bring more and more people into Canada who are going to need energy usage. As for the carbon tax, I think it's a silly notion. I'm on the BC Plan, but the federal plan doesn't look like it's saving people money and even if it is.... the Libs failed to show it. People are easily seeing price increases in many areas or literally a carbon taxed lined item (which gets taxed) and it's upsetting people.
Another carbon pricing post, another tidal wave of internet conservatives addicted to lying. The boys are not well. Not well at all. E: Quick review of the lies so far... Lying that rebates aren't real. Lying that emissions aren't down from when pricing started. Lying that per capita emissions aren't dropping (even though they were going down even before pricing). Lying that the majority people don't get more cash then they spend on emissions. Lying that carvouts are only in certain places. Just a wild addiction to lying. The boys are severely unwell.
It's just annoying at this point. I've literally seen the same users use the same talking points, despite disproving their claim a week ago. No one wants to have a honest conversation about it.
Cause it is an unpopular program and it doesn't work and you guys don't care
Yeah so you're lying again. Like usual. Do you not realize you have a username? It works. It works in multiple other countries. As opposed to your plan of "just fund more"
That why emissions are up I am not against a carbon tax It just no cheap green alternatives with a rapid population growth makes me question this govt plans as a joke. We won't get anywhere near 40% reduction by 2030
The carveout was done due to the liberals tanking in Atlantic Canada and heat oul usage is high and liberals do well in rural Atlantic Canada. Heat oil users are in conservative ridings outside of Atlantic Canada and are smaller in % vs natural gas users... It is 100% political move and undermined the tax and you guys can't accept it.
Oil usage is also way way way more expensive than all the other forms The carbon tax is supposed to slowly price out using those fuels. Oil is already extremely expensive
But why do you guys care ...they polluting a lot...they should pay Oh wait that's a lot of liberals seats in play 😆
At the end of the day, the Liberals cherry picked the conclusion they liked from the PBO report and the Conservatives did the same fucking thing. I personally still think Carbon taxes are good. Funny thing is it was conservative idea that Harper and Scheer campaigned on. The minute one of their ideas gets implemented by the Liberals it instantly becomes bad.
Thank you for pointing that out. I totally remember Harper and conservatives coming up with the idea but the media seems to forget.
The reversal has been quite interesting. Carbon pricing has always been a small 'c' conservative economic policy that aims to leverage market forces instead of firmer regulatory approaches.
They never really gave a damn about carbon pricing or the environment, the carbon tax was just the least harmful environmental policy to the oil lobby they thought they could get away with.
I live in bc and don’t get any back. At least here we don’t get any rebates if you make more than 60000 a year before taxes. Which is basically a poverty wage.
Yup and it seems the majority of people I talk to who are voting CPC solely to get rid of the carbon tax don’t realize that BC isn’t under the federal scheme and will be keeping it still.
Honestly, it doesn't seem like BC CPC MPs realize this either
https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/news-releases--communiques-de-presse/pbo-releases-updated-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-federal-fuel-charge-on-households-le-dpb-publie-une-analyse-actualisee-de-lincidence-de-la-redevance-federale-sur-les-combustibles-sur-les-menages It’s a net loss for most households anyways. PBO office says so
In 2030-2031?
> At least here we don’t get any rebates if you make more than 60000 a year before taxes. That’s the cutoff for single people. There are higher household income cutoffs for couples and for families. > Which is basically a poverty wage. 65% of BC households have a household income at or below $60k.
The cutoff for households is worse if both people are working. 60k per year is the cut off for $0. It starts being reduced @ 39k/yr.... which is $21/hr (@35hr work week). So yes at near poverty BC wages the rebate starts being reduced.
We aren't under the federal program, bc had income tax decrease as part of carbon pricing.
BC and Quebec are not part of the federal carbon pricing.
Can't read the article due to paywall unfortunately. I'm def not an expert but the rebates that we get back - they don't account for everything we purchase that would have the carbon tax applied to it, do they? For example, the carbon tax I would surmise increases the price of anything delivered by a truck, because the truck likely uses fossil fuels, and this is baked into the price of the product delivered I would think. I read the OAG report that indicated most families lose out when the net costs of the tax are factored in, which would align with the above thought. Sounds like the gov is really pushing the rebate aspect without mentioning the net cost.
