BC's Carbon Tax A Success

[grumpydigger]

The carbon tax , goes directly into general revenue
has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or climate change

An absolute complete scam, it probably has funded the fake liberal leaders jet travel all around the world.

Kind of ironic isn't it.

 

[petros]

Is it the tax that's the scam or is it the way it's being spent that is the scam? My philosophy says that polluters should pay a levy to be siphoned off to those who leave a small "footprint".

Are you paying 30¢L in carbon tax like I am?

The carbon tax , goes directly into general revenue
has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or climate change

An absolute complete scam, it probably has funded the fake liberal leaders jet travel all around the world.

Kind of ironic isn't it.

BC is in deep sh-t without it.

 

[coldstream]

I support neither abortion nor gay marriage, but do support user-pay.

Even if we ignore global warming, what about road construction and maintenance? What about asthma care? Carbon tax works there.

Of course a cigarette tax can also go towards asthma care, but the principle of user oay is the same.

What, anyone who supports a cigarette tax is gay promotes abortion too now?

Ever heard of the non sequitur?

This really isn't User Pay scheme. This is a punitive tax on 'carbon criminals'. It is a tool for social engineering not road building.

I'm all for responsible environmental management, which involves a complex system of tradeoffs between economic necessity and ecological custodianship. But to confuse what is going on in radical environmentalism.. and its prime offensive weapon, the fraud of AGW.. would to misinterpret their intentions. They are driven by ideology, politics and selective economic interests and are viciously antagonistic to the human cause. They really care nothing about the environment, or the pseudo science of AGW, except as vehicle to impose a philosophical agenda.

As for 'User Pay' this is more often than not a euphemism to impose regressive taxation, as a shelter for the rich. This is a pillar of NeoCon economic theory, along with globalization, free trade, monetarism, deregulation, privatization and it is corrosive to economic equity and vitality. It all forms a nasty interconnected and cohesive whole.

In any case, I doubt you could draw a clear line from the Carbon Tax to road construction and maintenance.. it just goes into the general revenue fund.

 

[Angstrom]

Best marketing gimick I ever saw. Make the unwashed feel good about paying a tax. Cause somehow they actually think this is helping the environment.

It's a feel good policy for the progressive guilt cult who feel guilty about the environment.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

It's from a government page, which means its party propaganda.

 

[JLM]

Are you paying 30¢L in carbon tax like I am?

I kind of doubt it but have no way of knowing for sure what I pay. If I was to take a "stab in the dark" I might say a nickel!

 

[smallandmighty]

What a load of Liberal Government propaganda.

Success how exactly? I don't consider lining the pockets of special interest a success. I suppose they do, but I'm not seeing the advantage to environmental agendas other than sucking more money out the average citizens wallet.



Wood Burning? There is no wood burning in BC or anywhere else, just ask Bar Sinister.
He can show you a graph and everything.

Well he is wrong. Many here burn wood in their homes, and for many it is their only source of heat. I am burning wood right now in my wood stove, and I live in BC.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Well he is wrong. Many here burn wood in their homes, and for many it is their only source of heat. I am burning wood right now in my wood stove, and I live in BC.

Environment murderer.

 

[smallandmighty]

The carbon tax , goes directly into general revenue
has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or climate change

An absolute complete scam, it probably has funded the fake liberal leaders jet travel all around the world.

Kind of ironic isn't it.

I agree with this statement..Trudeau is living proof of a fool and tax payer money and spending like a fool..he is on a high right now and thinks he is superpower #1. When he falls, and he will, it is going to be a hard one...lol.

These enviromental issues and making everyone pay is a scam. Everyone thinks the native man is such a great enviromentalist, and loves the earth, but they are one of the biggest wasters to date. They over fish, and what they do not use they either sell, or just toss out and let it go to waste, yet politicians buy into their bull, their homes are an enviromental mess, I think before these enviro campaigners get their way, they should clean up their own backyard first.
The David Suzuki's of life are one of the biggest hypocrites around...they tell us to cut back meanwhile they fly their own planes, and I am sure they drive...wipe their butts etc. And until they stop using oil products they should shut their mouths. I am sure Trudeau and his bunch do not take transit, or even try to cut back as they suggest WE do.

