April Fools!! Here's your Carbon Tax F#ckers!!!

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
110,849
12,020
113
Low Earth Orbit
A vow by the energy-producing province of Saskatchewan not to collect a federal carbon tax on some homes is irresponsible, Canada's energy minister said on Thursday in comments that added to a mounting dispute between Ottawa and the provinces.
View attachment 21018
'It's irresponsible': Justin Trudeau's natural resources minister is worried about a provincial rebellion brewing against Ottawa. Jonathan Wilkinson is concerned about what he's hearing from some premiers, and he's "had it up to here with Mr. Poilievre," Susan Delacourt writes.
View attachment 21019
What’re ya going to do about it Jonathan?
View attachment 21020
Long before he was Canada’s natural resources minister, Jonathan Wilkinson was part of the once-thriving constitutional industry in Canada.

As a negotiator for Saskatchewan’s then-premier Roy Romanow, Wilkinson had a front-row seat in the talks that led to the Charlottetown constitutional accord in the early 1990s.

So now, nearly 30 years later, watching the current Government of Saskatchewan talking about opting out of federal measures it doesn’t like — the price on carbon, for instance — Wilkinson is particularly, even personally, taken aback. His constitutional past and his natural resources present are colliding, and not in a way Wilkinson had ever expected.
View attachment 21021
View attachment 21022
The federal government's discussions around rebranding the rebate program for its carbon pricing system are aimed at ensuring Canadians are aware of what their rebates are for, Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said Tuesday?

The first public acknowledgment of a potential rebrand of the government's flagship climate policy comes as the Conservatives immediately dismissed the idea, and experts and political insiders raised questions on whether a rebrand would boost perceptions of the carbon price. Is it a communications problem?

"I think the discussions around rebranding really relate to trying to ensure that it's understandable," Wilkinson said on his way into the Liberals' weekly cabinet meeting. "A lot of folks out there don't know what they're getting when they actually get the rebate."

Catherine (Climate Barbie) McKenna, who first introduced the price on carbon as environment and climate change minister in 2018, said she had worked incessantly after introducing the policy to make sure she and MPs emphasized the rebates to Canadians. But she can't help but feel "disappointed" with how the government has since communicated the policy, she said.

"Whatever you want to call it, you have to ensure you're telling people they're getting (a portion of their) money back," she said, calling for an "all-MP effort and "constant communications."
Waaaaaaaaaaah
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
24,397
8,742
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Early April Fools Day gift. The Liberal/NDP federal government is rebranding the carbon tax rebate.

Previously known as the Climate Action Incentive Payment, the Liberals are now calling it the "Canada Carbon Rebate."

This is being done, I’m assuming, based upon the assumption that the general public doesn’t understand, or have the ability to goggle, the Definition of “Rebate.”

1707961341766.jpeg
So changing the name to “a partial refund for someone who has paid too much…” is just beyond apt & too honest for this government…so I’m wondering if they’ve googled the definition themselves???

Anyway, the news of the new name for the existing rebate program was first broken via a Finance Canada press release touting the amount Canadians will be reimbursed this year. It was subsequently announced by a series of ministers in Ottawa on Wednesday.

The change does not come with any adjustments to how the federal fuel charge (?) system and corresponding refund (for some) actually works….but will it be sold as something new and less wealth redistributiony???
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
24,397
8,742
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Oh, this is rich! Conceding that the previous name was difficult to understand or connect to the carbon tax plan, ministers said Wednesday they felt there was room for improvement when it came to how they communicated about the "complex" issue of carbon pricing and the Liberals' "revenue neutral" approach???

What? They think pillaging the village and tanking in the polls is a communication problem? How out’a touch are they???
1707962585548.jpeg
“Let’s change the name of this thing that’s contributing to making life exponentially more expensive, ‘cuz that’s the issue.” Holy Wow….
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
24,397
8,742
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
"Early April Fools Day gift. The Liberal/NDP federal government is rebranding the carbon tax rebate."

We Canuks is stupud............
It’s absurd that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals believe that rebranding their “climate action incentive payments” as “Canada carbon rebates” is what’s needed to fix their carbon tax.

What Canadians deserve is the truth about Trudeau’s carbon tax, which they have never been given by the Liberals.

Consider:

The Liberals say if Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre axes the carbon tax, people will lose the rebates.

In reality, if there’s no carbon tax, there’s no need for rebates.

The Liberals describe their carbon tax as a “price on pollution”.