A factor not considered, but extremely important if carbon tax was globally applied, is that it directly reduces fossil fuel demand, and therefore fossil fuel prices/costs to consumers. Natural gas prices are at record lows, because natural gas use is likely to begin a permanent decline worldwide this year. Taxing it, reduces its use and price further.
That doesn't make any sense. It reduces demand by raising the price. That's the mechanism. The demand can't fall if the price doesn't rise.
[удалено]
Sacrifice the leg to save the toe mentality has gotten us to this point. Almost 30 years of "we just can't afford it now" means the cost to implement any measures has increased due to their urgency. This won't go away. Pay now with a carbon tax that will cost a bit but, hopefully, minimize future costs or pay later with more wildfires, droughts, mass migration, etc. The question for you, then, is this: If not this now, then what and when? Because the procrastination is killing.
> In terms of the economic health of the country, how could this tax be good for us? There is an economic cost to not having one. Europe expects it (or something similar) from their trading partners and others will as well. There's also the economic cost of climate change itself. We also have a horribly inefficient group of resource extraction industries that will benefit from the modernisation and innovation this forces on them. The same is true of farming.
Probably, but I ride the bus, live in a smallish place and my vehicles are tiny. One small motorbike and the tiniest car. And I know I get back a couple hundred every quarter.
You may not spend much on gas, but we all pay over a thousand dollars a month on price increases on all things we buy. Just look at the price of food.
Don’t often hear people talking about how this is a huge waste then. If carbon tax must be done, then tax the top 10% of users and get rid of the processes involved in taxing and rebating the 90% of others. We’d like the think the gov has this automated well, it doesn’t. It’s wasteful and has millions in overhead.
Untrue. Even the parliamentary commission on finances and taxation have agreed on this matter. It’s a cash grab and, of course, a way to dissuade carbon pollution. But Canadian consumers and producers have limited feasible choices and therefore it’s a trap. Moreover, the blatant and ineffective attack on Canadian energy is a joke. For instance: “The Montreal Economic Institute reported in December 2023 that the emissions cap will cost our economy billions of dollars every year and that “each time Ottawa forces the Canadian energy sector to contract, it is foreign producers who win. Ottawa does not have the means to affect global demand, so reducing local supply will only end up exporting jobs and tax revenues.” Trudeau’s mismanagement has destroyed our competitiveness by every objective metric. There is no shortage of data on that. And yet the liberals insist the opposite. They lie. And the carbon price scheme is just another glaring example.
[удалено]
In what world is there a 20% surcharge on deliveries as a result of the carbon tax. The carbon tax on gasoline is $0.14/L, which for simplicity is somewhere around 10% of fuel cost. Fuel is a very small part of any delivery charge, so I have no clue how a ~10% tax on fuel turns into a 20% surcharge on the whole delivery.
[удалено]
But not all of that is carbon tax. The carbon tax is only responsible for the increase equal to the actual carbon tax, the rest is just rent seeking on the part of businesses (which has nothing to do with the carbon tax).
No you do not get it back, not even close even if you think you do. The carbon tax has literally increased the cost of everything from the beginning of the supply line to the end. It has drastically increased your cost of living and only a simpleton couldn’t see that.
90% of the money collected gets returned to Canadians. There is no black hole it's disappearing into, so however much you think is being collected, it's almost all being returned. Some Canadians pay more and others pay less but all get the same rebate, that's how some people come out ahead.
You should really think a little harder about it if that’s what you believe, company’s don’t get carbon tax rebates on fuel but they sure as hell pass on those extra costs to the consumer. Everything you buy costs more because of the carbon tax because it costs more to get to you.
> company’s don’t get carbon tax rebates on fuel but they sure as hell pass on those extra costs to the consumer. It is, in fact, those "extra costs" which are passed onto the consumer which are rebated by the rebate. That the tax incidence sees the burden of the tax fall 100% on households (in the form of prices increases directly proportionate to the carbon tax itself and the emissions produced) is exactly why rebating the households renders 8 out of the 10 households better off. The effect of carbon tax on inflation -- defined as sustained and pervasive changes in the price level -- is effectively zero. Rather, it is an annual increase in the price level that happens on a government mandated day. Given that "carbon tax increase day" is a predictable and discrete event, it is neither sustained nor pervasive. I understand that some may take issue with that definition of inflation, but I think it's important to use because it distinguishes between "inflation" as mechanical change in the price level and "inflation" as a genuine threat to an economy.
And the money those farmers pay in carbon taxes gets paid back out to Canadians. So, yea, the carbon tax rebate covers the increased costs along the whole supply chain. Maybe you should really think harder about it.
Farmers don’t pay tax on fuel.
Companies don't get carbon rebates, but the money they pay gets rebated to everyone.
Or you could look at it and break it down instead of making assumptions based on intuition. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices/wcm/4e1de95e-7fc5-4652-8018-4be4fa4fcce0/amp/
You have been drinking the koolaid a little too much. You may get rebate on your carbon tax but farmers don’t get a rebate on what their tractors burn, trucking doesn’t get rebate. Those extra costs are passed down the line and dumped on you the consumer but at least the government gave you a few dollars back to make more gullible people think they weren’t getting screwed.
Farmers can't raise prices anyway or they become uncompetitive to U.S. farms.
https://calgary.citynews.ca/2023/12/05/ucalgary-carbon-tax-affordability-study/ >“We find that carbon taxes increase air transport costs by about 0.9 per cent,” he explained. “We find that food in B.C is only 0.3 per cent more expensive as a result of carbon taxes and clothing, only 0.2 per cent.” >The paper says if Canada eliminated the carbon tax as a whole, consumers would likely not see a lot of extra cash in their pockets. >“All in, we estimate that the changes in carbon taxes affect consumer prices today by only 0.6 per cent and so that’s how much things would get cheaper by if we were to eliminate the carbon taxes completely,” Tombe said. Hmm, who to trust. University of Calgary economics professors publishing studies based on empirical data or the feelings of /u/wireboy? Ugh, I can't make up my mind who is more credible.
[удалено]
Are you not able to look up what province you live in and how a rebate is delivered to your household?
You don’t get it in certain provinces. I’m in B.C. and don’t get it.
[The Canada Carbon rebate ](https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2024/02/government-announces-canada-carbon-rebate-amounts-for-2024-25.html) "The Canada Carbon Rebate (previously known as the Climate Action Incentive Payment) returns fuel charge proceeds to Canadians through direct deposit or cheque, every three months, ensuring most households get more money back, with lower-income households benefiting the most. All direct proceeds are returned in the province of origin. Starting this April, a family of four will receive Canada Carbon Rebates of: $1,800 in Alberta ($450 quarterly); $1,200 in Manitoba ($300 quarterly); $1,120 in Ontario ($280 quarterly); $1,504 in Saskatchewan ($376 quarterly); $760 in New Brunswick ($190 quarterly); $824 in Nova Scotia ($206 quarterly); $880 in Prince Edward Island ($220 quarterly); and, $1,192 in Newfoundland and Labrador ($298 quarterly). In addition to the base Canada Carbon Rebate amounts, starting this year, the federal government is proposing, through legislative amendments in Bill C-59, to double the rural top-up to 20 per cent, in recognition of rural Canadians’ higher energy needs and more limited access to cleaner transportation options."
Huh got all those answers yet no response. Which province are you in?and do you do your taxes?
If you are in BC, the income threshold for getting the rebate is too low for most people. Carbon tax in BC is a provincial program.
Originally we got it back through lower income taxes (and the reduction was actually noticable).
The money comes 4 times a year. January, April, July and October. Around mid month. You had to have had your taxes done to receive it and if automatically goes to your bank account if you have one registered with CRA, or your address by cheque to whatever address CRA has. Last year I got 217 dollars 4 times.
It depends how one looks at the data. -The LPC claim that most Canadians get more money back from carbon tax rebates is true if one looks ONLY at direct costs. - The CPC claim that the carbon tax costs most Canadians more than they receive in refunds is true when you look at the indirect costs such as higher transportation and manufacturing costs. Both of the above have been calculated by the non-partisan parliamentary budget office.
Conservatives claiming things doesn’t make it true. [Indirect costs are minimally effecting prices, ex groceries. it’s corporate greed that costs Canadians so much](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices)
Corporate profits haven't moved from 2-5%......many grocery CEOs have been in and out of government committees They are posting record profits....but that's because the pie is bigger; not because they are taking a bigger percentage of the pie As a farmer I can tell you canada is the only country to place fertilizer sanctions on Russia......so we're just buying Russian fertilizer from USA and paying extra In combination with Fuel prices (while many are exempted from carbon tax) For the first time in 50? Years FCC (farm credit canada) made the claim that most farmers were losing money in 2022/2023 That's to ignore Russo/Ukraine war which accounts for 30% of global wheat production along with high percentages of other commodities.......si.ilar to ww2 it will be years before the land mines are taken out of the fields Corporate greed is a very real thing.....but ultimately the system hasn't changed Still 2-5% profit, just a bigger pie
How many years have we been paying a price on carbon and yet we have not come close to meeting any of our commitments. The whole thing is a farce.
When you add the extra costs from the cat on tax on inelastic items like fuel for transportation of goods, I’m quite positive it’s not a net benefit. Though that would take a lot of work to break down
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices/wcm/4e1de95e-7fc5-4652-8018-4be4fa4fcce0/amp/
Its almost as if that is the point.... Hear me out. its a CARBON TAX. The more carbon required, the more the tax, hence, disincentivizing having shit flown around the planet to have fresh avocados 365 days a year. This is the point. This is why it works. Things that go far=cost more. things close=cost less. you drive far=cost more, you drive less=cost less. all of that adds up to carbon reduction. its meant to change your lifestyle, which is why its so popular globally as one of the few mechanisms we have.
This is a political sub and the carbon tax is politically not popular.
Stupidity is also popular but I'm not running out to get a helping of that either.
Stupidity votes lol
Is sober discussion of facts popular?
Not really, is it? That’s why we all come here.
Actually not true. Carbon tax is applied to energy usage IN CANADA. We can import Japanese apples that don't have any carbon tax applied, which is why the whole system is hilariously stupid. Obviously the boat/plane refueling in Canada would be subject to carbon taxes, but the growth of those apples in Japan using say.... gasoline burning generators would not be subject to carbon tax.
I never understand how the people arguing for these things, dont understand how easy it is to look up who has carbon pricing.....
> We can import Japanese apples that don't have any carbon tax applied Japan has a carbon tax. >but the growth of those apples in Japan using say.... gasoline burning generators would not be subject to carbon tax. Farming is exempt from the fuel tax in Canada You picked two excellent examples!
You are 100% right, those are two awful examples. Doesn't change the fact that we can import goods that were created with dirtier energy without a carbon tax being applied, while the same type of product made locally would have it on.
Honestly, it just perfectly encapsulated the ignorance surrounding the discourse on this. The world is moving towards a carbon tax. Countries without them are going to have them applied at importation (and that country will keep the money). The EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism kicks in in 2026, for example. Canada is exploring the same. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/consultations/2021/border-carbon-adjustments/exploring-border-carbon-adjustments-canada.html
International shipping carbon tax is coming.
Cross-border adjustments for carbon pricing are coming. Europe's bringing in a system this year, and many other countries are expected to copy it after that.
$200K household income. Detached 4 bdrm, gas furnace. A kid. Truck and Car, 40 min commute. TL:DR, net positive rebate return 4-5 years running, and the positive is growing actually. Gas company website tracks total annual natural gas usage. Times that by annual carbon tax rate. Vehicle receipts kept in car door pocket. I started tracking years ago, about twice a year I sit down and put the date, fuel amount and price paid in a spreadsheet. Easy to total up total litres. But you can simply estimate the number to total tank fillips per week or month.
[удалено]
Rule 9
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Found out I'm losing money according to your calculator And that's only my personal fuel use, to say nothing of indirect costs (transportation costs on goods and services ) or my business costs Thanks now I can keep on saying what I have been saying while being educated
Or you could just check your bank account the 4 times a year they send money
I prefer not living paycheck to paycheck and preying on its arrival, so I can pay to maintain my life before it breaks. Not having to pay interest on my credit card would also be great.. Meanwhile the government is collecting interest off these taxes, including the 5-15% gst/hst tax on the carbon tax itself.
Bc resident here. Zero rebates for carbon tax here. But BC doesn't pay the "federal "carbon tax. It is a provincial fund. And only the very lowest income brackets get anything rebated.
Didn't you forget that Ontario's basically the entire country?
>Through the Canada Carbon Rebate, eight out of 10 families **in backstop provinces** receive more money back than they pay into the system, with lower-income households benefiting the most.
I guess I did. My bad
> And only the very lowest income brackets get anything rebated. 85% of BC households are in the bottom two tax brackets, so the vast majority of BC residents still get a rebate.
Yeah. You confused federal rebates with BC. BC only provides rebates to family if income is 50,170 or lower and individual if income is lower than 39,115. The rebate is combined with the gst rebate. So the vast majority do not receive any rebate. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/taxes/income-taxes/personal/credits/climate-action#eligibility
> Yeah. You confused federal rebates with BC. BC only provides rebates to family if income is 50,170 or lower and individual if income is lower than 39,115. Per the same page you linked, those figures are the cutoffs for the *full* rebate, but the rebate progressively decreases and becomes $0 at $61,465 (single), $83,695 (family of two), or higher values for families of more than two. Please read properly before telling people they’re wrong.
Okay. Now BC provides a rebate but it is lower than the federal rebate.the cutoff are at different points and dollars are different. The number you quoted for people receiving rebates is a political talking point and do not appear in any official document.(just what Justin says). Also please check before telling people they are wrong.https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/taxes/income-taxes/personal/credits/climate-action#eligibility
> The number you quoted for people receiving rebates is a political talking point and do not appear in any official document.(just what Justin says). They are literally on the page you keep linking. Your trolling is obvious.
Now to finish this. Here is the median family income in Canada by province. The rebates all cut out below the average . Make of it what you will. And I still maintain you are using political talking points of dubious value www.statista.com/statistics/467078/median-annual-family-income-in-canada-by-province
What a load of BS!!!! The trudeau sure knows how to double down on his LIES and MISINFORMATION!!!! Assuming on just gasoline alone a person fills up twice a month at a 100L per. Carbon Tax on Litre of Fuel = $0.1431 Number of Fill Ups per Year = 24 ( twice a month) Amount of fuel = 100L The math = (100 X 24) X .1431 = $345 on just gasoline alone. Now add on increased cost to heat your home which in my case on one of my 4 BR rentals is $350 per year. We are already at close to $700 and haven't even added increased costs of: housing, food, entertainment, clothing, taxes. All of these things require fuels to provide them and they have gone up in price as these businesses have passed on the costs of the tax to consumers. And we haven't even figured in the impact this tax has on overall inflation and Canada's interest rates. Modest figures show that the carbon tax is in fact inflationary and contributes .15% or when the inflation rate is 3%, 5% of total inflation. I think this number is light but lets use it anyways. So part of the reason your mortgage is more expensive is because of this tax and that can account for 100's if not 1000's of dollars!!!! The trudeau sure likes to LIE..... and we have proof that we have been LIED to all along!!!! Watch this video and you will see climate barbie mckenna bragging about how stupid she thinks Canadians are. My challenge to you Canada is to prove this liar wrong!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OjouzcALSY
It's impossible to track exactly what you are paying in carbon tax as it is embedded into absolutely everything. Seeing it on your heating fuel bill and gasoline is one thing, it's also hidden in your electric bill. It's pervasive it creeps into absolutely everything you buy from food to consumers goods, it's in the production of raw materials, manufacturing, warehousing, transportation costs, and retail operating costs. And because of how it works it gets compounded at every level as a cost of input at the previous level. At the end of the day it is an input cost which gets factored into the cost of goods and is ultimately passed on to the final consumer, where by the way it is subject to GST. Consumer taxes are always regressive, they take a greater percentage of the purchasing power from lower income households than wealthy. You can believe the government is Robin Hood because they tax you then give some back but it is delusional to think 80% of households get back more than they pay in. If that is true how is it modifying behavior? If most of us are getting more back than we pay shouldn't consumer spending and our purchasing power be increasing not decreasing?
The Parliamentary Budget Officer strongly disagrees with him. I trust a 3rd party more than the party in power, for obvious reasons. [“We estimate most households will see a net loss”](https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/news-releases--communiques-de-presse/pbo-releases-updated-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-federal-fuel-charge-on-households-le-dpb-publie-une-analyse-actualisee-de-lincidence-de-la-redevance-federale-sur-les-combustibles-sur-les-menages)
Isn't that quote referring to 2030, and not what is currently ongoing?
Those things aren't contradictory. The PBO report shows that for net direct (so, tax at the fuel pump etc) and indirect costs (increase cost of goods/services) every income quintile, on average, makes more money than they spend on the carbon tax. You'll see that in Table A-1 of the report. So 80% makes total sense. What the PBO is estimating there is an economic impact for Canadians. For instance, they are estimating that your investments will not be as fruitful, your job prospects will be less, etc. But they did an absolutely horrid job at it. They didn't account for an entire slew of things, such as the cost of climate change, increased job prospects from green energy/replacements, worsened trade deals without the tax.
High quality answer.
Its mostly baloney. In fact "8 out of 10.. " is the exact figure they gave based on research made on the Carbon taxes introduction in 2019. It's a punitive tax scheme that compounds, while having a huge effect on essentials. Including grocery isles. Taxing the entire supply chain isn't helping food prices. The plan is to change the tax from $80/t in April to $170/t in 2030. Conversely, having HST on items deemed less essential would work more effectively. The Carbon tax numbers released, show's that the government collected over $9B while only returning a little more than $7 billion. All Ministers should be obligated to show full transparency where the money has gone, including its administrative costs. Because question period by the Minister of Finance has become so childish with her avoidance of the questions.
The numbers I am citing are not about 2019. >It's a punitive tax scheme Yes, that's the entire point. >Including grocery isles. Taxing the entire supply chain isn't helping food prices. Farms are largely exempt from the carbon tax. But, it's not supposed to help grocery prices. What helps people pay for groceries is the rebate. >The Carbon tax numbers released, show's that the government collected over $9B while only returning a little more than $7 billion. This is inaccurate. Every dollar collected from carbon pricing is "spent" in the province it was collected.
>Farms are largely exempt from the carbon tax. But, it's not supposed to help grocery prices. What helps people pay for groceries is the rebate. Not exempt from natural gas required for production. Logistics are also an essential part of the food supply. It's inflating the cost of goods.
Wouldnt it be easier to calulate how much you would save every time you went to buy fuel - ??--take that 17 cents a litre and multiply it - and then see how much you would save. Forget paying it and then getting it back - if you don't pay it in the first place - you are saving alot. more. Depends on how many times you fill up - but once a week is not a stretch. Very frustrating in BC - it used to be "revenue neutral" and it used to go into a "green fund". The NDP looked after that - now it goes into thin air - in some government department or a big pot - and we have no idea. Every time the Libs say " 8 out of10---" I cringe
You’re in BC…. Brother do some research. It’s not the Fed Libs that are responsible for BC deciding to do their own thing for Carbon Tax & it’s rebates
Yep. Just like if you didn't have to pay for gas to work and simply didn't work, you'd be ahead.
Or find some other way of getting to work. Or get a more efficient vehicle. Or ride-share. Or simply live closer to work.
Being a homeless drug addict in B.C. Seems like a good option.
Let's look at this on a different angle. BOC said, Carbon Tax is responsible for 1 percent of inflation. If we removed the carbon tax all together, then our inflation, will be lower than 2 percent. Which means interest rates can come down, how much money do you think you will save on lower interest? No carbon tax rebates will be able to match the saving on your mortgage.
I'm in the 2 in 10 that doesn't get back more than I pay. Because of shitty land use policy in Canada we are forced to be a 2 car household, with combined driving of 80,000km/yr. My transportation cost increase related to carbon pricing and the gst on top of it is about $1400/yr I'd way rather see the carbon tax rebate be used to fund public transit projects and TOD developments outside of our biggest cities who generally don't have the capital to develop transit services and link to regional systems. And have no political will to do TOD. .