EV's, Gas/Oil, and The Future- another swerve split from- JT Hints Boosting Canada’s Military Spending

[ytz]

Carbon tax removal will poke a massive hole in the budget unless they are smart and increase the sales tax.

I wish people understood how the carbon tax worked. They would make assumptions like this. Revenue collected in a given provinces is rebated in that province. 90% is rebated directly to taxpayers. 10% in various community grants. For example if a local library wants to install better HVAC or the rec centre wants solar panels. None of this goes into general revenue. So cutting the carbon tax won't make a lick of difference to federal revenues. That is exactly why the CPC is making a big deal about it. Easiest tax to cut because most people have zero clue about the hundreds the receive in rebates every quarter (we just got over $200 yesterday for this quarter).

 

[Underway]

I wish people understood how the carbon tax worked. They would make assumptions like this. Revenue collected in a given provinces is rebated in that province. 90% is rebated directly to taxpayers. 10% in various community grants. For example if a local library wants to install better HVAC or the rec centre wants solar panels. None of this goes into general revenue. So cutting the carbon tax won't make a lick of difference to federal revenues. That is exactly why the CPC is making a big deal about it. Easiest tax to cut because most people have zero clue about the hundreds the receive in rebates every quarter (we just got over $200 yesterday for this quarter).

I was unaware of that. Thanks for the info.

 

[ytz]

I was unaware of that. Thanks for the info.

You're not the only one. That's why it makes for easy politics.

We don't have one carbon tax. We have a federal carbon price. Each province is free to implement a carbon price scheme as they want. The provinces that refuse to implement any policy have the federal backstop applied. The backstop is basically the federal government administering a provincial tax and rebate program.

Most people forget about the rebate. But it is substantial. See here for rebate amounts:

How much you can get - Canada Carbon Rebate (CCR) for individuals - Canada.ca

www.canada.ca

Essentially, what the rebates do is reward those who have less than average consumption while penalizing those with above average consumption in their province. We're a one (hybrid) car family (of three) in a large condo. I've calculated the carbon tax across all our utility and gasoline consumption. We're substantial net beneficiaries. Now, if you live in a 2500 sqft house 50 km from work and you commute in a F150, you're going to be a substantial net loser. But that money isn't going to government coffers. It's going to somebody like me.

I'm going to set aside the politics of it. That's a whole other discussion and I don't want to derail the thread here. Just wanted to explain how it actually works.

 

[Quirky]

Now, if you live in a 2500 sqft house 50 km from work and you commute in a F150, you're going to be a substantial net loser. But that money isn't going to government coffers. It's going to somebody like me.

So it's a redistribution of wealth from people who can afford a 2500sqft house and a F150 daily driver to people who want to live in condos. Got it.

F*ck your carbon tax.

 

[Underway]

So it's a redistribution of wealth from people who can afford a 2500sqft house and a F150 daily driver to people who want to live in condos. Got it.

F*ck your carbon tax.

The second part of that post was not required. Reddit and 4chan are there if you feel the need to just randomly rage.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I wish people understood how the carbon tax worked. They would make assumptions like this. Revenue collected in a given provinces is rebated in that province. 90% is rebated directly to taxpayers. 10% in various community grants. For example if a local library wants to install better HVAC or the rec centre wants solar panels. None of this goes into general revenue. So cutting the carbon tax won't make a lick of difference to federal revenues. That is exactly why the CPC is making a big deal about it. Easiest tax to cut because most people have zero clue about the hundreds the receive in rebates every quarter (we just got over $200 yesterday for this quarter).

There is a significant cost in collecting the tax and then reimbursing it. Getting rid of it, will free up capital and reducing useless churn that burns money and capacity, that can be used for better things.

 

[Quirky]

There is a significant cost in collecting the tax and then reimbursing it. Getting rid of it, will free up capital and reducing useless churn that burns money and capacity, that can be used for better things.

But how else would we add more useless PS positions?

 

[markppcli]

So it's a redistribution of wealth from people who can afford a 2500sqft house and a F150 daily driver to people who want to live in condos. Got it.

F*ck your carbon tax.

No it’s an effort to shift behaviour- maybe drive a similarly priced but more efficient vehicle

 

[McG]

So it's a redistribution of wealth from people who can afford a 2500sqft house and a F150 daily driver to people who want to live in condos. Got it.

Not all people who can afford giant trucks & giant homes buy such things. Carbon pricing is not about financial capacity but about choices. This is not redistributing from rich to poor. This is a cost on the choices that result in more carbon consumption.

 

[Quirky]

No it’s an effort to shift behaviour- maybe drive a similarly priced but more efficient vehicle

The people who are flying in private jets with multiple large gas-guzzling vehicles are telling us to be more efficient.

Ok.

 

[ytz]

There is a significant cost in collecting the tax and then reimbursing it.

I know people take this as common wisdom. But I have not seen a shred of evidence to show this is actually true. Happy to be proven wrong. The anti-tax CTF says it costs $200M to administer the program. If that is actually true, that would make this, the most efficient tax program in the country considering the billions they collect and rebate.

 

[ytz]

The second part of that post was not required. Reddit and 4chan are there if you feel the need to just randomly rage.

I specifically said I wasn't discussing the politics (I am personally ambivalent on the idea). I was just explaining the mechanics of it. But some people have the impulse control of a toddler on forums.....

 

[ytz]

Not all people who can afford giant trucks & giant homes buy such things. Carbon pricing is not about financial capacity but about choices. This is not redistributing from rich to poor. This is a cost on the choices that result in more carbon consumption.

Correct. More accurately it rewards and penalizes relative to your provincial average. To be a net beneficiary, you have to consume fossil fuels less than your neighbours. That's about it.

 

[Good2Golf]

And a little later, we learned it was spherical.

Oblately spherical…

What I am suggesting is that the Harper government wasn't all that generous on buying kit outside wartime exigencies that were also sourced outside Canada. That's why NSS sailed though (pun intended) while they didn't want to burn political capital on FWSAR or FFCP. Etc. Sure the SOCDs existed before. But what was prioritized, in terms of political (and actual) capital, was very much based on wartime needs and then what would spend money at home. They left almost everything else for their successors to do.

I’m not 100% as
You are in the ‘based in wartime needs’…I’ll accept ~50%ish ‘influenced by needs to be operationally capable, which could include both combat as well as non-combat roles of the CAF’…

There is a significant cost in collecting the tax and then reimbursing it. Getting rid of it, will free up capital and reducing useless churn that burns money and capacity, that can be used for better things.

But how else would we add more useless PS positions?

The administration/movement of money isn’t without loss as that money moves. It is precisely the Federal Government’s administration admin of the carbon tax/coat/price rebates that itself reduce the amount of monies available to the beneficiaries (all of them, net +/- nothwithstanding).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I know people take this as common wisdom. But I have not seen a shred of evidence to show this is actually true. Happy to be proven wrong. The anti-tax CTF says it costs $200M to administer the program. If that is actually true, that would make this, the most efficient tax program in the country considering the billions they collect and rebate.

The feds are terrible at understanding how much things cost them. If the CPC gets in expect a 40-50% cut in PS positions. Lot's of activities will need to be cut. Hell they are still trying to fix the Phoenix fiasco, which is still screwing people. My bosses could not understand when I pointed out that an pie chart showing activity cost roughly $40,000 to produce for a 5 minute presentation.

 

[dimsum]

The people who are flying in private jets with multiple large gas-guzzling vehicles are telling us to be more efficient.

Ok.

So, and I fully understand that this is a whataboutism but to highlight a point:

Presumably you recycle, compost (depending on province), as well as throw out the garbage. But many countries don’t have recycling programs and everything goes in the bin. Hell, a lot of the US doesn’t have residential recycling, and their federal buildings don’t require it.

Knowing that, will you stop recycling and composting (if you have a green bin) because enough of the world doesn’t that your municipal recycling is a drop in the bucket?

 

[Quirky]

But many countries don’t have recycling programs and everything goes in the bin. Hell, a lot of the US doesn’t have residential recycling, and their federal buildings don’t require it.

Many countries don’t recycle and pollute the planet a hell of lot more than any Canadian can even comprehend. Start with cleaning up those countries and maybe we will get somewhere on a global scale. Suggesting that taxing every Canadian will help global temperatures is pure lunacy. These eco warriors and climate change activists should start with countries like India and China before taking a dump in their own backyards.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So, and I fully understand that this is a whataboutism but to highlight a point:

Presumably you recycle, compost (depending on province), as well as throw out the garbage. But many countries don’t have recycling programs and everything goes in the bin. Hell, a lot of the US doesn’t have residential recycling, and their federal buildings don’t require it.

Knowing that, will you stop recycling and composting (if you have a green bin) because enough of the world doesn’t that your municipal recycling is a drop in the bucket?

Most people are kidding themselves that their non-green-waste recycling efforts don't go into landfills. Theoretically there might be some future benefit to being able to go back to type-segregated landfills to recover glass and plastics, and also to having already developed recycling habits, but for now it's mainly just a performative consumer of a little bit of peoples' time.

 

[ytz]

Most people are kidding themselves that their non-green-waste recycling efforts don't go into landfills.

True for plastics. Not true for metal which has a substantial market. Exactly why there are efforts to move away from plastics.

 

[dimsum]

Many countries don’t recycle and pollute the planet a hell of lot more than any Canadian can even comprehend. Start with cleaning up those countries and maybe we will get somewhere on a global scale. Suggesting that taxing every Canadian will help global temperatures is pure lunacy. These eco warriors and climate change activists should start with countries like India and China before taking a dump in their own backyards.

I’m pretty sure I’ve had this argument on here with you already, but “we can’t do anything because we’re too small of a population, so we’re not going to try” is not a great argument.

If we’re going to follow that line of thinking, there’s no point in Canada leading anything. 2%? Why bother - we’re too small to contribute. Domestically, we can’t end crime so why bother even trying?

Yes, my examples were hyperbolic but “F it, we can’t do anything anyway” is also hyperbolic.