It’s not a price on pollution. It’s a price on almost all goods and services Canadians pay for because almost all goods and services are produced using fossil fuel energy, including necessities such as heating homes in winter.

The Liberals claim 80% of households in the eight provinces paying the carbon tax (Quebec and B.C. have separate systems) receive more in rebates than they pay in carbon taxes.

In fact, parliamentary budget officer Yves Giroux, says when the negative impact of the carbon tax on the economy is factored in, 60% of households currently pay more in carbon taxes than they receive in rebates, which will rise to 80% in Nova Scotia in 2025, 80% in Ontario in 2026, 80% in Manitoba in 2029 and 80% in Alberta and P.E.I. in 2030.

Here are the PBO’s estimated average net costs (after rebates) for households in provinces under the federal carbon tax regime this year, with the carbon tax at $65 per tonne of emissions, followed by the estimated net cost in 2030, when it will be $170 per tonne.

Alberta $710, $2,773; Ontario: $478, $1,820; Saskatchewan $410, $1723; Manitoba $386, $1490; Nova Scotia $431, $1,513; P.E.I $465, $1,521; Newfoundland and Labrador $347, $1,316.

The PBO’s calculations didn’t include New Brunswick because it joined the federal carbon tax system after it did these estimates.

The federal carve-out on home heating oil will reduce the costs in Atlantic Canada to some extent, but all households will pay more when the Trudeau government hikes the carbon tax by 23% to $80 per tonne of emissions, from the current $65 per tonne, on April Fools Day.

The Trudeau government argues the PBO failed to factor in the economic costs of not addressing climate change.

In fact, the PBO says, “Canada’s own emissions (at 1.5% of the global total) are not large enough to materially impact climate change” and “consequently, Canada’s primary means of limiting the economic costs of climate change are through participation in a globally coordinated emissions reduction regime.”
That means we’re relying on countries like China — the world’s largest emitter, which burns more coal than the rest of the world combined — to lower their emissions.

The idea that the increased costs faced by Canadians paying Trudeau’s carbon tax up to 2030 — we don’t know what happens after that — will result in savings because of less severe weather in Canada by 2030, when our emissions aren’t large enough to materially impact climate change, is absurd.

The Trudeau government says its carbon tax is revenue neutral with 90% of the money raised returned to households and 10% going to small businesses, Indigenous groups, farmers, schools, universities and municipalities.

But the carbon tax isn’t revenue neutral because the Trudeau government doesn’t rebate the GST households pay on top of the carbon tax.

The PBO estimates this “tax on a tax” will raise $486 million for the federal government this year, rising annually to more than $1 billion in 2030.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says the Trudeau government has not returned $2.5 billion in carbon tax revenues collected since 2019 to small businesses in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, despite promises to do so.
 

Taxslave2

House Member
Aug 13, 2022
3,246
1,955
113
The rebate is based on income, not taxation. So, low income people can get more in a rebate than they paid in carbon scam tax. Must have had to change the dictionary definition of rebate, because what they have done is the dictionary definition of a wealth redistribution scheme.
Then there is also the question of why there is a rebate, less administration costs if the goal is to punish users of fossil fuels. Looks more like an expensive job creation project for people whose only real job skill is welfare recipient.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
24,397
8,742
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
It’s rare, in today’s political world, for someone in power to whip off the velvet glove and show the iron fist beneath. It’s a bit gauche for our times. But that’s what happened recently when federal NDP natural resources critic Charlie Angus tabled a member’s bill that would clap anyone who says negative things about the government’s fossil-fuel-phobia into the pokey — and rob them on the way to jail. We’re not talking about a slap on the wrist, but about million-dollar fines and years in jail for simply expressing a positive thought about fossil fuels. So much for the fundamental freedom of expression in Canada.
Angus’ Bill C-372 would fine and jail people for the most innocuous of speech relating to climate change or fossil fuels. Even daring to speak the obvious truths such as “natural gas is less polluting than coal” could land you in jail for one year and cost you $750,000. If you produce fossil fuels and are found guilty of “false promotion,” you’d face two years in jail and a $1.5 million fine.

Bill C-372 and its pernicious idea of speech control would cause harm to two major elements of Canadian civilization — our democracy, which depends on the free exchange of ideas as Canada elects its leaders, and our mixed-market economic system where actors in the market require a free flow of information to make informed decisions that can produce positive economic outcomes and economic growth.

