Suburbanites beware: Here comes teh gas tax?

[Machjo]

B.C. carbon tax boosts prices at gas pump

While this culd be beneficial to urbanites since they generally use less gas anyway, so they'd just bask in lower income taxes, these same lower income taxes will likely pale in comparison to a big tax hike for suburbanites who work downtown.

You're for or against a gas tax. for me, I'm for it, but then again, I'm not a big tax guzzler either, so in that respect it's just like cigarette or alcohol taxes; the higher the better, since all I notice from it is lower income tax.

What about you? I'd imagine that 'ruralites' might not like it too much except perhaps for the few who live and work in town centres. Food prices might increase in the downtown cores of big cities like toronto I'd imagine, but not much in small towns, so I suppose that would be an advantage there, shifting most of the tax burden onto suburbanites overall?

 

[Liberalman]

BC is not the brightest when they put a plan into action.

Food will cost more and tourism will suffer people won’t go out as much or spend money because the products will be too expensive but they will enjoy clean air Canadian air that’s if the winds don’t blow any air up from America.

 

[Machjo]

BC is not the brightest when they put a plan into action.

Food will cost more and tourism will suffer people won’t go out as much or spend money because the products will be too expensive but they will enjoy clean air Canadian air that’s if the winds don’t blow any air up from America.

It would have its advantages too. For instance, if personal taxes drop, then a person could choose to find alternative cheaper transportation and buy locally grown foods. Sure even an apple from a neighbouring town would be hit by a gas tax, but not as much as your income with an income tax. It could allow more strategic buyers to save more at the end of the day if they choose.

Also, some industries could benefit too. For instance, while it might make our gas industry less competitive in the world market, our low-gas-dependent service-oriented industries would witness an overall tax drop. for example, persons who can provide on-line services to customers. Since income taxes would drop, they might be willing to sell at lower cost as long as they're willing to forfeit the Hummer and exotic fruits. The counterpart in another province can't do that because without a gas tas, income tax has to stay high. And unlike gas, you can't avoid making some kind of income.

 

[Machjo]

The ones I'd see suffering from this the most would be suburbanites who work in the cities, and the biggest winners likely urbanites or alternatively 'ruralites' who live and work in a town or village centre or near a large market for their products. 'Ruralites' living away from any centre might suffer too though.

 

[YukonJack]

Anyone who is FOR a gas tax hike is also for higher grocery prices, higher heating and air conditioning prices, also, clothing, furniture, large and small appliances, computers, books, etc., etc., because everything needs to be transported, and if the price of gasoline (or diesel) is higher, somebody has to pay the piper.

And it is YOU!

 

[Machjo]

Anyone who is FOR a gas tax hike is also for higher grocery prices, higher heating and air conditioning prices, also, clothing, furniture, large and small appliances, computers, books, etc., etc., because everything needs to be transported, and if the price of gasoline (or diesel) is higher, somebody has to pay the piper.

And it is YOU!

Of course all those things will go up in price, but the price increae will also be proportional the the distance. Clearly a local farmer will have a price advantage over the one from across the nation. The same could be said for other products. This would encourage more local buying habits. And those who adapt well to this would likely pay less tax overall in the end owing to the drop in income tax. The only ones who'd really suffer would be suburbanites and farmers living far away from major cities. Urbanites and farmers living near urban centres would likely benefit from such a tax shift.

But then again, if you choose to live out in the boonies, that's your problem.

 

[captain morgan]

But then again, if you choose to live out in the boonies, that's your problem.

Exactly how many fruit/veg/meat/poultry producers do you know of that are within close proximity to a major center?

You will soon realize that the logic that was sold to the unwitting citizens in the urban centers will back-fire. The notion that the cost of transportation will be a part of your increased costs, but the bigger impact will be on the gouging that you will experience.

Get back to us in 6-8 months time and talk about the big 'tax break' that you are enjoying... In all likelihood, I suspect that we won't hear back on this one.

 

[taxslave]

Not being in favor of any tax hikes I like the carbon tax better than income tax. I live in a rural area so drive a fair amount for work but I try to be as efficient as possible and we burn wood so heat is free. Much better than income tax that I have no control over. If it keeps the odd tourist away from our island I don't have a problem with that since they only supply low paid seasonal work anyway as well as clog the roads, get lost or hurt requiring rescue and start the odd forest fire by being stupid. All of which locals must pay for.

 

[YukonJack]

"But then again, if you choose to live out in the boonies, that's your problem"

I live in Winnipeg. If you consider Winnipeg the boonies, that is your problem, not mine.

 

[captain morgan]

Not being in favor of any tax hikes I like the carbon tax better than income tax. I live in a rural area so drive a fair amount for work but I try to be as efficient as possible and we burn wood so heat is free. Much better than income tax that I have no control over. If it keeps the odd tourist away from our island I don't have a problem with that since they only supply low paid seasonal work anyway as well as clog the roads, get lost or hurt requiring rescue and start the odd forest fire by being stupid. All of which locals must pay for.

Burning wood is somewhat contrary to the goals of a carbon tax taxslave.

In terms of the preference between the 2 options (carbon vs income tax), I think that most would agree that a carbon tax is preferable in that you have some control over what you pay, however, the problem in the BC experience is that there (to my knowledge) is no reduction in the income tax to offset the carbon tax potential.

As it stands, it is a new tax on top of everything else.

 

[petros]

Wear sweaters.

 

[petros]

ANY home or building can be heated from the earth. Entire cities could be 100% free of burning anything for heat or cooling for far cheaper than you think.

 

[YukonJack]

Improve Mother Earth.

Take advice from an upside down baby with a moustache.

 

[petros]

You don't like my picture of baby Jesus? That is blasphemy!

 

[TenPenny]

Two men say they're Jesus - one of them must be wrong.

 

[petros]

Two men say they're Jesus - one of them must be wrong.

There's a protest singer, he's singing a protest song.

 

[Tonington]

Burning wood is somewhat contrary to the goals of a carbon tax taxslave.

Not if it's your own wood lot, and you aren't slashing down whole tracts of forest. Selective cutting, lengthened rotations, reduced impact logging, and species selection can all increase the carbon sequestered in forests.

In terms of the preference between the 2 options (carbon vs income tax), I think that most would agree that a carbon tax is preferable in that you have some control over what you pay, however, the problem in the BC experience is that there (to my knowledge) is no reduction in the income tax to offset the carbon tax potential.

Carbon tax no cash cow in its first year

The tax cuts actually gave more money to British Columbians than the carbon tax took in.

As it stands, it is a new tax on top of everything else.

While other taxes dropped. This is afterall a market based approach...and a hell of a lot simpler than the cap and trade bills like Washington is considering.

 

[captain morgan]

Not if it's your own wood lot, and you aren't slashing down whole tracts of forest. Selective cutting, lengthened rotations, reduced impact logging, and species selection can all increase the carbon sequestered in forests.

Burning wood creates as much, if not more eevviill CO2 emissions than the corresponding amount of nat gas that you'd use to heat your home (equivalent).

Carbon tax no cash cow in its first year

The tax cuts actually gave more money to British Columbians than the carbon tax took in. While other taxes dropped. This is afterall a market based approach...and a hell of a lot simpler than the cap and trade bills like Washington is considering.

I'll agree that the model is simpler than the cap/trade as proposed in the USA, however, the off-set (from what I've read) will not necessarily equalize in th end.

Take a read here: B.C. carbon tax kicks in on Canada Day

Like the article states, the last time that revenue-neutral tax was with the GST - and we all know that prices didn't remain static.

 

[petros]

If the climate is warming and heating and cooling equipment is getting more and more efficient or emission free why would you worry about taxes? Use less payless. It's simple.

 

[Tonington]

Burning wood creates as much, if not more eevviill CO2 emissions than the corresponding amount of nat gas that you'd use to heat your home (equivalent).

Not the argument.

You said that burning wood was contrary to the goals of a carbon tax. It's not necessarily. Not all woodlot owners are clear cutting virgin forest. Smart forest stewardship can increase the stored carbon, including using some of that as fuel.

I'll agree that the model is simpler than the cap/trade as proposed in the USA, however, the off-set (from what I've read) will not necessarily equalize in th end.

The tax is simpler, and it doesn't give any pollution permits away for free.

Like the article states, the last time that revenue-neutral tax was with the GST - and we all know that prices didn't remain static.

And in this case, the dropping of taxes, and increases on carbon content, actually saved tax payers money, or rather gave them back more than they paid in. You said the opposite was the problem, which clearly-so far- is not true.