# Federal Carbon Tax



## FJAG (25 Oct 2018)

As a resident of Ontario I'm going to be effected by the Federal carbon Tax. 

While I'm not a climate change denier, I'm a great sceptic of the whole carbon tax/exchange concept. This most recent initiative by the Federal government is leaving me somewhat confused.

As I understand it the Feds will be collecting a carbon tax levied on all the big carbon generators (which in effect is primarily energy producers and manufacturers) which will trickle down their price increases to us consumers. To offset these costs we're all getting a rebate from the government which, theoretically, will make the cost neutral on us consumers.

My question is how does this money traveling in a circle reduce carbon emissions? Being the cynic that I am all I see is a shadow play to make it look like the government is actually doing something about pollution while leaving the ordinary voter with the false impression that it is not costing them anything (or even worse that the government is actually giving them something). In the meantime our industries will be less competitive then they already are against their international competitors who merrily pollute the world while turning out cheap products. (Let's not forget that Ontario became a manufacturing powerhouse because of cheap electrical energy in the 1950s - an advantage which has long since been stripped away by successive stupidity on the part of various Ontario governments)

Am I missing something or is this program really such a superficially shallow shell game?

 :stars:


----------



## GAP (25 Oct 2018)

Election 2019


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Oct 2018)

You're not missing anything. What's missing is the public's realization that there is only one source of tax revenue, and that's the individual. It doesn't matter if you say you're going to tax polluters, corporations or whatever the demon-de-jur is. The costs are passed on down stream to the great unwashed. 

This is nothing more than an attempt to bribe us with our own money.


----------



## kratz (25 Oct 2018)

CBC.ca

It's important to note, not all Canadians will receive a Carbon Tax rebate if you live in:


> ...Quebec, Alberta, B.C., Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador.





The only provinces not participating with Ottawa's plan are:


> ...Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick starting in April 2019, and Yukon and Nunavut as of July 2019.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Oct 2018)

We could cut our emissions by 50% tomorrow, and only lower the global emissions by 0.8%. Microscopic change. We're going to bankrupt Canadian companies and citizens to change global emissions by less than 0.25%.


----------



## Xylric (26 Oct 2018)

Charging Canadians a tax like this is completely baffling if you know the slightest bit about ecology, sustainability dynamics (which my sister-in-law has a Master's Degree in), and environmental economics. Because of our absurdly low population density, we live in the planet's biggest carbon sink, since we've got the largest continuous forest on the planet. 

We should get it so that other countries pay *us.*


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Oct 2018)

Give someone your money and they promise you'll get a even more money back.

Classic _ Nigerian Prince_ stuff right there.


Carbon tax is a scam. Companies that go over the limit just end up paying a small fine. Proceeds from thaf fine are supposedly used to pay for very ambiguous "climate change research" and programs.

Think I'd trust sending money to a Nigerian Prince first.


----------



## YZT580 (26 Oct 2018)

The EU has had a carbon tax for years now.  Are there any statistics to demonstrate that there has been one scintilla of reduction with the exception of industry loses from plant closures or re-location?


----------



## Pusser (26 Oct 2018)

Folks seem to be missing the difference between the new federal carbon tax and the old Ontario cap and trade program.  They're not the same thing.  

Under cap and trade, Ontario companies were capped at how much carbon they could produce with impunity.  If they went over their cap, they would have to pay a fee.  However, smaller carbon producers could trade away (i.e. sell) the unused portion of their caps to larger carbon producers, presumably for less than the fines that would be charged for over-production.  The overall cap would represent an overall reduction in carbon emissions, but it could be spread around so that large carbon producers would not be saddled with the impossible goals that an across the board demand for reduction would entail.  Sounds nice in theory, but cap and trade has been widely criticized for being ineffective.  What makes it really silly is that it was not limited to Ontario.  Ontario companies could (and apparently did) actually buy carbon credits from companies in California.  As I see it, this system doesn't actually encourage companies to develop technologies to reduce emissions.  They can simply buy their way out of it.

If I understand it correctly, the new federal carbon tax is an across the board tax on carbon production.  If you produce a lot, you'll pay a lot.  This would be an actual incentive to reduce emissions if you want to keep your costs down.  Of course, there is only one taxpayer and these increased taxes will be passed onto the consumer.  In order to offset, the federal government will be giving rebates to *individuals*.  This is a key point.  The companies are not getting the rebates, individuals are.  In other words, production costs will remain high for carbon producers, encouraging them to reduce emissions, but the effect of them passing the cost onto consumers should be minimal.  At least that's the theory...


----------



## Blackadder1916 (26 Oct 2018)

kratz said:
			
		

> CBC.ca
> 
> It's important to note, not all Canadians will receive a Carbon Tax rebate if you live in:
> 
> ...



I can't speak to the other provinces, but in Alberta we receive a carbon rebate from the provincial carbon levy program.

https://www.alberta.ca/climate-carbon-pricing.aspx


----------



## FJAG (26 Oct 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> If I understand it correctly, the new federal carbon tax is an across the board tax on carbon production.  If you produce a lot, you'll pay a lot.  This would be an actual incentive to reduce emissions if you want to keep your costs down.  Of course, there is only one taxpayer and these increased taxes will be passed onto the consumer.  In order to offset, the federal government will be giving rebates to *individuals*.  This is a key point.  The companies are not getting the rebates, individuals are.  In other words, production costs will remain high for carbon producers, encouraging them to reduce emissions, but the effect of them passing the cost onto consumers should be minimal.  At least that's the theory...



If the company can and does pass on the cost of the tax to the ultimate consumer then what incentive is there for the company to reduce emissions?

The problem is compounded if off-shore products appear in competition with the domestic company's. In a free enterprise system consumers will always gravitate to the least expensive option (assuming quality is comparable). Consumers will generally not "pay" out of their own pockets for something as nebulous as that. I recently booked some flights where I was given an option to a) voluntarily pay the carbon offset for my seat, b) voluntarily pay the carbon offset for the whole flight, or c) pay nothing. Which one do you think I picked?

 :cheers:


----------



## Pusser (29 Oct 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> If the company can and does pass on the cost of the tax to the ultimate consumer then what incentive is there for the company to reduce emissions?
> 
> 
> :cheers:



Theoretically, I suppose, it's an incentive to the company because they still have to pay, but the ultimate burden on the taxpayer is removed by the rebate.  Note that I'm not defending this as a viable plan, just explaining it as I understand or perceive the logic.  Whether it works remains to be seen.  Frankly, most taxpayers will likely not see the connection between the $1.50 they pay at the pump and the $600 rebate they see on their income tax returns.


----------



## Furniture (29 Oct 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Theoretically, I suppose, it's an incentive to the company because they still have to pay, but the ultimate burden on the taxpayer is removed by the rebate.  Note that I'm not defending this as a viable plan, just explaining it as I understand or perceive the logic.  Whether it works remains to be seen.  Frankly, most taxpayers will likely not see the connection between the $1.50 they pay at the pump and the $600 rebate they see on their income tax returns.



The $600 is better kept in my pocket, and used as I see fit rather than being gifted back to me by the government. The same government that can decide on a whim the $600 per person would make a nice dent in their deficit, or can be better spent buying votes elsewhere or in another way. 

It appears to be a way to make it look like they are "doing something" without actually having to do anything. Adding yet more complexity to an already complex tax system is not the way to save anything but CRA jobs.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Oct 2018)

:goodpost:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Oct 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> The $600 is better kept in my pocket, and used as I see fit rather than being gifted back to me by the government. The same government that can decide on a whim the $600 per person would make a nice dent in their deficit, or can be better spent buying votes elsewhere or in another way.
> 
> It appears to be a way to make it look like they are "doing something" without actually having to do anything. Adding yet more complexity to an already complex tax system is not the way to save anything CRA jobs.



Is that $600 considered taxable?


----------



## George Wallace (30 Oct 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Is that $600 considered taxable?



The $600 would have to have come from your taxable income, and of course taxed once again when you spend it -- Already double taxed.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Nov 2018)

>My question is how does this money traveling in a circle reduce carbon emissions?

It follows the general belief that "whatever you tax, you get less of", and the knowledge that there are very few people who are thoroughly rational about economics (few will directly connect the increase and the decrease and conclude they need not change anything).  The expectation is that people will respond to increased costs by reducing consumption; the reduction in emissions by the producers is indirect (less consumption, so less production).   To the extent that people respond by reducing consumption, some of the rebated funds are available for other uses; this is a benefit.  But some of the cost increases will be included in the final price of things like transported goods, and to the extent that people try to control those costs, there will be economic contraction (not a benefit).  And some of the consumption is inelastic - I doubt many people change their home heating habits, or commuting habits.  (I suppose that for most people, time and convenience heavily outweigh cost of fuel.)

I have no idea what to expect how it will all play out, other than I always expect unintended consequences.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Nov 2018)

* Feds say carbon price not exempt from GST despite promise it would be revenue neutral* 

OTTAWA -- The federal government's impending national carbon price could bring in more than $250 million in GST revenues next year but Ottawa doesn't intend to account for those funds in its rebate program.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/feds-say-carbon-price-not-exempt-from-gst-despite-promise-it-would-be-revenue-neutral-1.1162075


----------



## FJAG (2 Nov 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> * Feds say carbon price not exempt from GST despite promise it would be revenue neutral*
> 
> OTTAWA -- The federal government's impending national carbon price could bring in more than $250 million in GST revenues next year but Ottawa doesn't intend to account for those funds in its rebate program.
> 
> https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/feds-say-carbon-price-not-exempt-from-gst-despite-promise-it-would-be-revenue-neutral-1.1162075



Anybody out there that still thinks that this whole thing isn't just one big tax-grab?