Bill C-372 should and likely will die an ignominious death in Parliament, but all politicians of all parties should denounce it for what it is — an attempt by government to suppress speech.
The rebate is based on income, not taxation. So, low income people can get more in a rebate than they paid in carbon scam tax. Must have had to change the dictionary definition of rebate, because what they have done is the dictionary definition of a wealth redistribution scheme.
Then there is also the question of why there is a rebate, less administration costs if the goal is to punish users of fossil fuels. Looks more like an expensive job creation project for people whose only real job skill is welfare recipient.
So somebody can get a “ rebate” of someone else’s money who has paid too much. Sounds about right. That’s not a rebate though, that’s wealth distribution or redistribution.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,824
7,730
113
Washington DC
It’s rare, in today’s political world, for someone in power to whip off the velvet glove and show the iron fist beneath. It’s a bit gauche for our times. But that’s what happened recently when federal NDP natural resources critic Charlie Angus tabled a member’s bill that would clap anyone who says negative things about the government’s fossil-fuel-phobia into the pokey — and rob them on the way to jail. We’re not talking about a slap on the wrist, but about million-dollar fines and years in jail for simply expressing a positive thought about fossil fuels. So much for the fundamental freedom of expression in Canada.
Angus’ Bill C-372 would fine and jail people for the most innocuous of speech relating to climate change or fossil fuels. Even daring to speak the obvious truths such as “natural gas is less polluting than coal” could land you in jail for one year and cost you $750,000. If you produce fossil fuels and are found guilty of “false promotion,” you’d face two years in jail and a $1.5 million fine.

Bill C-372 and its pernicious idea of speech control would cause harm to two major elements of Canadian civilization — our democracy, which depends on the free exchange of ideas as Canada elects its leaders, and our mixed-market economic system where actors in the market require a free flow of information to make informed decisions that can produce positive economic outcomes and economic growth.

Bill C-372 should and likely will die an ignominious death in Parliament, but all politicians of all parties should denounce it for what it is — an attempt by government to suppress speech.

So somebody can get a “ rebate” of someone else’s money who has paid too much. Sounds about right. That’s not a rebate though, that’s wealth distribution or redistribution.
What are the odds this will pass? What are the odds it'll survive judicial scrutiny?
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
24,397
8,742
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
What are the odds this will pass? What are the odds it'll survive judicial scrutiny?
Borderline zero I’m hoping, or something close to it. What are the odds that some politician would not know in advance that this would go over like a lead balloon, and then tries to push it anyway??? I’m also thinking that’s borderline zero, so what’s the motivation?

This is from a ranking member in an “opposition party” that’s in the handholding non-coalition coalition with the current government….& the current government is not laughing at this either, but says it looks forward to debates and discussions about this in parliament? Just something stinky about the whole thing, and the reaction to it so far…

Is this some kind of play in order to slip a less smelly fish into the mix that looks better by comparison?
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,788
2,512
113
Toronto, ON
Borderline zero I’m hoping, or something close to it. What are the odds that some politician would not know in advance that this would go over like a lead balloon, and then tries to push it anyway??? I’m also thinking that’s borderline zero, so what’s the motivation?
Ever spoken to a Vegan? Not a vegetarian but a Vegan. They are beyond rational thought. They are so engrossed in their cause/ideology that they have no perspective outside their own. The Eco-cult has similar devotees. In his mind this is the perfectly rational and necessary thing to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
24,397
8,742
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Ever spoken to a Vegan? Not a vegetarian but a Vegan. They are beyond rational thought. They are so engrossed in their cause/ideology that they have no perspective outside their own. The Eco-cult has similar devotees. In his mind this is the perfectly rational and necessary thing to do.
Oh yeah… yes I have and it was trippy.

Green hasn’t presented himself, though in this light, as going Full Guilbeault before.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,824
7,730
113
Washington DC
Borderline zero I’m hoping, or something close to it. What are the odds that some politician would not know in advance that this would go over like a lead balloon, and then tries to push it anyway??? I’m also thinking that’s borderline zero, so what’s the motivation?

This is from a ranking member in an “opposition party” that’s in the handholding non-coalition coalition with the current government….& the current government is not laughing at this either, but says it looks forward to debates and discussions about this in parliament? Just something stinky about the whole thing, and the reaction to it so far…

Is this some kind of play in order to slip a less smelly fish into the mix that looks better by comparison?
Be sure to write your member opposing it.

By that, I mean your member of Parliament, not your dick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina