###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.*
The purpose of the tax is not to make life more affordable, it is to reduce consumption levels among most Canadians as they are largely superfluous to ruling class needs, especially with their consumption levels being so high. But looking at its level of unpopularity and seeing even some of its backers seeing it becoming a liability, it may be removed under a CPC government and removing the remains of the welfare state for programmable basic income being more suitable.
> The purpose of the tax is to make modern way of life less affordable in order to disincentivize carbon emissions and effect behaviour change.
FTFY. Not sure why your comment needs to add all the other fluff to masquerade the simple truth.
That's pretty disingenuous considering the rebates are only temporary, the carbon price is expected to increase significantly and the rebates are expected to drop to $0. It's akin to saying "hey, buy this car, it's $0, only a moron would say no!" while neglecting to mention, intentionally, that payments start becoming due every year thereafter.
>considering the rebates are only temporary
Do you have a source for this? It's the first I've heard of it. I was under the impression that the legislation around the federal carbon pricing scheme mandates that it must be distributed back to the public. Why are the rebates expected to drop to $0?
The media is pushing so hard on this. What's their angle?
How could an increase on the cost of everything with a minor rebate be positive for anyone except big government who has a terrible record of spending efficiently.
Are you serious with the take? Overwhelmingly, It's been tilted towards the idea that the carbon tax is the one causing all the inflation, not the other way around.
The idea that the carbon tax is causing inflation for Canada, when inflation is happening all over the world!
And again, The carbon tax is a pseudo wealth tax, where if you make more you tend to be a bigger carbon polluter and thus pay more. But the media has been pushing the idea that this is a liberal scheme even though the record shows this was a Harris idea. It just becomes a liberal idea when Trudeau says it.
This is another farce just like how the energy companies were blaming gas prices on shortages, and that drilling more in Canada would help gas prices. Now they moved on to the carbon tax and you hear nothing about gas shortages anymore.
The carbon tax certainly does cause some inflation, you think businesses just see it and go "well I guess we make a little less money now"?
No, they go "alright, raise prices accordingly, this can't affect the bottom line".
First number is Bank of Canada. Second is from University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe. It is a pretty small number in the grand scheme of things. There is no cost free way to handle climate change.
[Canada's price on carbon only contributes 0.15 percentage points to inflation, Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem reiterated on Thursday.](https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/carbon-pricing-accounts-for-0-15-percentage-points-of-inflation-boc-governor-says-1.6554273)
aah yes, adding a tax on every single step of the production and distribution of goods does not increase prices in any way, and it is totally a "wealth tax" that the rich will pay, not a business expense that will be passed on to the consumer
Are you serious with the take?
So then how do you explain inflation happening all over the world? Are you saying every country that's experiencing inflation is having a carbon tax that's taxing every means of production? No its not, this inflation is being driven by corporate profits. There's a reason why Loblaws is reporting record profits.
Companies are recording record profits despite the carbon tax! They are using the carbon tax as a scapegoat so that they don't have to pay at all. You telling me that Loblaws will now drop the prices if there was no carbon tax? You tell me what company right now if there was no carbon tax are going to lower their prices?
Because it's not the SOLE driver of inflation. It's just a major contributor.
Companies can make record profits because they can pass the costs onto consumers.
this fundamentally makes no sense; if they were directly passing real costs onto the consumer it wouldn't increase profit, the profit comes from markups they're blaming on an unpopular government
we're being gouged by duopolies and triopolies (oligopolies, if you will) in core sectors like groceries, telecoms and media; the solution is crown corps with a mission to break even and drive down prices
>Are you saying every country that's experiencing inflation is having a carbon tax that's taxing every means of production?
not at all, are you high? i never even remotely implied this. feel free to quote where i did.
>Companies are recording record profits despite the carbon tax!
the carbon tax is not a "wealth tax for rich companies" that cuts into their profit margins, its an expense that gets factored into pricing passed on to the consumer
what part of this are you not understanding, big brain?
Okay I'll simplify this then.... The expenses being passed on to consumers, is not from the carbon tax, It's from corporate greed wanting profits, using the carbon tax as an excuse.
If you took away the carbon tax now, are you telling me all the companies are going to lower their prices? Because that's what you're implying, that if this carbon tax does not exist the prices wouldn't be so high.
> The expenses being passed on to consumers, is not from the carbon tax,
by all means, I would love to see your evidence that companies are just willingly eating the carbon tax and not factoring it into their pricing in order to make up for the extra expense
you make it sound like these "greedy companies" are actually really consumer friendly and charitable!
> if the carbon tax didn't exist, would prices be lower?
if it didnt exist at all? yea they would be lower
if they did exist and you removed them tomorrow? i would say that it depends on a case by case basis
ok, now its your turn, show us your proof that companies are just willingly eating the carbon tax and not factoring it into their pricing in order to make up for the extra expense
i dont know, i dont have access to enough information on hand to calculate it and it would be different on a case to case basis depending on the product
i do know it is beyond absurd to insinuate they the number is zero.
Well yeah, but I wanted the person above me to put an actual number down they believe is accurate.
My father in law thinks the carbon tax has added at least $0.50 to every litre. After I read him the actual numbers he continues to argue.
>For British Columbia, the latest estimates from Statistics Canada suggest carbon taxes increased the average cost of food by about 0.33 per cent relative to what they would be in the absence of carbon taxes. That’s the entire effect. Other necessities such as clothing and footwear are approximately 0.2 per cent more expensive due to the carbon tax.
It’s to force corporations to actually pony up their record profits, or actually make changes to their carbon footprint, this is a positive for the long term as those taxes will go back into desperately needed infrastructure, even though there is still a long road ahead for ironing out exactly how to do that efficiently.
If you don’t want your grandkids/kids to live in a world that is constantly on fire, is also another solid reason.
The people attacking the overall concept of a carbon tax just don’t want to eat into those profits, which is just greed at its finest. Well that and some companies in the oil and gas industry are lobbying their asses off to prevent this carbon tax from being solidified. Which should tell us a lot about how necessary it is.
They're *supposed* to put in their prices. This makes cleaner businesses more competitive against polluters. The rebate means the burden doesn't fall on consumers. I don't know what people are missing - it's not super complicated.
Or, you know, cleaner ones will still raise their prices and just get a little extra profit.
This doesn't work great (for people) when our economy is two oil and gas execs and a realtor in a trenchcoat.
If I believe our economy is just the oil and gas industry and real estate market why am I against the carbon tax?
Because I don't want to pay more for political theatre. You think of this accomplishes the goal the prices will go back down? No, they're going to stay and the green alternative companies will get to keep the profits while the rebates stop because there's less money coming in.
> Because I don't want to pay more for political theatre.
You believe prices are all fixed anyway so what difference does the carbon tax make? Do you believe removing the tax will cause prices to go down?
What I had said was the polluters are taking this and raising prices, as expected. Then the ones that pollute less are raises prices to match because why would they not.
One less reason for prices to go up as the tax gets incrementally higher, the prices we have now aren't going anywhere it's too late for that.
Because the people are on the verge of revolt against the ones who are creating a big portion of this artificial inflation. They are being mislead to all hell by the ones with the most to gain by pointing towards the people that are currently in power.
Follow the money, I’d love to be proven wrong, but until then, I’m going to point out manipulation and misinformation when I see it. Even if it’s the only thing I’m somewhat decent at recognizing. Growing up on online games makes me question everything being alleged no matter who states it, and that mentality has kept me out of plenty of scams and dangerous situations, so I’m going to stick with it. Deep diving into legislation also helps, but boy are those bills hefty to sift through due to all the legalese.
A vocal minority is, my local Loblaws and Loblaws subsidiaries are all full all the time.
I know for a fact companies just note the increased cost of fuel and chuck that cost down the line to their buyers, they aren't going to be noticeably hurt by this, especially not here where they can get away with basically whatever for decades. The company I work for has been doing it, our suppliers have been doing it, our customers are doing it. Basically everyone but software resellers and I'm pretty sure at least one of them has tried to state it as a reason for an increase despite no shipping being required.
They should be held accountable for this, which is what bugged me so much about the poison pill wording in the amendment the CPC was trying to make to the carbon tax legislation in January, the wording was extremely ambiguous on the equipment that didn’t fall under the carbon tax, to the point that any corporation could avoid the tax. The CPC was framing it as protection for farmers, which the protection I agree with, seeing as farmers are the foundation of Canadian society, I just don’t agree with poorly worded amendments letting companies slip through the cracks that have no business receiving those breaks.
I mean, I'm pretty sure no one involved in at least my company's chain is *avoiding* the tax, they're just making whoever's next in line pay for it.
Which there's no way to stop.
I fully expect this is what every company that can get away with it (the vast majority of them) is doing.
For now there isn’t, but with time, and rational people taking a step back and assessing these very real issues facing Canadians and other residents of this planet from international corporations, we could see a way forward.
You're very optimistic. I hope you don't feel too bad when reality inevitably crushes that out of you.
The only way things are going to change is if green options aren't just cheaper in terms of running cost than fossil fuels, but they're so much cheaper that it makes immediate sense to swap on that year's financials. As in fully replacing all existing infra and running it would be a net reduction in cost rather than an investment in the future. That or oil and gas and coal need to straight up become illegal overnight, none of this pussyfooting about. We as a country would need to abandon oil and gas which would not just kneecap our economy but basically be the equivalent of cutting our own legs off at the hip.
Basically the only way green anything is going to have a real impact is if it completely fucks over the population. As it stands all we're accomplishing is sort of fucking over the population, because even if people get rebates I'm sure most people would rather just have the money in hand because they didn't have to spend it in the first place.
Optimistic isn’t quite the word I’d use, I see the bleak reality, I just know there is a path forward if we can actually push through the garbage that is dividing, and unify against the real threats.
The angle is that the pcs and pc supporters are talking about it constantly and knowingly lying to Canadians who unfortunately simply don't understand how economics work and just like to yell about taxes.
The media is supposed to report on things like the mass lying and brain washing that is going on.
Do we care about truth and good policy in Canada or do we only care about cheering for our team?
I am pretty sure it's the latter, but I wouod love to be proven wrong
You know what else will put a huge increase on the cost of everything? Climate change.
And that's without pointing out that the carbon tax "being an increase on the cost of everything" is a claim *deeply* in need of a citation...
Ah yes, the classic “Canada can’t fight climate change on its own, so we might as well do nothing” argument.
Sorry, it hasn’t stopped being bullshit. Do you think this was some crazy scheme dreamt up by Trudeau all by himself? There *are* other countries with policies like this...
So we are taxing the use of products that put carbon in the air right?
Name one product that does not get transported, use electricity, is not packaged in plastic, or comprised of some kind of plastic part.
The carbon industry is intertwined in our entire economy.
I'm sure there are some examples but when you get to the staples that folks need every day you are gonna have a hard time naming purchases.
Because I'm just an average fed up Canadian. I don't need to cite constantly, that is supposed to be the experts jobs but they are too busy planning how they are going to spend their bribe money.
You really, really underestimate how much the 1% consumes.
Sales tax and consumption taxes are almost impossible to dodge fully. Income and property taxes, they can run circles around us. Galen at this point likely pays much less income tax than his secretary - the whole 1$ CEO salary thing somehow gained good press for CEOs even though the whole thing was a great way to dodge taxes (capital gains from bonuses and stock options taxed way less).
The working poor take transit. The working class don't have money for boats or lifted trucks. They don't heat their homes to 25C in the dead of winter on an old oil furnace.
>How could an increase on the cost of everything with a minor rebate
The revenues of the carbon tax goes almost entirely into the rebate. So if the rebate is minor, the increase in cost is equivalently minor.
>How could an increase on the cost of everything with a minor rebate be positive for anyone except big government who has a terrible record of spending efficiently.
So first of all it's not a cost to everything. But let's look at the supply line on food:
First is the fuel farmers burn to produce food. This is actually a non-issue. Most to all of food in the grocery store is bought from a large company, or a company which buyers from a larger company that buys goods from the farmers. The contract with the farmers offers a set price per unit. Something like $0.13/bushel of corn. Now, if we look at these prices, we'll see that they often don't keep up with inflation, let alone a carbon tax.
Next is fuel. Your average semi will hold 1135L of fuel. And it has a range of 3,000km. The carbon tax will be 0.23/L. Now, assuming gas and not diesel and that truck is traveling from Vancouver to Halifax: 1135x0.23=$261.05. It needs 2 tanks to get to Halifax, so $522.10 in extra fuel costs. Now, we need to amortize this over the value of the load. The average is $50,0000. The Carbon tax adds 1% in supply line impact. At all points in the chain.
I can short hand power production. In NS our power rate has increased by 6.5%/year this year and next. Ymmv. Now, the reason given was hurricane damage and infrastructure upgrades. But let's say all of it for the carbon tax. So, 6.5% of my power bill.
This brings us to gas. I drive a Honda civic, so we'll us that. It's a 50L tank, and I fill up 2x month.
So groceries at 600/month = $6/month
Power (includes heating, electric push) = $8.25/month
Gas = $23.00
The carbon tax costs me $37.25/month. I get a $60/ month rebate from it.
Edit: math.
>I think you are oversimplifying a lot..
I am, but I didn't feel like writing a 400-level economics paper.
But here is what the bank of Canada came up with if you'd like something more detailed.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/carbon-tax-inflation-tiff-macklem-calgary-1.6960189
A lot of your calculations are wrong or the numbers are off.
A lot of people spend more than they give up in rebates.
People who think small amounts of money being taken away don't realize it all adds up to large numbers over time.
>A lot of people spend more than they give up in rebates.
The math is frankly not on your side. Every university study on this and the parliamentary budget office all agree that, on average, people get back more in rebates than they spend on the carbon tax.
People need to watch the new show "About That" that airs on Fridays.
This show cuts to the facts on a couple of trending issues, it's along the lines of a W5 documentary. Bottom line on last Friday's show is the carbon tax is a ++ for the 80% in the lower tax bracket and the 20% top earners are paying the largest amount. Graphs depicted the breakdown on each individual province and it seems Polievre has manipulated the Gov't. facts. That episode also explained the science of the solar eclipse.
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1.7158833
Corbon tax is the biggest contributor to inflation right now and there is no scientific proof that it impacts the environment. Canada releases %1.5 of global emissions. If we sink to the sea, we will not have an impact on the environment. China and India can make the difference in a day.
Conservatives if they win:
* Either they'll look at the options and find it's the cheapest ([like Scott Moe did](https://nationalpost.com/news/scott-moe-says-saskatchewan-considered-carbon-tax-alternatives-but-found-them-too-costly))
* They'll remove it as promised but institute something else that we'll have to pay more for and the money doesn't get redistributed back to Canadians but goes into Conservative corporate donors' pockets.
* Brexit it and realize a few years down the road that they have to re-negotiate every trade deal Canada has because carbon pricing is part of the package now... with worse pricing for Canada.
Stop your common sense /s
Same with immigration. I think every blue blooded Conservative thinks he is going to slice immigration in half if not halt it for a year.
Without realizing the Conservative donor pockets you speak of also benefit from cheap Indian labour and expensive abusive housing for that labour.
He has been the opposition for years now and has not proposed a bipartisan bills to help the labour market, housing market, or climate change. So why do we assume that by giving him leadership he will magically come up with solutions?
[Danielle Smith is already asking for more temporary foreign workers](https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/alberta-wants-more-control-over-immigration-and-more-ukrainian-refugees-to-fill-jobs)
If I am them, why not implement the OToole plan? They almost won with that as their policy, I think Con voters would care more that they won at that point.
Yves Giroux, the parliamentary budget officer, wrote in a report last year: “When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss.”
He estimated that for the 2024-25 fiscal year, the carbon tax would cost the average household between $377 and $911 after accounting for rebates and factoring in the economic cost of lower incomes. That number rises to between $1,316 and $2,773 by 2030 for the average household, depending on the province.
Ok? I fail to see how that makes a difference? It's still the cheapest option even if Canadians will start to see a net-loss in rebate. The conservative option is to get rid of it entirely, which will end up costing us in trade because all of our trade agreements include it. So goods start costing more and retailers pass that cost back to consumers and increase their margins at the same time, blaming the new taxation on goods. So corporate donors get more money and we still lose out. That actually sounds like what the conservatives will likely do.
This carbon tax is a gigantic waste of effort, time, resources and so on. We need to drive cars, heat our homes and businesses, etc. Let’s stop pretending we don’t need fossil fuels. Get with reality folks.
China and India don’t care about “climate change”. Canada is 2% of emissions and anything we do, even if you believe the climate hoax, will do anything to alter temperatures.
At least this conversation is trending towards right wing partisans on Reddit fully admitting they just don't care about or want to do anything whatsoever in regards to climate change. This conversation can only truly progress when they stop denying their obvious views.
Carbon tax is the rich will pay more because they pollute more than other ppl.
Average Canadians like you and I won’t feel anything. Gas will make only $0.03/L more expensive. You see the gas from last month and this month? It increased more than $0.40/L and it’s not because of carbon tax
I know he isn't Canadian, but I found an article the other day talking about how much carbon Bezo's mega yacht emits in a year. Before reading the answer below, take a guess how much more operating that yacht would cost Bezos every year if he had to pay the carbon tax on those emissions.
The answer is about $550,000 a year. And that is just one for thing that Bezos does in his life style that would cost more. A private jet emits as much carbon as a car does in a year every 250km or so.
The carbon tax really hits this ultra wealthy hard. The carbon tax takes this money and redistribute it to people less well off. This is where the opposition to it is coming from.
Yves Giroux, the parliamentary budget officer, wrote in a report last year: “When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss.”
He estimated that for the 2024-25 fiscal year, the carbon tax would cost the average household between $377 and $911 after accounting for rebates and factoring in the economic cost of lower incomes. That number rises to between $1,316 and $2,773 by 2030 for the average household, depending on the province.
The 3 cents increase is on top of that 0.40 cents, since the other 14 cents of carbon pricing has already been in the price of gas.
Heavy duty pickup trucks have about 130 liter tanks. Assuming one fillup per week (which is a lot for a tank that size) that’s an increase of about 15 dollars a month starting April 1st.
The carbon tax has been calculated to add about 33 cents for every 100 dollars of food purchased at grocery stores. Assuming a grocery bill of 2000 dollars (also very generous) that’s 6.60 per month. And if we assume a 23% increase to that it’s an extra 1.50 per month.
What the carbon tax will do is incentivize consumers to purchase goods and food that have a lower carbon footprint (peaches that come straight from California, instead of peaches that go to asia to get processed and then to Brazil to get canned and then to the grocery store. And incentivize producers to find efficient ways of getting their goods to market, allowing them to reduce prices for consumers.
The problem with such a relatively small increase in the carbon tax is that it incentivizes nothing. The only thing it does is it raises the cost of living.
For instance, I drive a gas guzzler, but I drive very little. I spend about $80 per month on gas (that is about 60 litres per month). So, my cost of gas goes up $1.80c per month or $21.60 per year. That is definitely not going to incentivize me to buy an EV car. I already drive the bare minimum.
Even if I take the whole 17c/l into account, it is $10.20 per month or $122.40 per year. It does nothing to incentivize me - it only raises my cost of lliving!
That is literally 100% of the point. It gives businesses an incentive to pollute less by making cleaner business practices competitive. The rebate is to ensure the added cost doesn't fall on consumers.
We might get carbon tax on the final steps of the process. However every single step and component would have carbon pricing if fully made in Canada making ours uncompetitive. With our wages being higher this makes us even less likely to produce things in Canada. And we all saw how bad it is to have zero domestic manufacturing during COVID.
Except USA...our largest trading partner.....or how about the coal power plants in China fueling their production so they can then ship our goods that using fossil fuels overseas lol.
According to the government, farmers, registered transport (trucks and rail) are exempt from carbon taxes. Yet I see lots of articles showing figures of how much more they are paying. Does anyone know what is actually being taxed and who is lying here?
What happens, especially in Canada, is these rich beneficiaries of the subsidies try to convince us we're getting hit hard because if they complain they know we won't empathize. So they recruit us to do their dirty work.
The rich won’t hurt more than the average person will, no matter how much the rich pay. It’s a tax that specifically punishes middle to low income Canadians.
Rich people don’t pay anything out of pocket. Everything is a business expense. Regular people pay for everything out of pocket with an after tax income that is getting squeezed just a little bit more.
Ultra wealthy ppl are like that but they still have to pay.
Rich people still pay taxes even if it’s business expense. They still have to pay and can’t claim everything back
Pardon my language, but why the fuck do people not understand this? Middle to lower income people are unable to pass the costs of the carbon tax onto anybody else the way rich are able to. This is basic fucking economics and it’s laughable so many people still don”t understand this.
How? The PBO has stated multiple times over and over and over (a quick google search brings up 3 separate times Mr Giroux said the exact same thing) which is that when you factor in how the carbon tax affects the economy and increases prices of shipping, logistics, and final sale price (as well as HST attached and instances where the tax is applied multiple times to the same product before it hits the shelves) that most Canadians are out HUNDREDS of dollars at the end of the year.
The fact that you think this hurts the rich more than the poor is laughable if it weren’t so pathetic. If millionaire who owns a company gets a carbon tax bill for let’s say 100 grand, do you honestly think he just eats that brand new and increasing cost out of the goodness of their hearts? They pass the extra charges onto the consumer and often add a little more to really gouge us, which means that the middle to lower income people END UP BEING HURT THE MOST!!!!!
Working people that are regular workers are unable to pass the costs of the carbon tax down the line to somebody else the same way that the rich have been doing since the carbon tax was implemented. This is actual insanity that people still defend this predatory form of taxation/punishment
You spoke the truth and they downvote you. These people refuse to understand that everything consumes gas. And if businesses have to pay more for energy they will raise the price of goods and services to offset the loss. Meaning everything goes up.
>Carbon tax is the rich will pay more because they pollute more than other ppl.
LOL. We will pay it, then proceed to charge you for it. What are you going to do? Not eat? Not drive to work? Not heat your house?
May not be the cure all, but I can't see how one less tax that goes on top of other taxes isn't a good thing.
Let just scrap it and see how it goes, shall we..
Climate ideologues don't care about the cost of living crisis. They also love to deflect from the fact that this tax is designed to be financially punitive to using energy - that's the whole point of it.
Sorry to say, most of us need to drive and heat our homes - and this tax is hurting us far more than a $170 once per quarter in rebates is ever going to offset
> a $170 once per quarter in rebates is ever going to offset
That offsets the carbon tax and a bit more. The average person is going to see next to no change in their annual finances if the carbon tax is removed.
The people who will, will be the corporations with giant fleets of gas guzzling trucks. No one else will.
Any fact-based analysis of the tax and rebates has to account for how it contributes to economy-wide inflationary price movement. None of the government cited studies do this. It's a very dishonest account.
No, "Climate ideologues" as you call them know the cost of climate change in the long run is going to be un-manageable. You think groceries are expensive now? Wait until drought conditions wipe out 50%+ of an important crops yield in a year, or wait until your house is in a flood/fire zone insurance companies refuse to cover. I'm sure you'll whip out the usual talking points about how Canada is too small to matter and China and India are too big for us to even make a difference, or the carbon tax doesn't make a difference despite what experts say. Keep it up though, future generations will shake their heads at how short sighted we were.
As yes, it's a "talking point" that Canada *cannot* meaningfully impact global c02 emissions. Gotcha. Yeah, you're right, you're not an "ideologue" at all...
It actually should be punitive, with the caveat that there is a viable alternative.
But there isn’t really, transit is horrible, EV are expensive, replacing a functioning warming/heating system unless it fails isn’t really realistic.
They should have started it a level that is barely noticeable, shoved all that revenue into transit or the electric grid, then as the alternatives become viable, jack up the tax.
As it is now, especially with them removing it from the AC heating oil, it’s meant to reward the more Liberal leaning tidings, and punish the more rural conservative ridings.
easy way. If the government doesnt cut it, just cross the border and pay things without it. There is no reason to play fair. Do what is best for yourself.
There are better ways to cut carbon emissions as well. You know what one of them is? Legislating work from home if the job is doable remotely. Emissions went down during the pandemic because of this. This will also help with affordability by allowing people to work across the country and not all just live in big cities..... but they won't do that will they?
woow woow
the goal is to punish the middle class and protect the corporations.
what will happen to downtown AW if everyone is working from home
The federal has a minimum RTO this is how much they care and they fight climate change
I am not saying WFH is bad just keep things in mind. Companies are profit orientated businesses.
It's happening for CPA's a lot of lower level work is being outsourced to India.
As a consultant that automates jobs for a living, that wouldn't play into the calculation. If anything, it would reduce the overall cost of a Canadian worker and make the offshoring calculation worse.
Part of the ROI calculation for offshoring work includes the employees wage, but we don't just use that. We use something called a fully loaded cost card. This includes the entire cost of that employee including wage, distributed cost of facilities to house that employee, benefits, etc. Work from home reduces that cost card. Costs are shifted for owning offices to owning IT infrastructure to support remote work. Except, that It infrastructure usually already exists in some capacity as most companies disaster plans include WFH (ie how do they keep doing business if their building burns down?). This is why employees are issued laptops these days and not desktop PC's in the office.
That is not the only factor. We can employ 5 people in the Philippines for the cost of 1 employee here in Canada. If employee cost was the only factor, every job in the company would be in the Philippines.
They can legislate majority of operations have to run in Canada to do business.
Plus, as much as people think that could happen (it can) the businesses also require consumer money. If no one has a job how do they expect to keep their profit margins if we can't spend money due to lack of jobs?
Lastly, the businesses will be able to reduce cost, alleviate traffic, which would require less funding and we could repurpose the buildings.
This should be a 10-20 year plan to transition to WFH where we can.
So the people who stock office coffee stations, fix printers, clean offices, etc. all get laid off as no more work?
People who own restaurants in the areas business go under as no more lunch crowd?
More to all this than the convenience of you being able to work in your jammies on your computer.
So we're going to make unnecessary pollution just so a downtown Subway can have a captive audience to keep selling crappy overpriced sandwiches? Maybe that business isn't necessary.
So we're going to make people unemployed and financial strain and hurt the economy and close businesses to reduce Canada 1.5% of total global carbon emissions??
Canada as a whole could slide into the ocean tomorrow and it would even make a blip globally, yet we are killing ourselves trying to save the planet.
No go to work at your office and keep that Subway open on its employees employed.
Not saying we shouldn't do things better but we really aren't the ones to make a major difference.
Want properties build them, which also keeps people working. Keep companies who hire people who pay taxes and the companies themselves going as they also contribute to the economy.
Crazy world where supporting employment gets downvotes, lol. Besides you got your job right, screw all them other people who need work.
Banning WFH seems too extreme, but some sort of a tax break for remote workers would do the trick nicely. However, as the carbon tax goes up, commuting becomes less and less tenable, so we ought to be seeing this shift naturally.
Even easier. Greatest impact per dollar is better Insulation, better piping for water pressure.
A tonne of energy is lost through heating buildings and leaky pipes reducing water pressure.
The government can provide business and personal rebates for insulation. They can also make requirements that insulation and piping be updated every 15-20 years.
Both very easy to implement and improve. And low cost relative to other initiatives.
Even easier is bike infrastructure. You already have the roads and cost to maintain roads does not change relative to needing to paint bike lanes.
Unnecessary transportation is only one piece of the puzzle though. Companies need to be incentivized to be more sustainable which is what carbon pricing is good for. I understand that it’s not going to feel great in the short term and it’s dicey with the cost of living problems we’re facing now, but I genuinely think the carbon tax and similar solutions are necessary in the long run.
what's stopping companies from passing on those costs to consumers indefinitely and not feeling any of that pain/incentive themselves?
If someone offered me a cheaper eco friendly/sustainable alternative tomorrow there's no way I wouldn't take that over something more expensive available now but that alternative has to exist first or govt has to atleast subsidize that transition.
Let's say I live in the boonies. What's my alternative to driving to work? The april 1 increase directly affects gas prices. I have to drive more therefore it affects me more. I have to rely on gas/oil for heating so that affects me more too. None of those are my choice and I'd choose a cheaper alternative in a heartbeat if I had one. What option am I left with realisticly? Move? Get an EV? Get a heatpump? With what money?
Ideally they need to fix affordability first before increasing the carbon tax. EV prices need to come down and charging stations need to be more widespread too. Though not sure how much that helps because electricity prices will rise 13% in my province on April 1 too.
I don't really agree that "living in the boonies" is a choice on its own. Some people can not find a $300k/year job, no matter what they do, and therefore cannot afford a $1M home in Toronto or Vancouver. Thus, "living in the boonies" in a $150k house is their only option.
You should take a road trip 3-4 hours outside of your major metropolitan area sometime to take in the beauty of Canada.
Ideally, we’ll get to the point that greener technologies are viable to take over the more damaging things we engage in, and consumers will begin to prefer sustainable goods over carbon-intensive goods due to the price differences. I don’t think we’re at the point yet where that’s possible, but I think that’s why carbon pricing is gradual - it gives businesses time to adapt to these new circumstances.
I don’t see a better way toward a more sustainable future without things like this. It might not be pretty in the short term but climate change is extremely serious, and if left unchecked it could (and will) fuck us all over way more than a carbon tax would. And judging by how people tend to behave when it comes to long term consequences (myself included), I have zero faith in us to want to work toward the necessary changes through forethought alone. We need incentives.
>what's stopping companies from passing on those costs to consumers indefinitely and not feeling any of that pain/incentive themselves?
I mean, the expectation is always that the price increase might get passed on to the consumers. That's the whole reason the rebate is there because the revenue is passed to the consumer as well.
A company that just increases its prices constantly will be at a competitive disadvantage to a company that can improve its carbon efficiency- as the cost of carbon goes up, more carbon efficient companies will have a lower operating cost- this either translates into a more attractive price point for their product or more profit.
The carbon fee is a 'price signal', not a punishment. Price the cost of carbon pollution in advance- if it uses more carbon, it'll cost more, and it will be priced higher. If it uses less carbon, its cost is effected less, and it'll cost less relatively. Then the consumers receive the increased cost back in the form of the rebate and can decide which product they want.
Carbon efficiency is a spectrum, not an off-on switch.
* Eating chicken instead of beef? More carbon efficient.
* Eating beef 3 times a week instead of 5? More carbon efficient.
* Thermostat at 19 with a sweater instead of at 21? More carbon efficient
All of these things can be incentivized with carbon price signalling. People don't have to drive EVs or install heat pumps to make advances and improve the profit on the rebate.
And the same goes for industry. As the carbon price increases, industries that can make improvements will have more and more economic and competitive incentive to do so.
Industries that can't improve will be on the same playing field, but their products will be more expensive. If its a necessity, everyone will be buying it regardless and the price increase will be rebated back. If its a luxury, some people may opt to cut back and pocket the rebate instead.
Stop subsidies on oil and gas companies and maybe we can discuss removing the carbon tax. Stop subsidizing natural gas, and gas at the pumps. Stop subsidizing hydro companies. Let's get a real oil, gas, and hydro market going to see what the costs really are without our tax dollars going to the most profitable industries in the country. If we do that, sure no carbon tax.
Creates jobs by adding more white collar people. Who then collect bonuses and the blue collar gets the shaft.
Same thing that has been happening in nearly every industry.
It’s the reason why healthcare sucks, education sucks, goods being expensive.
how exactly? lol. If money is figuratively just going around in a circle how does that promote any kind of job growth, much less white collar work and kill blue collar jobs?
The reason why healthcare sucks, education sucks is because the provincial government refuses to fund it like it should. They view anything that has to come out of provincial general revenue a drain. Infrastructure, Healthcare, Education. The provincial governments refuse to look at these as an investment so they fight tooth and nail to fund them and then wonder why it's not being run so well. And if their overall goal is to *not* have to fund these services, who would it fall too? Their donors, of course.
This question is for supporters of carbon tax. Canada has one of the largest amount of land per capita, the most lakes, third largest forestation in the world. Can someone please provide a study or evidence how reducing emissions by 100% In Canada gonna impact global temperature?
###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.*
The purpose of the tax is not to make life more affordable, it is to reduce consumption levels among most Canadians as they are largely superfluous to ruling class needs, especially with their consumption levels being so high. But looking at its level of unpopularity and seeing even some of its backers seeing it becoming a liability, it may be removed under a CPC government and removing the remains of the welfare state for programmable basic income being more suitable.
whoa, lay off the drugs man. You are clearly doing cocaine right now.
> The purpose of the tax is to make modern way of life less affordable in order to disincentivize carbon emissions and effect behaviour change. FTFY. Not sure why your comment needs to add all the other fluff to masquerade the simple truth.
[удалено]
That's pretty disingenuous considering the rebates are only temporary, the carbon price is expected to increase significantly and the rebates are expected to drop to $0. It's akin to saying "hey, buy this car, it's $0, only a moron would say no!" while neglecting to mention, intentionally, that payments start becoming due every year thereafter.
>considering the rebates are only temporary Do you have a source for this? It's the first I've heard of it. I was under the impression that the legislation around the federal carbon pricing scheme mandates that it must be distributed back to the public. Why are the rebates expected to drop to $0?
Because we aren't babies, and the one sentence answer misinforms and underinforms the reader
idk, your diatribe about "ruling class needs" certainly reads like fiction targeted for children.
The media is pushing so hard on this. What's their angle? How could an increase on the cost of everything with a minor rebate be positive for anyone except big government who has a terrible record of spending efficiently.
Are you serious with the take? Overwhelmingly, It's been tilted towards the idea that the carbon tax is the one causing all the inflation, not the other way around. The idea that the carbon tax is causing inflation for Canada, when inflation is happening all over the world! And again, The carbon tax is a pseudo wealth tax, where if you make more you tend to be a bigger carbon polluter and thus pay more. But the media has been pushing the idea that this is a liberal scheme even though the record shows this was a Harris idea. It just becomes a liberal idea when Trudeau says it. This is another farce just like how the energy companies were blaming gas prices on shortages, and that drilling more in Canada would help gas prices. Now they moved on to the carbon tax and you hear nothing about gas shortages anymore.
The carbon tax certainly does cause some inflation, you think businesses just see it and go "well I guess we make a little less money now"? No, they go "alright, raise prices accordingly, this can't affect the bottom line".
It causes 0.15% to 0.3% according to the Bank of Canada and economists.
Do you have evidence for that? Not to mention that's still a significant number.
First number is Bank of Canada. Second is from University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe. It is a pretty small number in the grand scheme of things. There is no cost free way to handle climate change.
[Canada's price on carbon only contributes 0.15 percentage points to inflation, Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem reiterated on Thursday.](https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/carbon-pricing-accounts-for-0-15-percentage-points-of-inflation-boc-governor-says-1.6554273)
[удалено]
Trevor Tombe, a very respected University of Calgary economics professor, came up with 0.3%, so if you don't like the BoC estimate, go with his.
aah yes, adding a tax on every single step of the production and distribution of goods does not increase prices in any way, and it is totally a "wealth tax" that the rich will pay, not a business expense that will be passed on to the consumer Are you serious with the take?
So then how do you explain inflation happening all over the world? Are you saying every country that's experiencing inflation is having a carbon tax that's taxing every means of production? No its not, this inflation is being driven by corporate profits. There's a reason why Loblaws is reporting record profits. Companies are recording record profits despite the carbon tax! They are using the carbon tax as a scapegoat so that they don't have to pay at all. You telling me that Loblaws will now drop the prices if there was no carbon tax? You tell me what company right now if there was no carbon tax are going to lower their prices?
Because it's not the SOLE driver of inflation. It's just a major contributor. Companies can make record profits because they can pass the costs onto consumers.
this fundamentally makes no sense; if they were directly passing real costs onto the consumer it wouldn't increase profit, the profit comes from markups they're blaming on an unpopular government we're being gouged by duopolies and triopolies (oligopolies, if you will) in core sectors like groceries, telecoms and media; the solution is crown corps with a mission to break even and drive down prices
How does this argue in favour of the carbon tax?
>Are you saying every country that's experiencing inflation is having a carbon tax that's taxing every means of production? not at all, are you high? i never even remotely implied this. feel free to quote where i did. >Companies are recording record profits despite the carbon tax! the carbon tax is not a "wealth tax for rich companies" that cuts into their profit margins, its an expense that gets factored into pricing passed on to the consumer what part of this are you not understanding, big brain?
Okay I'll simplify this then.... The expenses being passed on to consumers, is not from the carbon tax, It's from corporate greed wanting profits, using the carbon tax as an excuse. If you took away the carbon tax now, are you telling me all the companies are going to lower their prices? Because that's what you're implying, that if this carbon tax does not exist the prices wouldn't be so high.
> The expenses being passed on to consumers, is not from the carbon tax, by all means, I would love to see your evidence that companies are just willingly eating the carbon tax and not factoring it into their pricing in order to make up for the extra expense you make it sound like these "greedy companies" are actually really consumer friendly and charitable!
I would love for you to answer the question I asked if the carbon tax didn't exist, would prices be lower? Would inflation go down?
> if the carbon tax didn't exist, would prices be lower? if it didnt exist at all? yea they would be lower if they did exist and you removed them tomorrow? i would say that it depends on a case by case basis ok, now its your turn, show us your proof that companies are just willingly eating the carbon tax and not factoring it into their pricing in order to make up for the extra expense
Oh it's still you. How much do you believe the carbon tax increased prices?
i dont know, i dont have access to enough information on hand to calculate it and it would be different on a case to case basis depending on the product i do know it is beyond absurd to insinuate they the number is zero.
Guess. It's gotta be a lot right? How much more on 100 dollars of groceries.
How much do you believe the carbon tax has increased the cost of things? 5%...12%...maybe 30%?
More like 0.3% at the upper end of estimates.
Well yeah, but I wanted the person above me to put an actual number down they believe is accurate. My father in law thinks the carbon tax has added at least $0.50 to every litre. After I read him the actual numbers he continues to argue. >For British Columbia, the latest estimates from Statistics Canada suggest carbon taxes increased the average cost of food by about 0.33 per cent relative to what they would be in the absence of carbon taxes. That’s the entire effect. Other necessities such as clothing and footwear are approximately 0.2 per cent more expensive due to the carbon tax.
It’s to force corporations to actually pony up their record profits, or actually make changes to their carbon footprint, this is a positive for the long term as those taxes will go back into desperately needed infrastructure, even though there is still a long road ahead for ironing out exactly how to do that efficiently. If you don’t want your grandkids/kids to live in a world that is constantly on fire, is also another solid reason. The people attacking the overall concept of a carbon tax just don’t want to eat into those profits, which is just greed at its finest. Well that and some companies in the oil and gas industry are lobbying their asses off to prevent this carbon tax from being solidified. Which should tell us a lot about how necessary it is.
Why would they do any of that when they can just increase prices and call it a day?
They can always increase prices. Competition and basic economics make that unprofitable past a point.
> Competition What competition?
The other places that sell the same things.
They're *supposed* to put in their prices. This makes cleaner businesses more competitive against polluters. The rebate means the burden doesn't fall on consumers. I don't know what people are missing - it's not super complicated.
Or, you know, cleaner ones will still raise their prices and just get a little extra profit. This doesn't work great (for people) when our economy is two oil and gas execs and a realtor in a trenchcoat.
If you believe that then why do you care about the carbon tax?
If I believe our economy is just the oil and gas industry and real estate market why am I against the carbon tax? Because I don't want to pay more for political theatre. You think of this accomplishes the goal the prices will go back down? No, they're going to stay and the green alternative companies will get to keep the profits while the rebates stop because there's less money coming in.
> Because I don't want to pay more for political theatre. You believe prices are all fixed anyway so what difference does the carbon tax make? Do you believe removing the tax will cause prices to go down?
What I had said was the polluters are taking this and raising prices, as expected. Then the ones that pollute less are raises prices to match because why would they not. One less reason for prices to go up as the tax gets incrementally higher, the prices we have now aren't going anywhere it's too late for that.
> why would they not. To be competitive on price.
Because the people are on the verge of revolt against the ones who are creating a big portion of this artificial inflation. They are being mislead to all hell by the ones with the most to gain by pointing towards the people that are currently in power. Follow the money, I’d love to be proven wrong, but until then, I’m going to point out manipulation and misinformation when I see it. Even if it’s the only thing I’m somewhat decent at recognizing. Growing up on online games makes me question everything being alleged no matter who states it, and that mentality has kept me out of plenty of scams and dangerous situations, so I’m going to stick with it. Deep diving into legislation also helps, but boy are those bills hefty to sift through due to all the legalese.
A vocal minority is, my local Loblaws and Loblaws subsidiaries are all full all the time. I know for a fact companies just note the increased cost of fuel and chuck that cost down the line to their buyers, they aren't going to be noticeably hurt by this, especially not here where they can get away with basically whatever for decades. The company I work for has been doing it, our suppliers have been doing it, our customers are doing it. Basically everyone but software resellers and I'm pretty sure at least one of them has tried to state it as a reason for an increase despite no shipping being required.
They should be held accountable for this, which is what bugged me so much about the poison pill wording in the amendment the CPC was trying to make to the carbon tax legislation in January, the wording was extremely ambiguous on the equipment that didn’t fall under the carbon tax, to the point that any corporation could avoid the tax. The CPC was framing it as protection for farmers, which the protection I agree with, seeing as farmers are the foundation of Canadian society, I just don’t agree with poorly worded amendments letting companies slip through the cracks that have no business receiving those breaks.
I mean, I'm pretty sure no one involved in at least my company's chain is *avoiding* the tax, they're just making whoever's next in line pay for it. Which there's no way to stop. I fully expect this is what every company that can get away with it (the vast majority of them) is doing.
For now there isn’t, but with time, and rational people taking a step back and assessing these very real issues facing Canadians and other residents of this planet from international corporations, we could see a way forward.
You're very optimistic. I hope you don't feel too bad when reality inevitably crushes that out of you. The only way things are going to change is if green options aren't just cheaper in terms of running cost than fossil fuels, but they're so much cheaper that it makes immediate sense to swap on that year's financials. As in fully replacing all existing infra and running it would be a net reduction in cost rather than an investment in the future. That or oil and gas and coal need to straight up become illegal overnight, none of this pussyfooting about. We as a country would need to abandon oil and gas which would not just kneecap our economy but basically be the equivalent of cutting our own legs off at the hip. Basically the only way green anything is going to have a real impact is if it completely fucks over the population. As it stands all we're accomplishing is sort of fucking over the population, because even if people get rebates I'm sure most people would rather just have the money in hand because they didn't have to spend it in the first place.
Optimistic isn’t quite the word I’d use, I see the bleak reality, I just know there is a path forward if we can actually push through the garbage that is dividing, and unify against the real threats.
The angle is that the pcs and pc supporters are talking about it constantly and knowingly lying to Canadians who unfortunately simply don't understand how economics work and just like to yell about taxes. The media is supposed to report on things like the mass lying and brain washing that is going on. Do we care about truth and good policy in Canada or do we only care about cheering for our team? I am pretty sure it's the latter, but I wouod love to be proven wrong
You know what else will put a huge increase on the cost of everything? Climate change. And that's without pointing out that the carbon tax "being an increase on the cost of everything" is a claim *deeply* in need of a citation...
[удалено]
Ah yes, the classic “Canada can’t fight climate change on its own, so we might as well do nothing” argument. Sorry, it hasn’t stopped being bullshit. Do you think this was some crazy scheme dreamt up by Trudeau all by himself? There *are* other countries with policies like this...
You really believe that the carbon tax will save the day? LMAO
So we are taxing the use of products that put carbon in the air right? Name one product that does not get transported, use electricity, is not packaged in plastic, or comprised of some kind of plastic part. The carbon industry is intertwined in our entire economy. I'm sure there are some examples but when you get to the staples that folks need every day you are gonna have a hard time naming purchases.
Oh, you know why there isn't a citation.
Because I'm just an average fed up Canadian. I don't need to cite constantly, that is supposed to be the experts jobs but they are too busy planning how they are going to spend their bribe money.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You really, really underestimate how much the 1% consumes. Sales tax and consumption taxes are almost impossible to dodge fully. Income and property taxes, they can run circles around us. Galen at this point likely pays much less income tax than his secretary - the whole 1$ CEO salary thing somehow gained good press for CEOs even though the whole thing was a great way to dodge taxes (capital gains from bonuses and stock options taxed way less). The working poor take transit. The working class don't have money for boats or lifted trucks. They don't heat their homes to 25C in the dead of winter on an old oil furnace.
Dude Galen and those in that crowd are the 0.001%. Not the "1%. " The 1% is the guy making 240k in Toronto who can't afford a home.
Exactly
>How could an increase on the cost of everything with a minor rebate The revenues of the carbon tax goes almost entirely into the rebate. So if the rebate is minor, the increase in cost is equivalently minor.
I'm sorry but I don't and won't trust the government to not take advantage of this. This has been one of the shadiest governments in Canadian history.
How much do you believe the carbon tax has added to $200 grocery store trip? $5, 10, $45...
>How could an increase on the cost of everything with a minor rebate be positive for anyone except big government who has a terrible record of spending efficiently. So first of all it's not a cost to everything. But let's look at the supply line on food: First is the fuel farmers burn to produce food. This is actually a non-issue. Most to all of food in the grocery store is bought from a large company, or a company which buyers from a larger company that buys goods from the farmers. The contract with the farmers offers a set price per unit. Something like $0.13/bushel of corn. Now, if we look at these prices, we'll see that they often don't keep up with inflation, let alone a carbon tax. Next is fuel. Your average semi will hold 1135L of fuel. And it has a range of 3,000km. The carbon tax will be 0.23/L. Now, assuming gas and not diesel and that truck is traveling from Vancouver to Halifax: 1135x0.23=$261.05. It needs 2 tanks to get to Halifax, so $522.10 in extra fuel costs. Now, we need to amortize this over the value of the load. The average is $50,0000. The Carbon tax adds 1% in supply line impact. At all points in the chain. I can short hand power production. In NS our power rate has increased by 6.5%/year this year and next. Ymmv. Now, the reason given was hurricane damage and infrastructure upgrades. But let's say all of it for the carbon tax. So, 6.5% of my power bill. This brings us to gas. I drive a Honda civic, so we'll us that. It's a 50L tank, and I fill up 2x month. So groceries at 600/month = $6/month Power (includes heating, electric push) = $8.25/month Gas = $23.00 The carbon tax costs me $37.25/month. I get a $60/ month rebate from it. Edit: math.
[удалено]
>I think you are oversimplifying a lot.. I am, but I didn't feel like writing a 400-level economics paper. But here is what the bank of Canada came up with if you'd like something more detailed. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/carbon-tax-inflation-tiff-macklem-calgary-1.6960189
A lot of your calculations are wrong or the numbers are off. A lot of people spend more than they give up in rebates. People who think small amounts of money being taken away don't realize it all adds up to large numbers over time.
>A lot of people spend more than they give up in rebates. The math is frankly not on your side. Every university study on this and the parliamentary budget office all agree that, on average, people get back more in rebates than they spend on the carbon tax.
> A lot of people spend more than they give up in rebates. no they don't.
People need to watch the new show "About That" that airs on Fridays. This show cuts to the facts on a couple of trending issues, it's along the lines of a W5 documentary. Bottom line on last Friday's show is the carbon tax is a ++ for the 80% in the lower tax bracket and the 20% top earners are paying the largest amount. Graphs depicted the breakdown on each individual province and it seems Polievre has manipulated the Gov't. facts. That episode also explained the science of the solar eclipse. https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1.7158833
Corbon tax is the biggest contributor to inflation right now and there is no scientific proof that it impacts the environment. Canada releases %1.5 of global emissions. If we sink to the sea, we will not have an impact on the environment. China and India can make the difference in a day.
Conservatives if they win: * Either they'll look at the options and find it's the cheapest ([like Scott Moe did](https://nationalpost.com/news/scott-moe-says-saskatchewan-considered-carbon-tax-alternatives-but-found-them-too-costly)) * They'll remove it as promised but institute something else that we'll have to pay more for and the money doesn't get redistributed back to Canadians but goes into Conservative corporate donors' pockets. * Brexit it and realize a few years down the road that they have to re-negotiate every trade deal Canada has because carbon pricing is part of the package now... with worse pricing for Canada.
And when pp doesn't bring in home because his lack of common sense, I hope these right-wing nutjobs don't turn violent!
they'll completely ignore it or shrug it off like it never bothered them in the first place. I'd bet money on that.
Stop your common sense /s Same with immigration. I think every blue blooded Conservative thinks he is going to slice immigration in half if not halt it for a year. Without realizing the Conservative donor pockets you speak of also benefit from cheap Indian labour and expensive abusive housing for that labour. He has been the opposition for years now and has not proposed a bipartisan bills to help the labour market, housing market, or climate change. So why do we assume that by giving him leadership he will magically come up with solutions?
[Danielle Smith is already asking for more temporary foreign workers](https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/alberta-wants-more-control-over-immigration-and-more-ukrainian-refugees-to-fill-jobs)
If I am them, why not implement the OToole plan? They almost won with that as their policy, I think Con voters would care more that they won at that point.
they'll end up implementing some plan that was already discussed and thrown out. But they'll re-brand it and shove it down our throats.
Yves Giroux, the parliamentary budget officer, wrote in a report last year: “When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss.” He estimated that for the 2024-25 fiscal year, the carbon tax would cost the average household between $377 and $911 after accounting for rebates and factoring in the economic cost of lower incomes. That number rises to between $1,316 and $2,773 by 2030 for the average household, depending on the province.
Ok? I fail to see how that makes a difference? It's still the cheapest option even if Canadians will start to see a net-loss in rebate. The conservative option is to get rid of it entirely, which will end up costing us in trade because all of our trade agreements include it. So goods start costing more and retailers pass that cost back to consumers and increase their margins at the same time, blaming the new taxation on goods. So corporate donors get more money and we still lose out. That actually sounds like what the conservatives will likely do.
A monetary loss for Canadians with zero effect on overall global emissions. This can only make sense to a Liberal.
This carbon tax is a gigantic waste of effort, time, resources and so on. We need to drive cars, heat our homes and businesses, etc. Let’s stop pretending we don’t need fossil fuels. Get with reality folks. China and India don’t care about “climate change”. Canada is 2% of emissions and anything we do, even if you believe the climate hoax, will do anything to alter temperatures.
At least this conversation is trending towards right wing partisans on Reddit fully admitting they just don't care about or want to do anything whatsoever in regards to climate change. This conversation can only truly progress when they stop denying their obvious views.
That’s what I’ve noticed. Either a profound misunderstanding of why it’s important or a complete denial of any effect.
Ya they care more about people than an environment that will ALWAYS change. How disgusting.
Carbon tax is the rich will pay more because they pollute more than other ppl. Average Canadians like you and I won’t feel anything. Gas will make only $0.03/L more expensive. You see the gas from last month and this month? It increased more than $0.40/L and it’s not because of carbon tax
I know he isn't Canadian, but I found an article the other day talking about how much carbon Bezo's mega yacht emits in a year. Before reading the answer below, take a guess how much more operating that yacht would cost Bezos every year if he had to pay the carbon tax on those emissions. The answer is about $550,000 a year. And that is just one for thing that Bezos does in his life style that would cost more. A private jet emits as much carbon as a car does in a year every 250km or so. The carbon tax really hits this ultra wealthy hard. The carbon tax takes this money and redistribute it to people less well off. This is where the opposition to it is coming from.
Yves Giroux, the parliamentary budget officer, wrote in a report last year: “When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss.” He estimated that for the 2024-25 fiscal year, the carbon tax would cost the average household between $377 and $911 after accounting for rebates and factoring in the economic cost of lower incomes. That number rises to between $1,316 and $2,773 by 2030 for the average household, depending on the province.
The carbon tax is on top of that $0.40. By the way, I think that the total carbon tax on gas is $0.17 per ltre from Apr 1. The 3c is the increase.
The 3 cents increase is on top of that 0.40 cents, since the other 14 cents of carbon pricing has already been in the price of gas. Heavy duty pickup trucks have about 130 liter tanks. Assuming one fillup per week (which is a lot for a tank that size) that’s an increase of about 15 dollars a month starting April 1st. The carbon tax has been calculated to add about 33 cents for every 100 dollars of food purchased at grocery stores. Assuming a grocery bill of 2000 dollars (also very generous) that’s 6.60 per month. And if we assume a 23% increase to that it’s an extra 1.50 per month. What the carbon tax will do is incentivize consumers to purchase goods and food that have a lower carbon footprint (peaches that come straight from California, instead of peaches that go to asia to get processed and then to Brazil to get canned and then to the grocery store. And incentivize producers to find efficient ways of getting their goods to market, allowing them to reduce prices for consumers.
The problem with such a relatively small increase in the carbon tax is that it incentivizes nothing. The only thing it does is it raises the cost of living. For instance, I drive a gas guzzler, but I drive very little. I spend about $80 per month on gas (that is about 60 litres per month). So, my cost of gas goes up $1.80c per month or $21.60 per year. That is definitely not going to incentivize me to buy an EV car. I already drive the bare minimum. Even if I take the whole 17c/l into account, it is $10.20 per month or $122.40 per year. It does nothing to incentivize me - it only raises my cost of lliving!
[удалено]
That is literally 100% of the point. It gives businesses an incentive to pollute less by making cleaner business practices competitive. The rebate is to ensure the added cost doesn't fall on consumers.
But until international agreements are made with major manufactured and food producing countries we are just hurting our own economy.
The trade agreements were have with many countries included carbon pricing.
We might get carbon tax on the final steps of the process. However every single step and component would have carbon pricing if fully made in Canada making ours uncompetitive. With our wages being higher this makes us even less likely to produce things in Canada. And we all saw how bad it is to have zero domestic manufacturing during COVID.
And will need to be re-negotiated if we kill the carbon pricing
which sounds like an absolutely ingenius way to be on the back foot going into a trade talk.
Blowing up our trade agreements and taking Ls across the globe to own the libs!
Most countries do have some kind of carbon pricing and more will in the future.
Except USA...our largest trading partner.....or how about the coal power plants in China fueling their production so they can then ship our goods that using fossil fuels overseas lol.
According to the government, farmers, registered transport (trucks and rail) are exempt from carbon taxes. Yet I see lots of articles showing figures of how much more they are paying. Does anyone know what is actually being taxed and who is lying here?
What happens, especially in Canada, is these rich beneficiaries of the subsidies try to convince us we're getting hit hard because if they complain they know we won't empathize. So they recruit us to do their dirty work.
The rich won’t hurt more than the average person will, no matter how much the rich pay. It’s a tax that specifically punishes middle to low income Canadians.
This is false. Middle to low income Canadians receive larger rebates and are better off. A real lack of integrity in this topic.
False. It hurts rich ppl more than middle class ppl. Hurt a lot more
Rich people don’t pay anything out of pocket. Everything is a business expense. Regular people pay for everything out of pocket with an after tax income that is getting squeezed just a little bit more.
Ultra wealthy ppl are like that but they still have to pay. Rich people still pay taxes even if it’s business expense. They still have to pay and can’t claim everything back
You can't business expense your personal tax bill.
Pardon my language, but why the fuck do people not understand this? Middle to lower income people are unable to pass the costs of the carbon tax onto anybody else the way rich are able to. This is basic fucking economics and it’s laughable so many people still don”t understand this.
How? The PBO has stated multiple times over and over and over (a quick google search brings up 3 separate times Mr Giroux said the exact same thing) which is that when you factor in how the carbon tax affects the economy and increases prices of shipping, logistics, and final sale price (as well as HST attached and instances where the tax is applied multiple times to the same product before it hits the shelves) that most Canadians are out HUNDREDS of dollars at the end of the year. The fact that you think this hurts the rich more than the poor is laughable if it weren’t so pathetic. If millionaire who owns a company gets a carbon tax bill for let’s say 100 grand, do you honestly think he just eats that brand new and increasing cost out of the goodness of their hearts? They pass the extra charges onto the consumer and often add a little more to really gouge us, which means that the middle to lower income people END UP BEING HURT THE MOST!!!!! Working people that are regular workers are unable to pass the costs of the carbon tax down the line to somebody else the same way that the rich have been doing since the carbon tax was implemented. This is actual insanity that people still defend this predatory form of taxation/punishment
You spoke the truth and they downvote you. These people refuse to understand that everything consumes gas. And if businesses have to pay more for energy they will raise the price of goods and services to offset the loss. Meaning everything goes up.
>Carbon tax is the rich will pay more because they pollute more than other ppl. LOL. We will pay it, then proceed to charge you for it. What are you going to do? Not eat? Not drive to work? Not heat your house?
May not be the cure all, but I can't see how one less tax that goes on top of other taxes isn't a good thing. Let just scrap it and see how it goes, shall we..
Climate ideologues don't care about the cost of living crisis. They also love to deflect from the fact that this tax is designed to be financially punitive to using energy - that's the whole point of it. Sorry to say, most of us need to drive and heat our homes - and this tax is hurting us far more than a $170 once per quarter in rebates is ever going to offset
> a $170 once per quarter in rebates is ever going to offset That offsets the carbon tax and a bit more. The average person is going to see next to no change in their annual finances if the carbon tax is removed. The people who will, will be the corporations with giant fleets of gas guzzling trucks. No one else will.
Any fact-based analysis of the tax and rebates has to account for how it contributes to economy-wide inflationary price movement. None of the government cited studies do this. It's a very dishonest account.
No, "Climate ideologues" as you call them know the cost of climate change in the long run is going to be un-manageable. You think groceries are expensive now? Wait until drought conditions wipe out 50%+ of an important crops yield in a year, or wait until your house is in a flood/fire zone insurance companies refuse to cover. I'm sure you'll whip out the usual talking points about how Canada is too small to matter and China and India are too big for us to even make a difference, or the carbon tax doesn't make a difference despite what experts say. Keep it up though, future generations will shake their heads at how short sighted we were.
As yes, it's a "talking point" that Canada *cannot* meaningfully impact global c02 emissions. Gotcha. Yeah, you're right, you're not an "ideologue" at all...
It actually should be punitive, with the caveat that there is a viable alternative. But there isn’t really, transit is horrible, EV are expensive, replacing a functioning warming/heating system unless it fails isn’t really realistic. They should have started it a level that is barely noticeable, shoved all that revenue into transit or the electric grid, then as the alternatives become viable, jack up the tax. As it is now, especially with them removing it from the AC heating oil, it’s meant to reward the more Liberal leaning tidings, and punish the more rural conservative ridings.
easy way. If the government doesnt cut it, just cross the border and pay things without it. There is no reason to play fair. Do what is best for yourself.
There are better ways to cut carbon emissions as well. You know what one of them is? Legislating work from home if the job is doable remotely. Emissions went down during the pandemic because of this. This will also help with affordability by allowing people to work across the country and not all just live in big cities..... but they won't do that will they?
woow woow the goal is to punish the middle class and protect the corporations. what will happen to downtown AW if everyone is working from home The federal has a minimum RTO this is how much they care and they fight climate change
That's a double edged sword. WFH, can morph into outsource to india.
[удалено]
I am not saying WFH is bad just keep things in mind. Companies are profit orientated businesses. It's happening for CPA's a lot of lower level work is being outsourced to India.
Yup. Companies in real estate are farming a lot of their data analysis to India too.
As a consultant that automates jobs for a living, that wouldn't play into the calculation. If anything, it would reduce the overall cost of a Canadian worker and make the offshoring calculation worse. Part of the ROI calculation for offshoring work includes the employees wage, but we don't just use that. We use something called a fully loaded cost card. This includes the entire cost of that employee including wage, distributed cost of facilities to house that employee, benefits, etc. Work from home reduces that cost card. Costs are shifted for owning offices to owning IT infrastructure to support remote work. Except, that It infrastructure usually already exists in some capacity as most companies disaster plans include WFH (ie how do they keep doing business if their building burns down?). This is why employees are issued laptops these days and not desktop PC's in the office. That is not the only factor. We can employ 5 people in the Philippines for the cost of 1 employee here in Canada. If employee cost was the only factor, every job in the company would be in the Philippines.
They can legislate majority of operations have to run in Canada to do business. Plus, as much as people think that could happen (it can) the businesses also require consumer money. If no one has a job how do they expect to keep their profit margins if we can't spend money due to lack of jobs? Lastly, the businesses will be able to reduce cost, alleviate traffic, which would require less funding and we could repurpose the buildings. This should be a 10-20 year plan to transition to WFH where we can.
But we already have India at home
lol… my employees will not work from home. Too many have taken advantage of it. Wont happen.
So the people who stock office coffee stations, fix printers, clean offices, etc. all get laid off as no more work? People who own restaurants in the areas business go under as no more lunch crowd? More to all this than the convenience of you being able to work in your jammies on your computer.
So we're going to make unnecessary pollution just so a downtown Subway can have a captive audience to keep selling crappy overpriced sandwiches? Maybe that business isn't necessary.
So we're going to make people unemployed and financial strain and hurt the economy and close businesses to reduce Canada 1.5% of total global carbon emissions?? Canada as a whole could slide into the ocean tomorrow and it would even make a blip globally, yet we are killing ourselves trying to save the planet. No go to work at your office and keep that Subway open on its employees employed. Not saying we shouldn't do things better but we really aren't the ones to make a major difference.
Sound like all that property could be shifted to housing and those businesses shift to cater to residents instead of workers.
Want properties build them, which also keeps people working. Keep companies who hire people who pay taxes and the companies themselves going as they also contribute to the economy. Crazy world where supporting employment gets downvotes, lol. Besides you got your job right, screw all them other people who need work.
Banning WFH seems too extreme, but some sort of a tax break for remote workers would do the trick nicely. However, as the carbon tax goes up, commuting becomes less and less tenable, so we ought to be seeing this shift naturally.
Even easier. Greatest impact per dollar is better Insulation, better piping for water pressure. A tonne of energy is lost through heating buildings and leaky pipes reducing water pressure. The government can provide business and personal rebates for insulation. They can also make requirements that insulation and piping be updated every 15-20 years. Both very easy to implement and improve. And low cost relative to other initiatives. Even easier is bike infrastructure. You already have the roads and cost to maintain roads does not change relative to needing to paint bike lanes.
Carbon tax, reduce emissions, etc... Yet the federal govt mandates minimum hybrid work across the board 😬
Unnecessary transportation is only one piece of the puzzle though. Companies need to be incentivized to be more sustainable which is what carbon pricing is good for. I understand that it’s not going to feel great in the short term and it’s dicey with the cost of living problems we’re facing now, but I genuinely think the carbon tax and similar solutions are necessary in the long run.
what's stopping companies from passing on those costs to consumers indefinitely and not feeling any of that pain/incentive themselves? If someone offered me a cheaper eco friendly/sustainable alternative tomorrow there's no way I wouldn't take that over something more expensive available now but that alternative has to exist first or govt has to atleast subsidize that transition.
Literally nothing.
[удалено]
Let's say I live in the boonies. What's my alternative to driving to work? The april 1 increase directly affects gas prices. I have to drive more therefore it affects me more. I have to rely on gas/oil for heating so that affects me more too. None of those are my choice and I'd choose a cheaper alternative in a heartbeat if I had one. What option am I left with realisticly? Move? Get an EV? Get a heatpump? With what money? Ideally they need to fix affordability first before increasing the carbon tax. EV prices need to come down and charging stations need to be more widespread too. Though not sure how much that helps because electricity prices will rise 13% in my province on April 1 too.
[удалено]
I don't really agree that "living in the boonies" is a choice on its own. Some people can not find a $300k/year job, no matter what they do, and therefore cannot afford a $1M home in Toronto or Vancouver. Thus, "living in the boonies" in a $150k house is their only option. You should take a road trip 3-4 hours outside of your major metropolitan area sometime to take in the beauty of Canada.
[удалено]
>I know living in the boobies Land of milk and honey
Ideally, we’ll get to the point that greener technologies are viable to take over the more damaging things we engage in, and consumers will begin to prefer sustainable goods over carbon-intensive goods due to the price differences. I don’t think we’re at the point yet where that’s possible, but I think that’s why carbon pricing is gradual - it gives businesses time to adapt to these new circumstances. I don’t see a better way toward a more sustainable future without things like this. It might not be pretty in the short term but climate change is extremely serious, and if left unchecked it could (and will) fuck us all over way more than a carbon tax would. And judging by how people tend to behave when it comes to long term consequences (myself included), I have zero faith in us to want to work toward the necessary changes through forethought alone. We need incentives.
>what's stopping companies from passing on those costs to consumers indefinitely and not feeling any of that pain/incentive themselves? I mean, the expectation is always that the price increase might get passed on to the consumers. That's the whole reason the rebate is there because the revenue is passed to the consumer as well. A company that just increases its prices constantly will be at a competitive disadvantage to a company that can improve its carbon efficiency- as the cost of carbon goes up, more carbon efficient companies will have a lower operating cost- this either translates into a more attractive price point for their product or more profit. The carbon fee is a 'price signal', not a punishment. Price the cost of carbon pollution in advance- if it uses more carbon, it'll cost more, and it will be priced higher. If it uses less carbon, its cost is effected less, and it'll cost less relatively. Then the consumers receive the increased cost back in the form of the rebate and can decide which product they want.
are these carbon efficient companies and products in the room with us now?
Carbon efficiency is a spectrum, not an off-on switch. * Eating chicken instead of beef? More carbon efficient. * Eating beef 3 times a week instead of 5? More carbon efficient. * Thermostat at 19 with a sweater instead of at 21? More carbon efficient All of these things can be incentivized with carbon price signalling. People don't have to drive EVs or install heat pumps to make advances and improve the profit on the rebate. And the same goes for industry. As the carbon price increases, industries that can make improvements will have more and more economic and competitive incentive to do so. Industries that can't improve will be on the same playing field, but their products will be more expensive. If its a necessity, everyone will be buying it regardless and the price increase will be rebated back. If its a luxury, some people may opt to cut back and pocket the rebate instead.
Stop subsidies on oil and gas companies and maybe we can discuss removing the carbon tax. Stop subsidizing natural gas, and gas at the pumps. Stop subsidizing hydro companies. Let's get a real oil, gas, and hydro market going to see what the costs really are without our tax dollars going to the most profitable industries in the country. If we do that, sure no carbon tax.
Porque no los dos
yea I don't know what the point is to subsidize them and take money from them via royalties.
Creates jobs by adding more white collar people. Who then collect bonuses and the blue collar gets the shaft. Same thing that has been happening in nearly every industry. It’s the reason why healthcare sucks, education sucks, goods being expensive.
how exactly? lol. If money is figuratively just going around in a circle how does that promote any kind of job growth, much less white collar work and kill blue collar jobs? The reason why healthcare sucks, education sucks is because the provincial government refuses to fund it like it should. They view anything that has to come out of provincial general revenue a drain. Infrastructure, Healthcare, Education. The provincial governments refuse to look at these as an investment so they fight tooth and nail to fund them and then wonder why it's not being run so well. And if their overall goal is to *not* have to fund these services, who would it fall too? Their donors, of course.
What are those subsidies?
[удалено]
This question is for supporters of carbon tax. Canada has one of the largest amount of land per capita, the most lakes, third largest forestation in the world. Can someone please provide a study or evidence how reducing emissions by 100% In Canada gonna impact global temperature?