 :deadhorse:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Nov 2018)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >My question is how does this money traveling in a circle reduce carbon emissions?
> 
> It follows the general belief that "whatever you tax, you get less of", and the knowledge that there are very few people who are thoroughly rational about economics (few will directly connect the increase and the decrease and conclude they need not change anything).  The expectation is that people will respond to increased costs by reducing consumption; the reduction in emissions by the producers is indirect (less consumption, so less production).   To the extent that people respond by reducing consumption, some of the rebated funds are available for other uses; this is a benefit.  But some of the cost increases will be included in the final price of things like transported goods, and to the extent that people try to control those costs, there will be economic contraction (not a benefit).  And some of the consumption is inelastic - I doubt many people change their home heating habits, or commuting habits.  (I suppose that for most people, time and convenience heavily outweigh cost of fuel.)
> 
> I have no idea what to expect how it will all play out, other than I always expect unintended consequences.



Time is a major factor for me, driving to work costs me about $5-7 more a day, but saves me at least an hour total on the commute. That hour adds up, plus I can stop along the way and pick up items or even go a round about route and  get those items, something that would add hours to my commute, not minutes. So yes I get punished for valuing time over carbon.


----------



## Remius (2 Nov 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Time is a major factor for me, driving to work costs me about $5-7 more a day, but saves me at least an hour total on the commute. That hour adds up, plus I can stop along the way and pick up items or even go a round about route and  get those items, something that would add hours to my commute, not minutes. So yes I get punished for valuing time over carbon.



And this is the issue.  Where I live the local government pushes the public transit and bike paths.  Time is the big issue.  A 15 min car ride translates into a an hour and half bus ride.  A carbon tax won't change my mind at all about using my car.  

It works for those centered in the city's central core but forget it outside of that.  Taking the bus isn't worth the three hours I'd lose.


----------



## kev994 (3 Nov 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> And this is the issue.  Where I live the local government pushes the public transit and bike paths.  Time is the big issue.  A 15 min car ride translates into a an hour and half bus ride.  A carbon tax won't change my mind at all about using my car.
> 
> It works for those centered in the city's central core but forget it outside of that.  Taking the bus isn't worth the three hours I'd lose.


But maybe the next time you buy a car the fuel consumption will be a bigger concern because of the increase in fuel price. The assumption is that this will be the case for at least some people and  the carbon tax will have done what it was meant to do.


----------



## Furniture (3 Nov 2018)

kev994 said:
			
		

> But maybe the next time you buy a car the fuel consumption will be a bigger concern because of the increase in fuel price. The assumption is that this will be the case for at least some people and  the carbon tax will have done what it was meant to do.



If it is meant to make us all poorer, and have more restricted lifestyle it will be mission accomplished. Won't save the environment, but that appears to be secondary to making more tax money to buy votes. 

When the industries and countries contributing far more to pollution are exempted from a tax like this it has no hope of doing anything for the environment. All it will do is allow our hopefully future former PM  to fly off to all corners of the world and proclaim how "green" we are. Of course Canadians will be green, with envy at what our neighbours ot the south can afford to do because they won't be saddled with a massive tax imposed for political posturing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Nov 2018)

kev994 said:
			
		

> But maybe the next time you buy a car the fuel consumption will be a bigger concern because of the increase in fuel price. The assumption is that this will be the case for at least some people and  the carbon tax will have done what it was meant to do.




This is the theory behind all so-called "sin taxes:" they aim to change our behaviours by making something we do more expensive and, therefore, less desirable.

The 1973 oil crisis gave this theory a lot of impetus ... the economy car segment of the market grew exponentially, to the advantage of Asian (then largely Japanese) auto makers and at the expense of the American 'big three' who were unprepared to meet that demand.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Nov 2018)

kev994 said:
			
		

> But maybe the next time you buy a car the fuel consumption will be a bigger concern because of the increase in fuel price.



Seems elitist.  Bigger cars are only for the rich and well off and will become even more of a status symbol.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Nov 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Anybody out there that still thinks that this whole thing isn't just one big tax-grab?
> 
> :deadhorse:



My thoughts?

That's exactly what it is, in my mind.

Trudeau's shell game is just that, a shell game. Give us back more than we put in? A fallacy at best, a pyramid scheme at it's worst.

The CO2 emission argument is a mumbo jumbo boogy man. Pushing them down, lowering they call it, at the expense of vegetation and agriculture growth and oxygen output of the same. Canada's trees alone nearly put us in a carbon deficit, if not into the negative. We should be paid by the rest of the world for being the carbon scrubber that we are. Not paying others to ignore the protocol and increase carbon output on our dollar.

I think, the liberal government has wasted so many billions of our dollars, they've run out of cash to give away for their UN seat project and they need a fresh influx of cash to take care of their benefactors.

Our PM grew up privileged and without want. He has no concept of cash flow. It's just easier to keep reaching in the bag, without looking at how empty it's gotten.

Taxing us is easier than turning on the printing presses at the Canadian Mint.

I'm waiting for Ford to roll out his carbon plan. It will be wonderful, if he can exceed the liberal targets and goals, while not impinging on personal finances the way the liberal plan does.

If it does turn out to be better, will the liberals adopt it and drop their tax? They should, but I don't think they will. This tax was never designed to go fight climate change. It was designed to fleece the citizen and donate to liberal favoured financial giveaways.

The fact that the liberals have moved us to a trillion dollar deficit where our surpluses no longer cover that debt, has effectively bankrupted us.

Harper left a surplus and the best recovered world economy after the recession, and in three years under the liberals, we are now a red headed stepchild to the likes of Greece, that financial powerhouse of the EU   .

Taxes are the preferred means of liberals to collect free money They've taxed and spent us into the poor house, but they just keep taking.


----------



## Will M (10 Nov 2018)

As with all taxes they go into the big pot and later decisions aim the $$$. Chances are ZERO $$ will be effectively spent on a debatable idea of climate change, even the name is changed from global warming. There is some science to it, political spin to remove $$ from our pockets.
The truth is elusive and no time in the history of mankind did anyone spend $$ on trying to change living conditions long after the people would have passed on. What humans do best is adapt, but we react to fear the most and govt knows this and uses this to extract even more tax.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Nov 2018)

Since the idea of a "carbon tax" is to attack energy use, the changes in the rprice of energy could throw a real wrench into plans:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/crude’s-collapse-is-sending-shockwaves-across-global-markets/ar-BBPI3B4?ocid=spartanntp

The effects of the collapse of crude prices are different across the economy and around the world, but the primary effect will likely be to reduce the amount of tax the Feds can grab from consumers, at least in the short term.


----------



## FJAG (1 Apr 2019)

Well, the Federally mandated Carbon Tax goes into effect today in Ontario and three other provinces. All the press releases seem to indicate that on average one should get back slightly more in rebates so that one is a few dollars ahead by the end of the year. Not quite sure how this becomes an incentive to reduce my carbon footprint if in the end I get money back.

Is anyone else confused by the fact that the government is "forced to do this" because of the agreement we signed at the Paris accord but we don't seem bound to spend 2% of the GDP on defence notwithstanding that we signed up for that as well.

 :stars:


----------



## TechCrmn (1 Apr 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> If the company can and does pass on the cost of the tax to the ultimate consumer then what incentive is there for the company to reduce emissions?



I believe the incentive for the company to reduce their emissions is exactly what you had hinted on further down in your post...Competitiveness. If the company raises the price of their products as a result of the Carbon Tax they are effectively making their products less competitive in a market of similar quality products. This in turn results in lower sales, and therefore lower revenues.

The real question is, does the cost of becoming greener and reducing Carbon Tax payments outweigh the potential loss of profits due to loss of competitiveness from outside markets?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Apr 2019)

People are still talking like this tax has something to do with the climate. The climate change angle is a scam. All this does is make people afraid to drive and buy necessities. Forcing people into trying to economize their already cash strapped lives is not a climate solution. Infrastructure is. However, the grit climate plan has no contingency for that, in Canada. Although it seems we're financing everyone else's, we don't have finances for our own non existent plan. Nobody has a plan, because there is no plan that can be applied through these revenues. The Canada Pension fund has been raided to the tune of $2 Billion for his international giveaways.

We are going to tax you on pollution, then give you the money back? That doesn't even make sense to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Any money not returned will be eaten up in administration..............or given away to third world countries. You will see no rebate.

On the subject of giveaways, where is the government site we can check that is supposed to be the due diligence on these projects. Who's accounting for the billions he's given away? What companies have won the contracts. Where is the oversight?

Without proof of project, his giveaways may well just be considered money laundering to some and on that line. How many contracts are the Clinton and Trudeau Foundations involved in. One only need to look at the Clinton Foundation Salvation of Haiti debacle to see where the money goes on these types of sponsored projects.

If the grits are still a party next tax season and somehow still in charge, all you'll get is lies on why you didn't get your rebate. Not working? We'll raise it (as already planned) but you'll still never get a rebate.

If Scheer gets in, it gets cancelled. 

Others may see something I don't, but that's how I see this whole fiasco.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Apr 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Well, the Federally mandated Carbon Tax goes into effect today in Ontario and three other provinces. All the press releases seem to indicate that on average one should get back slightly more in rebates so that one is a few dollars ahead by the end of the year ...


Not covered in the rebate is the price hike more than a few gas stations in said provinces kicked in mid last week.  In my area code, prices went from ~$1.19/litre to ~$1.32/liter -- today, I bought a bit of gas at $1.40/litre.

You'd think someone was thinking that folks would want to fuel up before some occasion, like a long weekend, or a carbon tax hike?  Not to mention the benefits of letting the government take all the blame for the price increase.

#TrustGasCompaniesLessThenPoliticians


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Apr 2019)

I'm sure nobody missed the symmetry of it being introduced on April fool's day.


----------



## Remius (1 Apr 2019)

My take is that the rebate was introduced to soften the blow. 

The plan would be to repeal the rebate quietly after the next election.  (Assuming they can actually get elected again given the current state of affairs)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Apr 2019)

There wont be any rebates. He already spent it all on climate infrastucture in other countries, or so he says. We've yet to see a single progress report or accounting for a single dollar of the billions he's given away. 

He says you'll get a rebate, but I'm trying to remember the last time he told the truth.

It's not coming to me.


----------



## Remius (1 Apr 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> There wont be any rebates. He already spent it all on climate infrastucture in other countries, or so he says. We've yet to see a single progress report or accounting for a single dollar of the billions he's given away.
> 
> He says you'll get a rebate, but I'm trying to remember the last time he told the truth.
> 
> It's not coming to me.



Not if you didn’t claim.  Line 449 of your tax form.   It is not very obvious but it is there.  I plan on getting it while I can.


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 May 2019)

Sask. CA says the tax is constitutional and legal. 3-2 decision. The dissenting decision is quite strong and persuasive.  

https://sasklawcourts.ca/images/documents/CA_2019SKCA040.pdf  

"[386] In conclusion, we agree that the power to tax involves the power to destroy and that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create (M’Culloch). Those words have great import in this reference because, as we have explained, the Provincial legislatures have the power to create their own GHG emissions strategies under ss. 92(2), (5), (10), (13) and (16) and s. 92A and s. 93 and Parliament has the power to tax under s. 91(3)."


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 May 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Sask. CA says the tax is constitutional and legal. 3-2 decision. The dissenting decision is quite strong and persuasive.
> 
> https://sasklawcourts.ca/images/documents/CA_2019SKCA040.pdf
> 
> "[386] In conclusion, we agree that the power to tax involves the power to destroy and that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create (M’Culloch). Those words have great import in this reference because, as we have explained, the Provincial legislatures have the power to create their own GHG emissions strategies under ss. 92(2), (5), (10), (13) and (16) and s. 92A and s. 93 and Parliament has the power to tax under s. 91(3)."



Off to the Supremes we go!!  :cheers:


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Dec 2019)

She also mentioned high unemployment as a concern. Would this be the result of the carbon tax ?


----------



## brihard (26 Dec 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> She also mentioned high unemployment as a concern. Would this be the result of the carbon tax ?



No, there's no solid data that I've seen to indicate any significant impact on the economy from the carbon tax. Without knowing where in Canada she's living and what her local economy is, it's hard to say. Quite frankly if she's calling in to Rush Limbaugh, I suspect she's not that attuned to actual economic data and is probably spitballing based on what she thinks is true.

Canada's unemployment rate is around 5.9% overall, which is pretty good. Some provinces have historically higher or historically lower rates of unemployment. 

Alberta has seen a spike in unemployment in the past year as a result of the decline of their oil industry, but that's not really got anything to do with the carbon tax. Alberta sits on a lot of very expensive to extract oil, and the shale oil expansion in the U.S. has killed a lot of our oil producers that were producing at the margin of profitability, and which can no longer make money until oil prices go up again. A lot of wells are sitting there idle right now. While we do have problems with getting Alberta oil to market due to reticence to approve pipeline projects, the reality is even with ample pipeline capacity a lot of those companies would still have gone under. That's had a significant impact on the Alberta economy, and has pushed unemployment up to a for them very high 7.2%- though they also have by far the highest per capita income in Canada despite that.

Generally with regards to the carbon tax, I see a whole lot of people really failing to understand what it actually is and how it's supposed to work. When we file our individual/family taxes each year, each family gets a rebate that in the majority of cases will exceed what we as a family spent in increased costs due to carbon taxation. It's intended more to affect the decisions larger businesses and industries make, and to incentivize more environmentally friendly production and practices.


----------



## mariomike (27 Dec 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Quite frankly if she's calling in to Rush Limbaugh, I suspect she's not that attuned to actual economic data and is probably spitballing based on what she thinks is true.



Or, repeating what she hears Rush telling his listeners about carbon tax,
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTWVRhKvZcNovRbgQlYDQPN891b-w%3A1577420560391&source=hp&ei=EIcFXvmCFZG0tAa9kYqoBg&q=%22rush+limbaugh%22+%22carbon+tax%22&oq=%22rush+limbaugh%22+%22carbon+tax%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39.3162.16181..16645...1.0..0.554.5672.5j13j2j6j1j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0j0i131j0i67j0i20i263j0i131i67j0i10.Re6d1clAArY&ved=0ahUKEwj5yqTB_dTmAhURGs0KHb2IAmUQ4dUDCAs&uact=5#spf=1577420575268


----------



## QV (27 Dec 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Generally with regards to the carbon tax, I see a whole lot of people really failing to understand what it actually is and how it's supposed to work. When we file our individual/family taxes each year, each family gets a rebate that in the majority of cases will exceed what we as a family spent in increased costs due to carbon taxation.



Now that right there is priceless.  You’re saying the majority of people will MAKE money with another tax imposed on them.  LMAO!!  Well then... I can’t wait!


----------



## brihard (27 Dec 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> Now that right there is priceless.  You’re saying the majority of people will MAKE money with another tax imposed on them.  LMAO!!  Well then... I can’t wait!



Thank you for nicely highlighting my point. The problem with tax policy is it doesn’t often digest easily and meaningfully into explanations that will fit in a tweet.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (27 Dec 2019)

Until the rebate is slowly decreased until it disappears but the taxes remain...


----------



## QV (27 Dec 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Thank you for nicely highlighting my point. The problem with tax policy is it doesn’t often digest easily and meaningfully into explanations that will fit in a tweet.



Oh please.  There is no such tax that makes the majority of those taxed more money.  I suppose you think businesses and industries just pay taxes out of their own profit margin and keep consumers insulated from their increased operating costs.  Transmitting those extra costs down the line to the consumer in increased prices would never occur?  There is no such thing as a "corporate tax", just like there is no such thing as a tax that affects only business and industry.  Those costs are always transmitted to the consumer.


----------



## mariomike (27 Dec 2019)

Saw this from 23 Dec., 2019 regarding carbon tax in Ontario,



> Dec. 23, 2019
> St. Catherines Standard
> 
> Ford began the year warning of storm clouds ahead. "I can tell you that a carbon tax will be a total economic disaster," he declared in a keynote speech last January. A "job-killing tax" would devastate the country: "I'm here today to ring the warning bell that the risk of a carbon tax recession is very real." Bank economists laughed off the premier's reckless hyperbole, and even Ford ultimately renounced his hysteria. By year's end he reverted to boosterism, boasting of Ontario's steady economic growth and an unemployment rate at the lowest level in a generation, both inherited from the previous government.
> ...


----------



## Remius (27 Dec 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> Oh please.  There is no such tax that makes the majority of those taxed more money.  I suppose you think businesses and industries just pay taxes out of their own profit margin and keep consumers insulated from their increased operating costs.  Transmitting those extra costs down the line to the consumer in increased prices would never occur?  There is no such thing as a "corporate tax", just like there is no such thing as a tax that affects only business and industry.  Those costs are always transmitted to the consumer.



Well it is a user based tax. 

My house is heated with natural gas.  Electricity is hydro or wind powered.  The only fossil fuel I use is gas for my car.  I did purchase one of the best fuel efficient cars in its class.  And I avoid filling up when gas prices are more expensive.  I just bought a house a year ago and I assure you I would have not even looked at houses that were heated with oil. 

So in my case yes, I made more with the rebate based on my use of carbon than I likely spent.  

The point of the carbon tax and the rebate is to reduce the use of fossil fuels.  It isn't about saving or making money it is about discouraging people from using something.  

This article on Global explains it quite well. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/5125670/how-the-carbon-tax-works/

Now, you are not wrong that some companies will dump their costs to the consumer for things like food and what not.  But smart companies and some are already doing this are looking to alternatives to become more competitive.  

Do I think the rebate will be repealed at some point.  the cynic in me believes so.  but hopefully by then people will already have a better mindset and should not affect them.


----------



## brihard (27 Dec 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> Oh please.  There is no such tax that makes the majority of those taxed more money.  I suppose you think businesses and industries just pay taxes out of their own profit margin and keep consumers insulated from their increased operating costs.  Transmitting those extra costs down the line to the consumer in increased prices would never occur?  There is no such thing as a "corporate tax", just like there is no such thing as a tax that affects only business and industry.  Those costs are always transmitted to the consumer.



It’s generally going to work better if you address claims I’ve actually made.

Certainly, costs will be passed to consumers. Maybe the best simple example would be gasoline: gas costs go up. What happens long term? Consumption patterns shift. People but more economical cars. Companies see this and develop more economical cars. Realistically we’re already into the last generation where the internal combustion engine will dominate personal/commuter travel. Not just users like you or I, but business, transit companies etc also look towards more efficient options. Consumption patterns shift away from fossil fuel use. And yes, at the individual level - you or I or others in this thread - rebates will in many cases exceed what we pay out; the greater. Most of the costs are born by more carbon-intensive production and transport cycles and those who choose to you them. You can still buy the F-350 if you want; feeding it will just cost more.

That’s of course a ‘blunt force’ example. Microeconomics being what it is, much of the impact on supply chains and production processes will be subtle and gradual- substituting a new type of plastic here; modifications to logistics infrastructure there...

All that said, and back to the origin of this conversation in tomohawk6’s post- no, carbon pricing is not gonna wreck the economy or likely do any real harm at all, including killing jobs. BC has had carbon pricing in place for over a decade and are our fastest growing economy. It’s a public policy option - one that the literature shows is generally pretty effective at stimulating more environmentally friendly choices and disincentivizing greater pollution. It’s by no means a be all end all, it’s just one tool in the tool box. Like any tax it will, yes, impose a little bit of friction on the circulation of capital. But nothing suggests it will be much, or that there will be net harm resulting.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Dec 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Well it is a user based tax.
> 
> My house is heated with natural gas.  Electricity is hydro or wind powered.  The only fossil fuel I use is gas for my car.  I did purchase one of the best fuel efficient cars in its class.  And I avoid filling up when gas prices are more expensive.  I just bought a house a year ago and I assure you I would have not even looked at houses that were heated with oil.
> 
> ...



It's a false rebate because you are going to be paying more for goods and services elsewhere so calling it a rebate is a misnomer. It is a social tax though with the purpose being to encourage behaviour and in that respect it may fulfill its purpose at the cost of something else.

My biggest worry with more taxes (which the present Regime seems to love) is the already precarious position many Canadians are in with respect to household debt. Insolvencies are at their highest rate in a decade and the Bank of Canada is basically hemmed in at the moment with respect to interest rates.  The worst part is much of the debt is held in HELOCs and Unsecured Lines of Credit which are most susceptible to changes in rates because they reset automatically with changes in prime rates.

Personally, it would be highly beneficial for me if the economy were to enter a recession as a result of runaway household debt as I could definitely take advantage of the resulting dip.  An Infanteer should always pray for rain  

Edit:

To add, I don't think any tax, unless it's incredibly heavy handed, will really change behaviour all that much.  Government in Canada really isn't in the business of making drastic decisions.  We are boringly cautious in this country after all.  

That is why I don't think the carbon tax is necessary.  Any economic progress with regard to becoming more "green" would happen naturally with or without government intervention.

I also think there are more positive things the government could be doing like providing tax breaks to Green Industry Startups or access to some form of special subsidization through BDC.


----------



## Remius (27 Dec 2019)

Taxes can change behaviour.  Look at the foreign home buyers tax or taxes on cigarettes (mind you if you go too high you can cause people to move to illegal activity).

not saying that a carbon tax will do that but that is the goal.  Time will tell if it is effective. 

This link weighs the pros a cons and shows some areas where it did work and where it did not. 

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/2207/economics/carbon-tax-pros-and-cons/


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Dec 2019)

[quote author=Remius] 

Now, you are not wrong that some companies will dump their costs to the consumer * for things like food* and what not.  
[/quote]

At least it's nothing life or death.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Dec 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Taxes can change behaviour.  Look at the foreign home buyers tax or taxes on cigarettes (mind you if you go too high you can cause people to move to illegal activity).
> 
> not saying that a carbon tax will do that but that is the goal.  Time will tell if it is effective.
> 
> ...



How much it changes behaviour is open to debate.  The secondary and tertiary costs associated with that behaviour modification are also not included in this calculation.

Cigarette taxes are actually a great example of this. If you put too high a tax on something, you create a black market and subsequently you need to be able to enforce said tax which costs money and you end up spending more money than you have been with minimal return.  

That's the biggest problem with the Government's present Marijuana Dilemma.  They planned to tax Marijuana but they actually will need to spend more money than they have been because they need to shut down competitors that aren't participating in the legal industry.  

There is also the effect that these taxes usually affect the poorest amongst us the most.  A substantial majority of smokers are in the lower income brackets and taxes hit the the hardest, which in turn increases the costs on other things like social assistance, welfare, etc.  

All things to say, while behaviour modification taxes are popular with the voters because it gives the appearance that we are doing something. There are unintended consequences to these decisions.

Also, cigarette companies are no closer to going away than they were when there was no tax, in fact, they are widely profitable and are diversifying constantly.  Imperial Tobacco has a near 11% Dividend Yield and the Tobacco Industry is projected to increase in value to over $1 Trillion in the next five years.


----------



## Remius (27 Dec 2019)

I suppose.  Most staple products are still regulated.  

Interestingly I took a look and to be honest it looks like a whole other set of factors are affecting food prices...

 https://cdn.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/management/News/News%20&%20Events/Canada%20Food%20Price%20Report%20ENG%202019.pdf


----------



## mariomike (27 Dec 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Cigarette taxes are actually a great example of this. If you put too high a tax on something, you create a black market and subsequently you need to be able to enforce said tax which costs money and you end up spending more money than you have been with minimal return.



Is it worth the risk?



> If you are convicted of possessing unmarked cigarettes you may be fined three times the tax on the unmarked cigarettes you possessed plus:
> •a fine of $100 if you possessed 200 unmarked cigarettes or less
> •a fine of $250 if you possessed more than 200 unmarked cigarettes but less than 1,001
> •a fine of $500 if you possessed more than 1,000 unmarked cigarettes but less than 10,001
> ...


----------



## Remius (27 Dec 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> How much it changes behaviour is open to debate.  The secondary and tertiary costs associated with that behaviour modification are also not included in this calculation.
> 
> Cigarette taxes are actually a great example of this. If you put too high a tax on something, you create a black market and subsequently you need to be able to enforce said tax which costs money and you end up spending more money than you have been with minimal return.
> 
> ...



 I would argue that the secondary and tertiary benefits are also not being factored in by the other side either. 

That is the key though.  Finding just the right price point to make it worth it or not.  I'm not sure the government has found it though. 

Cigarette companies maybe profitable world wide.  I'm not convinced that they are in Canada.  And it wasn't just taxes but a comprehensive plan that included taxation.  Plus they've diversified into the unregulated vaping industry.

The marijuana issue is more about over estimating the market than taxation.   

The point is that many on both sides don't understand how the carbon tax works or what it is for.  I know plenty of people that didn't check the box for the rebate so got nothing so they think they got screwed.  They just didn't listen.  

One can be for or against but they need to understand it.  Like Quebec's "free" childcare program.  People outside Quebec who don't understand how transfer payments work or how revenue neutral programs work generally hate it.  The Carbon tax is the same sort of thing.  Macro and Micro.  The link I posted above does a good job of showing that in the pros and cons.


----------



## QV (27 Dec 2019)

If a carbon tax is about changing behaviors, then why not bypass the bs and just make it illegal to buy and drive that F-350 unless for an authorized, government approved, commercial purpose?  Otherwise it seems like a very passive-aggressive way to achieve one of it's goals.  If the government doesn't think you need that pick-up truck, then maybe you shouldn't have one.  It's happening with firearms.  Why not vehicles and other heavy polluters since climate change is the existential threat of our time?


----------



## Remius (27 Dec 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> If a carbon tax is about changing behaviors, then why not bypass the bs and just make it illegal to buy and drive that F-350 unless for an authorized, government approved, commercial purpose?  Otherwise it seems like a very passive-aggressive way to achieve one of it's goals.  If the government doesn't think you need that pick-up truck, then maybe you shouldn't have one.  It's happening with firearms.  Why not vehicles and other heavy polluters since climate change is the existential threat of our time?



Well, there is also a political aspect to it as well.  Trust me, there are plenty of aspiring politicians that would love to implement exactly what you are stating.  Like anything, you have to implement things gradually or it won't take or there will be resistance to it.   Cars, firearms and lawn darts are apples and oranges and bananas though.  

You just answered your own question.  It is a much more passive way of doing it.   They should be doing it for sugar based drinks too or cars should all come equipped with breathalyzer starters or insert cause here ________. 

It isn't always that simple though.


----------



## FJAG (27 Dec 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Is it worth the risk?



If you are a user, pretty much.

Statistics indicate that roughly 1/3 of all cigarettes in Ontario come from an illicit sources.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-federal-provincial-governments-target-illegal-tobacco-with-new/

And if you are a producer it's also worth it. It's a multi-billion dollar business run by organized crime with over 175 groups, through some 50 factories and with some 300 retail outlets selling roughly 3 billion illegal cigarettes each year but which has only seen some 175 arrests 2.8 million in fines and seizure of a mere 7 million cigarettes.

https://uwaterloo.ca/tobacco-use-canada/adult-tobacco-use/cigarette-sales-and-sources
https://www.ontario.ca/page/illegal-tobacco
https://globalnews.ca/news/2608297/canadas-flourishing-contraband-tobacco-market-helps-fund-overseas-terrorism-report/
http://www.imperialtobaccocanada.com/group/sites/BAT_AXYKCM.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO9YFE76

By anyone's measure, that's a successful business model. By a criminal business model, its phenomenal.

 :cheers:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Dec 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> If you are a user, pretty much.
> 
> Statistics indicate that roughly 1/3 of all cigarettes in Ontario come from an illicit sources.
> 
> ...



 :nod:

Tobacco Farming is on the rebound in Ontario.

Tobacco is wildly profitable.  Big Tobacco is going to play the long game and if anyone thinks the Government is going to go after Big Tobacco, they are wrong.

JTI for instance, is 33% owned by the Japanese Government.  What is the GoC going to do to Tobacco, start stripping its assets if it doesn't pay settlements and enrage foreign governments in the process?


----------



## FJAG (27 Dec 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> Tobacco Farming is on the rebound in Ontario.
> 
> ...



When I retired in 2009 I moved to Lake Erie near Blenheim. The farms in that area were heavy into tomatoes and tobacco as their primary industries. (Pretty much every year at least one smoke barn would go up in flames). There was a bit of a die back for a few years as they switched some farms to other crops but they've been coming back pretty heavily. It's certainly not a dying industry even with the amount of illegal tobacco making its way in from China and the US.

 :cheers:


----------



## brihard (27 Dec 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> Tobacco Farming is on the rebound in Ontario.
> 
> ...



That’s one thing that still takes me aback some places I travel, how much people still smoke. I was in Japan a couple years back and there were a few places I just couldn’t walk into because of how smoky it was.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Dec 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> If a carbon tax is about changing behaviors, then why not bypass the bs and just make it illegal to buy and drive that F-350 unless for an authorized, government approved, commercial purpose?  Otherwise it seems like a very passive-aggressive way to achieve one of it's goals.  If the government doesn't think you need that pick-up truck, then maybe you shouldn't have one.  It's happening with firearms.  Why not vehicles and other heavy polluters since climate change is the existential threat of our time?



Don't give them any ideas. I am sure there are some out there who are advocating for this approach.


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Dec 2019)

It’s more likely the government will propose something like a carbon points card: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/should-canadians-carry-a-carbon-card-loaded-with-a-year-s-worth-of-points-1.4733293

This way they aren’t banning property, they are forcing people to minimize their carbon footprint or risk draining bank accounts.  The buying and selling of these points will create a new type of carbon market based commodity sector that is potentially very profitable.


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Dec 2019)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> It’s more likely the government will propose something like a carbon points card: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/should-canadians-carry-a-carbon-card-loaded-with-a-year-s-worth-of-points-1.4733293
> 
> This way they aren’t banning property, they are forcing people to minimize their carbon footprint or risk draining bank accounts.  The buying and selling of these points will create a new type of carbon market based commodity sector that is potentially very profitable.



Just what we need in a big country like Canada. An urban centric model that will only end up punishing rural producers, and the transportation infrastructure they need to get food to market.


----------



## FJAG (27 Dec 2019)

You know, it strikes me that as long as China, Russia, India and the rest of Asia, South America and Africa aren't on board with this whole thing (or are exempted so that they can "develop") we're just farting into the wind.

e.g. https://santiagotimes.cl/2017/03/06/santiago-among-top-10-cities-with-worst-traffic-jams-in-2017/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed-20-firms-third-carbon-emissions

But so long as Justin can feel good about himself, or delude his supporters into feeling good about themselves, who am I to complain?

ullhair:


----------



## brihard (27 Dec 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> You know, it strikes me that as long as China, Russia, India and the rest of Asia, South America and Africa aren't on board with this whole thing (or are exempted so that they can "develop") we're just farting into the wind.
> 
> e.g. https://santiagotimes.cl/2017/03/06/santiago-among-top-10-cities-with-worst-traffic-jams-in-2017/
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed-20-firms-third-carbon-emissions
> ...



Can you not make that argument about any number of things that are objectively positive and modern policy options? There are many problems in the world that we’re unable to unilaterally fix, and where Canada can’t even make a huge dent- but are still worthwhile/the right thing to do. I would consider measures to move us in reasonable ways towards an economy less damaging to the earth’s environment as among those. Bear in mind also that any new approach to a problem has to have first movers. Other countries might get onboard with this, that, or the other thing a generation down the road based on a couple decades’ worth of data.


----------



## FJAG (27 Dec 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Can you not make that argument about any number of things that are objectively positive and modern policy options? There are many problems in the world that we’re unable to unilaterally fix, and where Canada can’t even make a huge dent- but are still worthwhile/the right thing to do. I would consider measures to move us in reasonable ways towards an economy less damaging to the earth’s environment as among those. Bear in mind also that any new approach to a problem has to have first movers. Other countries might get onboard with this, that, or the other thing a generation down the road based on a couple decades’ worth of data.



Sure you can make that same argument. I'm just a pessimist on this issue. I'm a firm believer that personal, national and political self interest will always outweigh altruism in the long run. If that wasn't the case, the 2nd amendment would have been repealed, sugar, salt and nicotine additives would have been controlled, nuclear weapons would have been banned, long ago. 

Hell we can't even get 100% buy in on whale and dolphin hunting and have an enormous patch of garbage floating in the Pacific. If we can't take care of these simple things do you really think we'll be able to universally control our energy usage/carbon emissions through taxation or some nebulous credit program? Sure didn't seem like it in Brazil last month.



> One would have a hard time even getting 197 countries to agree that the sky is blue without a multi-day summit, a dozen drafts of the resolution, and one country threatening to derail everything because they believe that turquoise should count as blue in some circumstances. On climate change, this process often results in the most tepid and toothless actions.



https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/12/18/21024283/climate-change-cop25-us-brazil-australia-japan


----------



## ballz (27 Dec 2019)

I'm okay with a carbon tax for the purpose of modifying behavior if behavior change is what we need. Money is the most effective lever that can be pulled other than going full authoritarian and making things illegal.

The Liberals are walking talking contradiction for using a carbon tax to modify behavior, while simultaneously arguing all of the other taxes they put on (like raising corporate tax rates or personal income tax) won't have an effect on the economy (in other words, it won't modify behavior).

The Conservatives are a walking talking contradiction for arguing that the carbon tax won't be effective unless it's raised to insanely high levels, while simultaneously arguing that any small tax increases will modify behavior so effectively it will destroy the economy.

All taxes modify individual decision-making and create inefficiencies as a result. That's basic economics that even the most Keynesian-drunk economists wouldn't argue with. This is simply a question of how much we *value* other things than simply dollars and cents. We make these value-based decisions all the time by having things like minimum wage, labour laws, etc... all of which create an inefficiency *but* we value other non-monetary aspects enough to accept the inefficiency.

For this reason, I think a carbon tax is actually a _conservative_ (classical liberal) solution to the problem as it involves the least amount of government intervention possible for the maximum result. It's something the Conservatives should have thought of... and now they cornered because there is no other solution that would involve less government intrusion than the carbon tax.

That said, I also can't get over the futility..... Canada just isn't a big enough part of the problem for Canadians to be able to fix this by modifying their own behavior. If we really want to fight climate change, we need to _export_ solutions to the real problem emitters. How to effectively manage that, as such a small and not influential country, I have no idea....


----------



## Eaglelord17 (28 Dec 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> That said, I also can't get over the futility..... Canada just isn't a big enough part of the problem for Canadians to be able to fix this by modifying their own behavior. If we really want to fight climate change, we need to _export_ solutions to the real problem emitters. How to effectively manage that, as such a small and not influential country, I have no idea....



Its easy, first off we stop buying products from countries that refuse to follow similar environmental standards as Canada, or tariff it significantly (to the point it would be cheaper to make in Canada even with our regulations). Then we open up industry in country with our high standards, creating excellent jobs, helping the environment, and overall benefiting the world. The tariff money could be used for environmental projects such as trying to clean the plastic out of the pacific (which again creates tons of jobs). 

If we stopped shipping our raw resources to places like China, they would be forced to seriously cut their manufacturing, which would only help the planet. 

That's why I laugh whenever the modern 'environmentalists' have a factory or industry shutdown in Canada, its just picked up somewhere else in the world with less environmental standards and ultimately ends up being worse for the planet. 

Other benefits of manufacturing locally means less fuel burned in transportation (these international shipping ships burn a ton of fuel every year, both ways as we send the resources to them and get a product back), a higher quality product (usually), taxes earned in country increase, our self sustainability in the event of war goes up, and ultimately its more ethical as they have to pay a realistic wage in Canada unlike some of these countries where it is essentially slave labour with no safety regulations.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Dec 2019)

1) Tariffs are essentially taxes on ourselves.

2) Whenever you start paying more for something you already have, your standard of consumption - which is a proxy for standard of living - falls because overall you must consume less.

3) If creating excellent jobs is the path to prosperity, try to imagine running a 20-year experiment during which we cede to all demands by workers for more compensation.

4) Also try to imagine opening up industry in a country where most industrial undertakings must overcome at least some energetic litigation.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Dec 2019)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Its easy, first off we stop buying products from countries that refuse to follow similar environmental standards as Canada, or tariff it significantly (to the point it would be cheaper to make in Canada even with our regulations). Then we open up industry in country with our high standards, creating excellent jobs, helping the environment, and overall benefiting the world. The tariff money could be used for environmental projects such as trying to clean the plastic out of the pacific (which again creates tons of jobs).
> 
> If we stopped shipping our raw resources to places like China, they would be forced to seriously cut their manufacturing, which would only help the planet.
> 
> ...



So environmental communism?  Sounds wonderful  :rofl:


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Dec 2019)

Environmental economic totalitarianism.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (29 Dec 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> 1) Tariffs are essentially taxes on ourselves.
> 
> 2) Whenever you start paying more for something you already have, your standard of consumption - which is a proxy for standard of living - falls because overall you must consume less.
> 
> ...



1) If you choose to buy the products yes there is a price to pay. The reality is we shall be paying more for these items in the future, we just aren't paying for the environmental costs today. When you buy from a factory in India, China, etc. who just pollutes with no environmental controls, we are selling our futures for short term gain. If they choose to start following similar environmental standards then we start removing tariffs. 

2) I am convinced our standard of living in the western world is on a steady decline. As the rest of the world becomes wealthier they are able to start to afford the standard we take for granted which shall slowly push up prices either way. We need to stop making items which are designed to be broken and thrown out instead of fixed. Higher prices can be justified if the item lasts significantly longer. The problem with that is, it doesn't drive the massive profit margins that companies want. 

One interesting thing though is with automation there is less workers needed to produce products so the cost can go down either way. This isn't the 1950s, places that used to require over 16,000 people to run now run on 3500. 

3) So you think its acceptable to pay someone a fraction of what you would accept for pay for a similar job? Not to mention you expect them to do it in a more hazardous way with much less safety and environmental regulations to protect them. I can tell you the minimum wage 'service' economy is a joke, and there is a ever expanding gap between the public sector and private sector in this country. I am not saying that unions or ceding to workers demands is what we need (that's why the public service has ballooned so much), what I am saying is manufacturing jobs pay much more than working at Timmies, but requires the same skill level. If you were a highschool graduate with no other education would you rather make 30$ a hour or 15$?  

4) Those are barriers we have set ourselves, we can also remove those barriers. 

And this isn't totalitarianism this is levelling the playing field. You don't have to buy products from those countries but we won't stop you from doing so. You just will have to pay the costs which aren't factored in when the item was manufactured. Not having environmental regulations in these countries is basically a massive subsidy by foreign governments, and globally we will pay the price long term. 

You all are right, changing the little things in Canada won't make a massive difference globally as long as everyone else isn't on board. The way you get them on board is by hitting them where it hurts, their cheque books. I'm not even fully convinced in all the global warming arguments, most of them don't hold water in my opinion. But what I am convinced of is we need to change some of how we do things as the world has only so much resources. The throw away model needs to change.


----------



## ballz (29 Dec 2019)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> If we stopped shipping our raw resources to places like China, they would be forced to seriously cut their manufacturing, which would only help the planet.



You appear to believe Canada has some kind of serious influence in the world and are proposing Canada start trade wars to try and force other countries to be more environmentally responsible. Canada has very little influence, countries like China don't need Canada.

Canadian imports make up a grant total of 1% of China's total imports, and there are tons of other countries lining up to replace any of our goods.

Canada makes up less than 3% of Chinese exports, but Chinese exports make up 16-17% of Canadians imports. Who do you think is going to feel the tariffs more?

Regarding your comment about taxing Canadians and then paying Canadians to go pick up plastic being a great way to create jobs.... the fact there is anybody out there that thinks that's how job growth / economics works terrifies me.


----------



## brihard (29 Dec 2019)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> If we stopped shipping our raw resources to places like China, they would be forced to seriously cut their manufacturing, which would only help the planet.



That's not at all how commodities work. Commodities of the sort you're talking about are 'fungible'. China can import product x from Canada and use it as a raw material in production of a given item. If they don't get that raw material from us, they can just as easily import it from someone else and use it interchangeably.

As an actual example, let's take Ethylene Glycol. It's an industrial chemical used to make, among other things, polyester. A key material in low skill, low tech manufacturing such as clothing, furniture stuffing, etc. Pretty good, simple example.

Let's say tomorrow we decide we're no longer going to sell China Ethlyene Glycol. We sell them a lot of it, however we are one of a number of exporters. If Canada were to stop selling it to them, they would turn around and buy it from Saudi Arabia, for a slightly less cost efficient transaction. Demand for Saudi Ethlyene Gloycol goes up, price goes up a bit. But now we have a bunch we need to sell to someone else. Demand for ours is down, demand for Saudi product is up. We get a slight cost advantage that offsets transportation costs. Malaysia and Singapore both come knocking, and we sell ours to them instead of china. Supply and demand balance out, prices blip fractionally and stabilize. That's it. Substitute crud eoil, bauxite, what, whatever you want- simply refusing to sell to China would not be crippling or even particularly problematic thing. But, because we're now flexing weight we don't have, they might turn around and slap an export tariff on consumer gods that they have a commanding supply position in. Maybe a 10% export tariff on Apple products. Or maybe they slap a premium on the export of rare earth elements that we need for high tech and military production. Something to slap us around a bit and remind us that the tail does not wag the dog.

China is one of the biggest problems in moving towards more environemtnally friendly global supply chains... *but* they are also not idiots. They're choking on smog. China is very pragmatic, very rational, and extremely strategic. They're perfectly content to set thing in motion that will take 30, 50, or 100 years if it suits their long term national interest. We cannot coerce them. We can support the gneeration of sound science, we can support the incubation of technological inovation that creates more energy efficient products and processes, we can support advanced materials research, we can do things to improve the economics of more environmentally friendly power production, be it renewable or nuclear... Stuff like that. We can develop and refine (no pun intended) solutions that will provide options as other countries - including China - recognize that there are problems.

The earth's environment is a tragedy of the commons. Some will realize it sooner, some later. There's little to nothing we can do on an individual level to tangibly affect it other than making sentiments known to political leaders and at the ballot box. I wish our politicians could be less ideological and more evidence based about this- on all parties.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Dec 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> You appear to believe Canada has some kind of serious influence in the world and are proposing Canada start trade wars to try and force other countries to be more environmentally responsible. Canada has very little influence, countries like China don't need Canada.
> 
> Canadian imports make up a grant total of 1% of China's total imports, and there are tons of other countries lining up to replace any of our goods.
> 
> ...



Positively terrified.  What the poster appears to be advocating for is really a return to Mercantilism for the sake of the Environment.

As you have rightly pointed out, this doesn't work because a) we have no actual influence in the world and b) we are wholely reliant on others for many/most goods and services within this country.

Canada has no closed looped system of Colonies or Client States that we could even hope to form any sort of closed system with.  

I don't know why anyone would think a closed loop economic system would even work.  History is replete with examples of this failure.  The Soviet Union essentially bankrupted itself by refusing to participate in the international monetary system or conduct any sort of external trade other than resources for hard currency and ended up indebting itself massively to bankers. 

This also created a massive shadow economy in the country.  Minimal goods and services were available on the open market while criminal elements profited from actually selling goods & services people wanted/needed.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Dec 2019)

Carbon tax will be to the environment what the gas tax was to our roads.....


----------



## brihard (29 Dec 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Carbon tax will be to the environment what the gas tax was to our roads.....



In what way do you mean that?


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Dec 2019)

Climate change is a hoax designed to get the wealthy to pay more in taxes, at least that would be the goal of the government. So far the US has avoided this fate but with one election that could change.


----------



## mariomike (30 Dec 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Climate change is a hoax



For reference to _that_  discussion,

Climate Change Super Thread  
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/32987.925
118 pages.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Dec 2019)

Environmental Racism to the highest _degree_.


----------



## Jonezy76 (30 Dec 2019)

> Carbon tax will be to the environment what the gas tax was to our roads.....



I tend to agree. The revenue generated isn't (as it should be) used for green technology. If it did, the tax would be easier for me to swallow. It's supposed to be "revenue neutral". Why bother?

It also fails to shift behaviour in rural Canada. We don't have a choice on whether we drive or take public transit because we don't have cabs or busses. We are 150km to a major center, 100km to the closes hospital and many in our town work 20-100km away. We heat with gas, oil or propane, which are all taxed. Some use wood, but no-one is home 24/7 to tend the fire. Electric vehicles aren't ideal out here either.

I have an energy efficient home and we have a fuel efficient car, but have had them well before any carbon tax. It's called saving money.

This year is also very hard for grain farmers out here. Most have to dry every bushel of grain that came off the field, if any came off at all..... Let's tax that gas and propane too! How would you like to spend another 24% to dry grain? 
https://www.producer.com/2019/11/carbon-tax-a-grain-drying-mystery/

Then there's the GST on the carbon tax.... really?

The point that I'm trying to make is that the tax won't shift behaviour (out here anyway) because our choices are limited. The Gov't sees this, calls it ineffective and raises the tax. It's a brilliant revenue stream.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Dec 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> In what way do you mean that?



The original intent of the fuel tax was that every cent of tax collected was to be invested in new/improved roads etc.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Dec 2019)

What's the justification for taxing a tax?


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What's the justification for taxing a tax?



"Because we can".


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What's the justification for taxing a tax?





			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What's the justification for taxing a tax?



The purpose of any tax is either to raise revenue to fund the Government or .... to alter prices to effect demand.

The LPC and Government want this tax for a bit of both.  I think it's more about the former than the latter though.

I won't support a Carbon Tax because it negatively impacts my family who live in Rural Canada.  My parents heat their home with Oil and Wood (there is no other choice) and the temperatures, road conditions, etc where I grew up make electric vehicles impractical.  

There is no choice of an alternative, it's oil, wood or freeze.  You've also go other players also trying to gouge you.  My parents house is over 100 years old and recently they had to pay to modify the hot water tank setup because NB Power ruled that their system was "illegal".  The water was being heated by the furnace in addition to the hot water tank which meant a larger supply of hot water and less electrical usage.

Now they are on separate loops entirely and have to spend additional money on electricity even though the furnace is circulating continuous hot water throughout the house.  All so NB Power could pocket a few extra bucks.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Dec 2019)

Forcing a tax then taxing that tax. What an excellent business plan. 

I hope rual Canada finds a way to pay back the big cities in kind.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Forcing a tax then taxing that tax. What an excellent business plan.
> 
> I hope rual Canada finds a way to pay back the big cities in kind.



In the Socialist Republic of Manitoba we've been paying PST and GST on top of retail for spirits at the MLCC forever. Never mind that 80% of the retail cost of a bottle is all tax. 

But its all about saving just one life.


----------



## mariomike (30 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I hope rual Canada finds a way to pay back the big cities in kind.



Our urban-rural divide is a perennial favorite.

In reference to that, this came out before Canada's last election,


> 29 Sept., 2019
> 
> The urban-rural divide, right along party lines
> https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/338canada-the-urban-rural-divide-right-along-party-lines/
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Dec 2019)

"In the least populated ridings, Conservatives dominate voting intentions by 16 points. In the most populated, Liberals are up by 26 points."

And the Conservatives still got more votes winning the "popular vote". Interesting.


----------



## mariomike (30 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> And the Conservatives still got more votes winning the "popular vote".



By a margin of 1%. Congratulations.

OK, Jarnhamar, I'll take your bait. 

If you think 1% is a big deal, last year the Republicans lost by a margin of 8.6%.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Dec 2019)

If taxes fixed anything we'd live in the perfect society in Canada.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Dec 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> By a margin of 1%. Congratulations.
> 
> OK, Jarnhamar, I'll take your bait.
> 
> If you think 1% is a big deal, last year the Republicans lost by a margin of 8.6%.




Do you think the Carbon Tax will impact big city dwellers the same way it will impact rural Canadians?


----------



## mariomike (30 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do you think the Carbon Tax will impact big city dwellers the same way it will impact rural Canadians?



I'm not an expert. I'll leave that question to those who are.

Other than that, I just know what I read in the papers, and on here,



> Rural Canadians get bigger rebate under federal carbon plan
> https://ipolitics.ca/2018/10/23/rural-canadians-get-bigger-rebate-under-federal-carbon-plan/


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Dec 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I'm not an expert. I'll leave that question to those who are.
> 
> Other than that, I just know what I read in the papers, and on here,



The government is instituting a tax that effects rural Canadians more than Canadians that live in big cities. The government is taxing that tax and making even more money off the rural Canadians who are being impacted more than other Canadians.
Liberals are making money off Canadians that by and large didn't vote for them.

Tell me again why western Canada doesn't like the Liberals?


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Dec 2019)

Rural Canada does not exist for itself.  Rural Canada provides everything urban Canada needs to prevent the latter from deteriorating into mobs of howling cannibal savages fighting over the scraps from community gardens and barrels of burning furniture.


----------



## QV (30 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The government is instituting a tax that effects rural Canadians more than Canadians that live in big cities. The government is taxing that tax and making even more money off the rural Canadians who are being impacted more than other Canadians.
> Liberals are making money off Canadians that by and large didn't vote for them.
> 
> Tell me again why western Canada doesn't like the Liberals?



That, and when you consider how equalization payments are flowing (https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/how-alberta-pays-quebecs-bills-four-charts-that-show-alberta-picks-up-the-tab) it is not hard to see why the chasm widens.


----------



## mariomike (30 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Tell me again why western Canada doesn't like the Liberals?



This will better explain the answer(s) to your question better than I ever can,

 Western Alienation - Split from General Election 2019
https://army.ca/forums/threads/131365.0.html
7 pages.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Dec 2019)

Jesus. Quebec seems like quite the money pit.


----------



## mariomike (30 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Jesus. Quebec seems like quite the money pit.



Looks like a middle finger.


----------



## Remius (30 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Jesus. Quebec seems like quite the money pit.



Sure.  Until you look at it on a per capita basis, then they don’t seem so bad.  In fact they likely get less per person than most provinces on that list. 

Also for a bit of a counter point:  

https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/getting-the-facts-straight-when-it-comes-to-provincial-equalization-payments


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Dec 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Sure.  Until you look at it on a per capita basis, then they don’t seem so bad.  In fact they likely get less per person than most provinces on that list.
> 
> Also for a bit of a counter point:
> 
> https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/getting-the-facts-straight-when-it-comes-to-provincial-equalization-payments



You may have to dumb that down for me my friend.

All the provinces appear to have got below 20 billion between 2007-2018 (Manitoba got slightly over).
Quebec has got 105? 110 billion? dollars between the same years.

But they get less per person...

Where is the +80 billion dollars more than everyone else going? They look like they're getting more than _all other_ provinces combined.


----------



## brihard (30 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Jesus. Quebec seems like quite the money pit.



Bear in mind that’s total, and the totals don’t take population into account. Per capita, several provinces receive more equalization than Quebec- but of course you multiply by population, and the gross amount ends up - well, gross.


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Dec 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> By a margin of 1%. Congratulations.
> 
> OK, Jarnhamar, I'll take your bait.
> 
> If you think 1% is a big deal, last year the Republicans lost by a margin of 8.6%.



Yes, and apparently you're still not over it.


----------



## QV (30 Dec 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Sure.  Until you look at it on a per capita basis, then they don’t seem so bad.  In fact they likely get less per person than most provinces on that list.
> 
> Also for a bit of a counter point:
> 
> https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/getting-the-facts-straight-when-it-comes-to-provincial-equalization-payments



In your counter point the author writes:  "So Manitoba currently has the right to one revenue stream — Canadian generosity —  and Newfoundland and Labrador has the exclusive right to monetize a resource that Manitoba lacks, offshore oil."

It's not the equalization that the West is bothered about, it's when those regions who receive the equalization attack and hinder the very means to which a large part of those equalization funds are generated.  So when Alberta can't monetize it's resources to the extent it determines (pipelines etc) then why should there be any right to equalization payments?


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Dec 2019)

According to Wikipedia Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the US by 2.1% (if I'm reading it correctly) so not exactly a huge margin over our popular vote difference. But I wasn't talking about the US.

I brought it up because it's been pointed out the big cities have larger populations than some entire provinces, or multiple provinces combined.

With that in mind the Liberals STILL lost the popular vote and only won by a very narrow margin. My conjecture is the people who kept the Liberals in power (looking at GTA core here) are the least impacted by this new taxed tax.

Quebec? No idea whats going on there but it sure seems like they're benefiting pretty big from the rest of Canada, specifically the west. Same west that will be most impacted by the carbon tax. Or really the rest of Canada outside mega cities.


----------



## mariomike (30 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> With that in mind the Liberals STILL lost the popular vote and only won by a very narrow margin.



The Conservatives won the popular vote in four provinces / territories. They lost it in nine. 

If you wish to continue discussing the election, we have a 37-page thread devoted to it.


----------



## SupersonicMax (30 Dec 2019)

Just as an aside, the date of the post above mine is 30 Dec 2020 🤔


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Dec 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> The Conservatives won the popular vote in four provinces / territories. They lost it in nine.
> 
> If you wish to continue discussing the election, we have a 37-page thread devoted to it.



Right. Thanks.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Dec 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> The Conservatives won the popular vote in four provinces / territories. They lost it in nine.
> 
> If you wish to continue discussing the election, we have a 37-page thread devoted to it.



But they still won the popular vote, which is the metric election reformists always throw about when they want to amend Canada's electoral system  

It's only become convenient to not talk about it now because the "Right" Party is in power  ;D

Regardless, what does this have to do with the Federal Carbon Tax?


----------



## mariomike (30 Dec 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Regardless, what does this have to do with the Federal Carbon Tax?



Didn't say it did.

I was replying to this,



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> With that in mind the Liberals STILL lost the popular vote and only won by a very narrow margin.



And added this,



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> If you wish to continue discussing the election, we have a 37-page thread devoted to it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Dec 2019)

[quote author=Humphrey Bogart] 

Regardless, what does this have to do with the Federal Carbon Tax?
[/quote]

Liberals are in power because of the electoral system and not because the majority of Canadians voted for them.

My conjecture is the majority of Canadians don't want this new taxed tax and those that don't care are probably the same ones responsible for the Liberals getting voted in like the GTA and other big city types.

Open to being wrong of course.


----------



## QV (30 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Liberals are in power because of the electoral system and not because the majority of Canadians voted for them.
> 
> My conjecture is the majority of Canadians don't want this new taxed tax and those that don't care are probably the same ones responsible for the Liberals getting voted in like the GTA and other big city types.



And since one vote in Quebec is worth two votes in AB/BC elections and policies like this happen.  Thinking of how narrow this last election was, I wonder what the political landscape would be like if the seats were fair.  Would we still have a carbon tax?  Doubtful.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Dec 2019)

How is one vote in Quebec worth two else where?


----------



## mariomike (30 Dec 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> And since one vote in Quebec is worth two votes in AB/BC elections and policies like this happen.



I learn something new every day on here. 



> One person, one vote? In Canada, it’s not even close
> https://www.thestar.com/politics/2019/10/13/one-person-one-vote-in-canada-its-not-even-close.html
> Some votes are going to be substantially more powerful than others, especially those cast in the most remote rural ridings. And if you live in a city — especially one growing as rapidly as Greater Toronto — your vote is more likely to register as less than equal.



If you guys wish, perhaps "General Election: Oct 21, 2019" would be a more appropriate venue to continue the discourse.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> How is one vote in Quebec worth two else where?



It's not - and it's the usual "Quebec-bashing" crowd that thinks Quebec is somehow screwing every other province - or that Quebec decides everything and gets everything while they are deprived of it all. Boo! Hoo!

Let's face the facts (I know they are irrelevant to people whose view is "I am right and you are wrong, Nya! Nya! Nya!):

Quebec population: 8.1 millions - number of Parliament seats: 78;
BC/AB population: 8.6 millions - number of Parliament seats: 76.

WOW!!! What an indescribably unfair situation - obviously Qc votes are worth TWICE those of BC/AB !!!


----------



## mariomike (30 Dec 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It's not - and it's the usual "Quebec-bashing" crowd that thinks Quebec is somehow screwing every other province - or that Quebec decides everything and gets everything while they are deprived of it all. Boo! Hoo!



I believe that dubious distinction is shared with the GTA.


----------



## FSTO (30 Dec 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I believe that dubious distinction is shared with the GTA.



But the GTA deserves it.  ;D


----------



## QV (30 Dec 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It's not - and it's the usual "Quebec-bashing" crowd that thinks Quebec is somehow screwing every other province - or that Quebec decides everything and gets everything while they are deprived of it all. Boo! Hoo!
> 
> Let's face the facts (I know they are irrelevant to people whose view is "I am right and you are wrong, Nya! Nya! Nya!):
> 
> ...



Looks like I’m mistaken, and I don’t even know where I got that figure from.  Glad to have your mature and measured response to set me straight.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Dec 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It's not - and it's the usual "Quebec-bashing" crowd that thinks Quebec is somehow screwing every other province - or that Quebec decides everything and gets everything while they are deprived of it all. Boo! Hoo!
> 
> Let's face the facts (I know they are irrelevant to people whose view is "I am right and you are wrong, Nya! Nya! Nya!):
> 
> ...



Thats not the problem.  The problem is that 7.7% of the population voted for a purely regional party and that translated into 32 seats, vice the NDP getting 15.9% of the vote while only translating into 24 seats.  At the same time the country pours billions into the province of 8.1 million people.  The greens got 1 percentage point less than the Bloc and got 3 seats.  

*FYI I am card carrying conservative, but if I was the NDP or Greens I would be screaming bloody murder! 

Quebec holds way to much sway in our political system and I think that could be solved or equaled out with a redistribution of seats; and a blocking parties from being able to run unless they can field candidates all over the country. 

My numbers taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Canadian_federal_election#Results

I have to ask why the second largest province in Canada needs those less populated to support it financially ?


----------



## brihard (30 Dec 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> and I think that could be solved or equaled out with a redistribution of seats; and a blocking parties from being able to run unless they can field candidates all over the country.



That would pretty immediately - and quite rightly - be stomped down as a violation of a couple fundamental Charter rights. I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think the problem justifies that kind of extreme attack on our democratic freedoms.

Yup, Quebec casts a lot of votes for a regional party that pushes their interests. Nothing stops anyone else from doing the same. Of course they have to do so in the knowledge that they will not be able to form a government that way- and that if they go about it the wrong way, their regional interests could end up carrying very little weight at all depending on the make up of a given Parliament.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Dec 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> That would pretty immediately - and quite rightly - be stomped down as a violation of a couple fundamental Charter rights. I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think the problem justifies that kind of extreme attack on our democratic freedoms.
> 
> Yup, Quebec casts a lot of votes for a regional party that pushes their interests. Nothing stops anyone else from doing the same. Of course they have to do so in the knowledge that they will not be able to form a government that way- and that if they go about it the wrong way, their regional interests could end up carrying very little weight at all depending on the make up of a given Parliament.



We have adjusted seats distribution many times.  In fact it should be done more often.  

As for party banning it should be done.  Its gaming the system.  Separation is a provincial issue. Just for a minimum number of ridings. And  may it a percentage of the country like 80% of the ridings.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Dec 2019)

[quote author=Halifax Tar] 

I have to ask why the second largest province in Canada needs those less populated to support it financially ?
[/quote]

Good question.


----------



## brihard (30 Dec 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> We have adjusted seats distribution many times.  In fact it should be done more often.
> 
> As for party banning it should be done.  Its gaming the system.  Separation is a provincial issue. Just for a minimum number of ridings. And  may it a percentage of the country like 80% of the ridings.



I’m fine with seat distribution to keep things proportional, though am not wedded to the idea that it has to be bang on; electoral divisions need to be coherent lest we see the gerrymandered circus found in US congressional districts.

Strongly disagreed about banning political parties that cannot get national candidates. It would be illegal anyway, but even if it weren’t, the principle of freedom of association is too important to sacrifice on that political altar. I get your frustration with the Bloc, trust me. As a Quebec born Anglo and avowed Canadian federalist, I have zero time for them. But our essential freedoms, both individual and collective, demand that we allow such a party exist. Same goes for any regional tent anyone feels they can get the political support to erect. The onus is on the federalist parties to present a better option. Please think further on the thin line we’re treading when we start saying that the government of the day can legislate such a high bar to political parties even existing. The current bureaucratic threshold for a party being able to form and register is appropriately very low, and most never make it to more than a blip on the radar- but it’s still essential that we allow the freedom to associate politically.

Standing up to the BQ, or to any regional party that uses FPTP to wield disproportionate power, is a political decisions. It’s not grounds to curtail basic democratic freedoms.

For what it’s worth, I’m in favour of moving to a mixed member proportional representation system with a minimum threshold of 5% popular vote nationally to sit anyone off a party list in Parliament. 5% would keep most of the looneys out.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Dec 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I’m fine with seat distribution to keep things proportional, though am not wedded to the idea that it has to be bang on; electoral divisions need to be coherent lest we see the gerrymandered circus found in US congressional districts.
> 
> Strongly disagreed about banning political parties that cannot get national candidates. It would be illegal anyway, but even if it weren’t, the principle of freedom of association is too important to sacrifice on that political altar. I get your frustration with the Bloc, trust me. As a Quebec born Anglo and avowed Canadian federalist, I have zero time for them. But our essential freedoms, both individual and collective, demand that we allow such a party exist. Same goes for any regional tent anyone feels they can get the political support to erect. The onus is on the federalist parties to present a better option. Please think further on the thin line we’re treading when we start saying that the government of the day can legislate such a high bar to political parties even existing. The current bureaucratic threshold for a party being able to form and register is appropriately very low, and most never make it to more than a blip on the radar- but it’s still essential that we allow the freedom to associate politically.
> 
> ...



I have no hate for the Bloc.  What I hate is people using our political system to hold the country hostage in what is essentially a temper tantrum by vote.  

I say again, Quebec holds way too much power in our system and that needs to be curtailed.  Right now we are living the Animal Farm fantasy where some are more equal than others.


----------



## mariomike (30 Dec 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Regardless, what does this have to do with the Federal Carbon Tax?



Good question.

But, if anyone is interested in electoral reform, there's 42 pages of it here,
https://army.ca/forums/threads/25692.1025


----------



## brihard (30 Dec 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Good question.
> 
> But, if anyone is interested in electoral reform, there's 42 pages of it here,
> https://army.ca/forums/threads/25692.1025



We get it dude, there are other threads. Conversations flow and shift direction; chop the posts over to another thread in a day or two to clean up if necessary. At least we’re having a successful political discussion on army.ca without raging douchebaggery and excessive casting of personal aspersions. It ain’t broke.


----------



## mariomike (30 Dec 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> ; chop the posts over to another thread in a day or two to clean up if necessary.



It's locked. But, it does have some good ideas on electoral reform in case anyone is interested in using it as a reference.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Dec 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> We get it dude, there are other threads. Conversations flow and shift direction; chop the posts over to another thread in a day or two to clean up if necessary. At least we’re having a successful political discussion on army.ca without raging douchebaggery and excessive casting of personal aspersions. It ain’t broke.



Well said.


----------

