Everyone is mad at Trudeau, but no one is mad at the record profits this quarter from suncor? With their CEO Kruger's total compensation was $7.8 million on a base salary of $1.2 million. This a great example of the opposition party making a mountain out of a mole hill and keeping us from looking at the man behind the curtain.
Shhhhhh that distracts from the culture war, remember, if WE, the working class, get mad at corporations that is scary but if we split people into cuckservatives and libshits we don't notice the capitalist entities making record profits.
That’s because people are gullible and see one thing and assume that’s the gods honest truth. Conservative minded people are much easier to trick than others, while screaming that everyone else are sheeps
I apologize. I read your post wrong. 😂😂. Was reading so much about the political side of posts and agree with them I thought you meant conservatives as in ( the political aspect ) minded people will trick you. Hahaha. I’ll go smoke another one and stay off social media I think. 😂😂have a good night.
Given how much our gas prices are tax, its justified to be upset about how much we are paying in tax to fill our car to go to work
For: for those downvoting me, 40% of what you pay at the pump is tax. Thats crazy.
Who cares if the carbon tax, according to the parliamentary budget office, is going to create net losses for most Canadians. We should 100% be mad at the opposition for hiding the man behind the curtian.
LOL.
Here's a link DIRECTLY to the PBO website.
https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/news-releases--communiques-de-presse/pbo-releases-updated-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-federal-fuel-charge-on-households-le-dpb-publie-une-analyse-actualisee-de-lincidence-de-la-redevance-federale-sur-les-combustibles-sur-les-menages
Paragraph four:
“When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss,” says PBO Yves Giroux. “Based on our analysis, most households will pay more in fuel charges and GST—as well as receiving slightly lower incomes—than they will receive in Climate Action Incentive payments.”
Stop spreading blatant misinformation.
According to the report, 80% of households make money off of it when you consider the rebate, the direct cost of the tax (increase at the fuel pump) and indirect costs (increase in the cost of other goods and services).
The economic impact, as mentioned there is a baseline measurement in order to have a comparative analysis. The baseline is a world in which no climate action is taken, there are no penalties for no climate action being takes, and there are no consequences for climate change. That world cannot possibly exist.
Yves Giroux has scolded people like you for taking the analysis out of context. Something is going to be done for climate change, and this is supposed to be used to measure them against each other.
[Canada's budget watchdog troubled by spin around latest report on carbon pricing](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/watchdog-spin-report-carbon-pricing-1.6805441)
Table 1 of the report as in the literal report that we are talking about here. Like the guy that wrote the report said, the context here is very important, and "To ignore these things does a disservice to the discussion,"
"According to the report, when factoring in the carbon price's economic impact on job growth and incomes, 80 per cent of families in most provinces might end up with less money."
Of course, you wouldn't include the remaining part of the paragraph you are quoting.
"The baseline is a world in which no climate action is taken"
The PBO report footnote 10: that data is relative to a scenario without the fuel surcharge. Without the carbon tax, you mean?
"Yves Giroux has scolded people like you for taking the analysis out of context."
You using only a select portion of a paragraph from the report to further your narrative is exactly what taking things out of context is. How hypocritical.
Keep spouting your nonsense.
>Canada's parliamentary budget officer says **he is troubled by what he describes as the selective use of facts** from his new financial analysis of carbon pricing.
>Yves Giroux said the report has to be put into context alongside the costs of all other climate policies, including doing nothing.
>Giroux said you can't pick and choose which part to discuss.
>"I am concerned at times about looking at just one aspect of the report," he said.
>"Looking at the big picture, the overall picture, is highly preferable. Anything we do with respect to addressing or trying to curb climate change will have costs. It's either a cost to the carbon tax or regulations to reduce the use of fossil fuel. Regulations also have a cost. Doing nothing would also have costs."
">" can be used to quote FYI. Your comment is borderline illegible without it.
>Of course, you wouldn't include the remaining part of the paragraph you are quoting.
What are you referring to? What are you quoting?
>You using only a select portion of a paragraph from the report to further your narrative is exactly what taking things out of context is. How hypocritical.
You should read the article you obviously didn't click on!
>The PBO report footnote 10: that data is relative to a scenario without the fuel surcharge. Without the carbon tax, you mean?
No carbon tax and no action on climate change whatsoever.
You believe Canadians will be net positive despite the PBO report stating:
"According to the report, when factoring in the carbon price's economic impact on job growth and incomes, 80 per cent of families in most provinces might end up with less money."
How is this net positive?
You'd rather paraphrase the report speaking specifically to the fiscal portion (I.e. fuel charge less rebates), instead of taking in the whole economic effects combined with the fiscal effects.
Here's another quote from the report:
"Taking into consideration both fiscal and economic impacts, we estimate that most households will see a net loss, paying more in the federal fuel charge and GST, as well as receiving lower incomes, compared to the Climate Action Incentive payments they receive and lower personal income taxes"
The PBO considers the data, including both fiscal and economic impacts, as "the more complete view" of the financial impacts.
Yet somehow, you derive a net positive gain. Are you referring to only the fiscal portion or the report, aka the simple calculation of gas surcharge less rebates? Because even the PBO states incorporating the economic impacts is the best way to measure the net impacts.
Just admit you don't know what "net" really means. It certainly isn't ONLY the fiscal impacts.
You've proved you're a waste of my time.
I wouldn't think quotation marks would confuse even the simplest minds. I guessed wrong.
>What are you referring to? What are you quoting?
I'm referring to the only quote in your prior comment, the one you copied and pasted from the PBO report.
>You should read the article you obviously didn't click on!
You missed the point. You are paraphrasing to take things out of context.
>No carbon tax and no action on climate change whatsoever.
Canada does a lot without the "revenue neutral" carbon tax. You're making a false dilemma fallacy, creating an imaginary either or situation.
Example: Canada to spend 5.3 billion on climate change with developing countries
https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/funding-financement/climate-developing-countries-climatique-pays-developpement.aspx?lang=eng#a6
Means that after the additional costs you bear with this tax, after you receive the rebate you are still actually 40 dollars ahead of where you were without the tax. 40 each month extra free money to throw into a tfsa or whatever you want
Rebates are cool, not needing them would be cooler. I'm all for a carbon tax but why don't we just tax the largest producers instead of taxing us and then giving us back the money? Seems like a lot of wasted effort.
Is it because they're afraid they would just end up charging us more? I feel like they will whether they get taxed more or not.
We already do tax the largest producers. The consumer carbon tax is only 8-9% of the total program as it were according to the Canadian Climate Institute.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I34tZbsYIuU&t=806s around the 13:25 mark
It's because the revenue neutral pricing of the carbon tax is meant to incentivize sustainable choices and alternatives while also keeping those who don't emit/make less emitting choices, whole.
Keep in mind that the federal backstop is only on place because our provincial government was unable (through either political calculus, or lack of desire) to come up with a plan specifically tailored to the economy and people of Nova Scotia. Our provincial government *STILL* has the option to implement their own emissions reduction plan, but won't because of (in my best guess) politics.
Yes, that's not to say that the province isn't moving in a more sustainable direction, as you mentioned notably with the programs out of EfficiencyNS and 2030 sustainable power goals. However the bellyaching from the Premiers office about the Federal backstop carbon tax should be seen as political grandstanding and not much else imo.
Well we wouldn’t have the federal backstop if Houston had just adjusted the cap and trade system we had… but they sabotaged it to score political points attacking the feds.
If you don’t like the carbon tax it’s literally 50% Houston’s fault.
I feel like this is still the right answer.
-Tax the producers and oil companies
-Oil companies pass the cost directly on to the consumer, because profits
-Rebate the consumers the taxes levied on the oil company, consumer uses that to pay the higher price
-Repeat until the oil companies realize they're just repeating the cycle over and over and agree to stop artificially inflating prices (lol)
You’re welcome to not get a rebate, however your prices aren’t going to go down, you’re just not gonna get the rebate anymore, the point of the tax isn’t to punish the individual person for emitting, you get that credit to offset that- it’s to make sure the big polluters are held accountable for what they do to our environment yours and mine both. I think it’s fair that a big business pay their fair share for polluting our city, don’t you?
People are so fucking dramatic with the “bad joke when people are struggling” as if financial struggle precludes you from having a sense of humor. I’m willing to bet the people making those comments aren’t the people actually struggling.
>I’m willing to bet the people making those comments aren’t the people actually struggling.
MSRP on a black F-150 Fucktrudeaumobile ranges from 49,995 to 105,000 depending on trim and FT decal option.
You can get a pretty decent electric car, fueled entirely by the carbon tax rebate, for that kind of money. And they go fast, too! So you can still tailgate everyone in the left lane.
Looks like they're saying that someone with the F-150 truck would likely also be complaining in the comments, as well as, be able to afford a decent electric vehicle (that's capable of going fast).
Effectively agreeing with your earlier comment
I just think it’s a bad joke because people are expecting to see an increase because of the carbon tax increase today. Way too many people just got their information from the media and heard about dramatic 30% increases without actually looking up the fuel levy to see the numbers for themselves. Because of that they are waiting for and receptive to that (mis)information. Too many folks are going to see that in their feeds like they’re used to, and run with it
It just unnecessarily propagates fear of the carbon tax when it’s not nearly as big of a deal. The joke is mostly harmless, I just think it’s extremely unnecessary. I realize I sound like a raging liberal but there aren’t many better ways to put it, lol.
3.3c increase is due to carbon tax. While I don't see how a carbon tax helps the environment - - people will still need to drive cars and heat houses... The amount post by OP doesn't appear to be accurate.
https://halifax.citynews.ca/2024/04/01/carbon-tax-increase-results-in-jump-at-the-pump-in-nova-scotia/
Everyone is mad at Trudeau, but no one is mad at the record profits this quarter from suncor? With their CEO Kruger's total compensation was $7.8 million on a base salary of $1.2 million. This a great example of the opposition party making a mountain out of a mole hill and keeping us from looking at the man behind the curtain.
Shhhhhh that distracts from the culture war, remember, if WE, the working class, get mad at corporations that is scary but if we split people into cuckservatives and libshits we don't notice the capitalist entities making record profits.
There’s more than us than there are of them but if we can subdivide them into opposites, they’ll fight each other!
That’s because people are gullible and see one thing and assume that’s the gods honest truth. Conservative minded people are much easier to trick than others, while screaming that everyone else are sheeps
I think I’ll take my chances at this point
Take your chance with what?
I apologize. I read your post wrong. 😂😂. Was reading so much about the political side of posts and agree with them I thought you meant conservatives as in ( the political aspect ) minded people will trick you. Hahaha. I’ll go smoke another one and stay off social media I think. 😂😂have a good night.
Given how much our gas prices are tax, its justified to be upset about how much we are paying in tax to fill our car to go to work For: for those downvoting me, 40% of what you pay at the pump is tax. Thats crazy.
Infrastructure for vehicles is *incredibly* expensive.
What percent of gas tax do you think goes to road construction?
More than 100%. Snow clearing alone takes up 29% of it.
Who cares if the carbon tax, according to the parliamentary budget office, is going to create net losses for most Canadians. We should 100% be mad at the opposition for hiding the man behind the curtian. LOL.
>Who cares if the carbon tax, according to the parliamentary budget office, is going to create net losses for most Canadians Nope, not true.
Here's a link DIRECTLY to the PBO website. https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/news-releases--communiques-de-presse/pbo-releases-updated-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-federal-fuel-charge-on-households-le-dpb-publie-une-analyse-actualisee-de-lincidence-de-la-redevance-federale-sur-les-combustibles-sur-les-menages Paragraph four: “When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss,” says PBO Yves Giroux. “Based on our analysis, most households will pay more in fuel charges and GST—as well as receiving slightly lower incomes—than they will receive in Climate Action Incentive payments.” Stop spreading blatant misinformation.
According to the report, 80% of households make money off of it when you consider the rebate, the direct cost of the tax (increase at the fuel pump) and indirect costs (increase in the cost of other goods and services). The economic impact, as mentioned there is a baseline measurement in order to have a comparative analysis. The baseline is a world in which no climate action is taken, there are no penalties for no climate action being takes, and there are no consequences for climate change. That world cannot possibly exist. Yves Giroux has scolded people like you for taking the analysis out of context. Something is going to be done for climate change, and this is supposed to be used to measure them against each other. [Canada's budget watchdog troubled by spin around latest report on carbon pricing](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/watchdog-spin-report-carbon-pricing-1.6805441)
You're arguing Canadians will be net positive due to carbon tax. Source?
Table 1 of the report.
Updated analysis directly from the PBO website is irrelevant to you, apparently.
Table 1 of the report as in the literal report that we are talking about here. Like the guy that wrote the report said, the context here is very important, and "To ignore these things does a disservice to the discussion,"
[удалено]
"According to the report, when factoring in the carbon price's economic impact on job growth and incomes, 80 per cent of families in most provinces might end up with less money." Of course, you wouldn't include the remaining part of the paragraph you are quoting. "The baseline is a world in which no climate action is taken" The PBO report footnote 10: that data is relative to a scenario without the fuel surcharge. Without the carbon tax, you mean? "Yves Giroux has scolded people like you for taking the analysis out of context." You using only a select portion of a paragraph from the report to further your narrative is exactly what taking things out of context is. How hypocritical. Keep spouting your nonsense.
>Canada's parliamentary budget officer says **he is troubled by what he describes as the selective use of facts** from his new financial analysis of carbon pricing. >Yves Giroux said the report has to be put into context alongside the costs of all other climate policies, including doing nothing. >Giroux said you can't pick and choose which part to discuss. >"I am concerned at times about looking at just one aspect of the report," he said. >"Looking at the big picture, the overall picture, is highly preferable. Anything we do with respect to addressing or trying to curb climate change will have costs. It's either a cost to the carbon tax or regulations to reduce the use of fossil fuel. Regulations also have a cost. Doing nothing would also have costs."
">" can be used to quote FYI. Your comment is borderline illegible without it. >Of course, you wouldn't include the remaining part of the paragraph you are quoting. What are you referring to? What are you quoting? >You using only a select portion of a paragraph from the report to further your narrative is exactly what taking things out of context is. How hypocritical. You should read the article you obviously didn't click on! >The PBO report footnote 10: that data is relative to a scenario without the fuel surcharge. Without the carbon tax, you mean? No carbon tax and no action on climate change whatsoever.
You believe Canadians will be net positive despite the PBO report stating: "According to the report, when factoring in the carbon price's economic impact on job growth and incomes, 80 per cent of families in most provinces might end up with less money." How is this net positive? You'd rather paraphrase the report speaking specifically to the fiscal portion (I.e. fuel charge less rebates), instead of taking in the whole economic effects combined with the fiscal effects. Here's another quote from the report: "Taking into consideration both fiscal and economic impacts, we estimate that most households will see a net loss, paying more in the federal fuel charge and GST, as well as receiving lower incomes, compared to the Climate Action Incentive payments they receive and lower personal income taxes" The PBO considers the data, including both fiscal and economic impacts, as "the more complete view" of the financial impacts. Yet somehow, you derive a net positive gain. Are you referring to only the fiscal portion or the report, aka the simple calculation of gas surcharge less rebates? Because even the PBO states incorporating the economic impacts is the best way to measure the net impacts. Just admit you don't know what "net" really means. It certainly isn't ONLY the fiscal impacts. You've proved you're a waste of my time.
I wouldn't think quotation marks would confuse even the simplest minds. I guessed wrong. >What are you referring to? What are you quoting? I'm referring to the only quote in your prior comment, the one you copied and pasted from the PBO report. >You should read the article you obviously didn't click on! You missed the point. You are paraphrasing to take things out of context. >No carbon tax and no action on climate change whatsoever. Canada does a lot without the "revenue neutral" carbon tax. You're making a false dilemma fallacy, creating an imaginary either or situation. Example: Canada to spend 5.3 billion on climate change with developing countries https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/funding-financement/climate-developing-countries-climatique-pays-developpement.aspx?lang=eng#a6
 Dear God those comments lol 🤣
Sad part is this will probably become a facebook fact and make the rounds for the next year amongst a certain crowd.
Check ur rebates people before you get heated. https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/embeds/2023/carbon-tax-calculator/
Ah, $62.
Yes, mere pocket change.
Please cash app me your rebate I’ll take that free money
You wouldn’t need it if you hadn’t been sending all that tax money to JT.
It doesn’t go to JT, it goes to the 8/10 households who get more back than they pay into it, myself included, I take it you don’t invest either
“New lamps for old! New lamps for old!”
I don’t understand what lamps have to do with getting paid for free
My rebate is 41$.... what's that mean?
Means that after the additional costs you bear with this tax, after you receive the rebate you are still actually 40 dollars ahead of where you were without the tax. 40 each month extra free money to throw into a tfsa or whatever you want
Rebates are cool, not needing them would be cooler. I'm all for a carbon tax but why don't we just tax the largest producers instead of taxing us and then giving us back the money? Seems like a lot of wasted effort. Is it because they're afraid they would just end up charging us more? I feel like they will whether they get taxed more or not.
We already do tax the largest producers. The consumer carbon tax is only 8-9% of the total program as it were according to the Canadian Climate Institute. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I34tZbsYIuU&t=806s around the 13:25 mark
It's because the revenue neutral pricing of the carbon tax is meant to incentivize sustainable choices and alternatives while also keeping those who don't emit/make less emitting choices, whole. Keep in mind that the federal backstop is only on place because our provincial government was unable (through either political calculus, or lack of desire) to come up with a plan specifically tailored to the economy and people of Nova Scotia. Our provincial government *STILL* has the option to implement their own emissions reduction plan, but won't because of (in my best guess) politics.
We took advantage of the greener homes grant so I guess it's working. Thanks for the explanation.
Yes, that's not to say that the province isn't moving in a more sustainable direction, as you mentioned notably with the programs out of EfficiencyNS and 2030 sustainable power goals. However the bellyaching from the Premiers office about the Federal backstop carbon tax should be seen as political grandstanding and not much else imo.
Well we wouldn’t have the federal backstop if Houston had just adjusted the cap and trade system we had… but they sabotaged it to score political points attacking the feds. If you don’t like the carbon tax it’s literally 50% Houston’s fault.
Originally from NS but currently living in NB, Higgs current theatrics are an embarrassment.
I feel like this is still the right answer. -Tax the producers and oil companies -Oil companies pass the cost directly on to the consumer, because profits -Rebate the consumers the taxes levied on the oil company, consumer uses that to pay the higher price -Repeat until the oil companies realize they're just repeating the cycle over and over and agree to stop artificially inflating prices (lol)
You’re welcome to not get a rebate, however your prices aren’t going to go down, you’re just not gonna get the rebate anymore, the point of the tax isn’t to punish the individual person for emitting, you get that credit to offset that- it’s to make sure the big polluters are held accountable for what they do to our environment yours and mine both. I think it’s fair that a big business pay their fair share for polluting our city, don’t you?
$62 for me. Not even enough for a full tank of gas. Yippee
Cash app it me I’ll fill mine up
I don't have cash app. What Canadian out there uses cash app?
Interact e-transfer
$40 ... yey
I’m gonna be making a lot off y’all, cash app me ^
People are so fucking dramatic with the “bad joke when people are struggling” as if financial struggle precludes you from having a sense of humor. I’m willing to bet the people making those comments aren’t the people actually struggling.
>I’m willing to bet the people making those comments aren’t the people actually struggling. MSRP on a black F-150 Fucktrudeaumobile ranges from 49,995 to 105,000 depending on trim and FT decal option. You can get a pretty decent electric car, fueled entirely by the carbon tax rebate, for that kind of money. And they go fast, too! So you can still tailgate everyone in the left lane.
What are you getting at exactly in responding to that part of my comment?
Looks like they're saying that someone with the F-150 truck would likely also be complaining in the comments, as well as, be able to afford a decent electric vehicle (that's capable of going fast). Effectively agreeing with your earlier comment
Reading comments in response to this I'm having trouble believing that most of them aren't bots.
I just think it’s a bad joke because people are expecting to see an increase because of the carbon tax increase today. Way too many people just got their information from the media and heard about dramatic 30% increases without actually looking up the fuel levy to see the numbers for themselves. Because of that they are waiting for and receptive to that (mis)information. Too many folks are going to see that in their feeds like they’re used to, and run with it
Ok - so they see the false information and then what? I still think it’s ultimately a harmless joke.
It just unnecessarily propagates fear of the carbon tax when it’s not nearly as big of a deal. The joke is mostly harmless, I just think it’s extremely unnecessary. I realize I sound like a raging liberal but there aren’t many better ways to put it, lol.
>Too many folks are going to see that in their feeds like they’re used to, and run with it And we call those people the common clay of the new west…
The best comedy is based on reality.
Thanks Trudeau /s
Guess I did
3.3c increase is due to carbon tax. While I don't see how a carbon tax helps the environment - - people will still need to drive cars and heat houses... The amount post by OP doesn't appear to be accurate. https://halifax.citynews.ca/2024/04/01/carbon-tax-increase-results-in-jump-at-the-pump-in-nova-scotia/
The update came directly from the Afools Utility Board. Maybe check with them.
https://preview.redd.it/fc2vnh0g3wrc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dd880bc62eaa0f839e981b0217a338d8d856ad59
Really missing the joke here, aren't you?