 

[tay]

Revenue-neutral carbon tax is not a fairy tale


There is a conservative position on climate change whose chief opponents are other conservatives. It is to tax carbon, not on top of existing programs for reducing emissions, as those on the left would do, but as a replacement for them — and not on top of existing taxes but as a replacement for them. This is the proposal Michael Chong has put before the Conservative party, but the same approach has been suggested by a number of other prominent conservatives.

Nevertheless the idea has been heavily criticized by Chong’s rivals in the Conservative leadership race. Their objections range from the scientifically dubious (climate change isn’t human-caused) to the economically illiterate (prices don’t affect behaviour). But the crowd-pleaser is simply to dismiss the whole premise of the exercise: that any revenues raised would be given back in tax cuts, or in other words that it would be “revenue neutral.”

No less an authority than Kevin O’Leary denounces the idea as “B.S.” Andrew Scheer recites a convoluted story involving Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, while Steven Blaney is content with the logically unassailable “a tax is a tax is a tax.” All rely heavily on eye-rolling appeals to what “everybody knows,” time-honoured slogan of the clued-in and the wised-up. As in: everybody knows there’s no such thing as a revenue-neutral tax reform.

This would be at least conventional, if the politicians in question were in another party: if Conservatives were warning the public that Liberals could not be trusted to bring in one tax without cutting another. It’s somewhat bizarre to hear Conservatives say that of themselves. Surely it would be within the Conservatives’ power to decide whether such a tax were revenue neutral or not. The logic of their position is not only that Chong is lying, but that if he were elected leader, the party would be powerless to pursue any other course.

I can’t think they mean revenue neutrality is impossible: it’s a simple enough matter to cut taxes — simpler, and more popular, than imposing new ones. So instead they must mean it is unlikely. And the evidence for that, presumably, is that it has not been so in similar situations in the past. Why, remember when the GST was brought in — by the Tories, if memory serves — how it was supposed to be “revenue neutral.” How did that turn out, huh?

Andrew Coyne: Revenue-neutral carbon tax is not a fairy tale | National Post

 

[Danbones]

how does this fix the coming glaciation all the actual charts show is the next pattern repeat?

 

[mentalfloss]

Revenue-neutral carbon tax is not a fairy tale


There is a conservative position on climate change whose chief opponents are other conservatives. It is to tax carbon, not on top of existing programs for reducing emissions, as those on the left would do, but as a replacement for them — and not on top of existing taxes but as a replacement for them. This is the proposal Michael Chong has put before the Conservative party, but the same approach has been suggested by a number of other prominent conservatives.

Nevertheless the idea has been heavily criticized by Chong’s rivals in the Conservative leadership race. Their objections range from the scientifically dubious (climate change isn’t human-caused) to the economically illiterate (prices don’t affect behaviour). But the crowd-pleaser is simply to dismiss the whole premise of the exercise: that any revenues raised would be given back in tax cuts, or in other words that it would be “revenue neutral.”

No less an authority than Kevin O’Leary denounces the idea as “B.S.” Andrew Scheer recites a convoluted story involving Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, while Steven Blaney is content with the logically unassailable “a tax is a tax is a tax.” All rely heavily on eye-rolling appeals to what “everybody knows,” time-honoured slogan of the clued-in and the wised-up. As in: everybody knows there’s no such thing as a revenue-neutral tax reform.

This would be at least conventional, if the politicians in question were in another party: if Conservatives were warning the public that Liberals could not be trusted to bring in one tax without cutting another. It’s somewhat bizarre to hear Conservatives say that of themselves. Surely it would be within the Conservatives’ power to decide whether such a tax were revenue neutral or not. The logic of their position is not only that Chong is lying, but that if he were elected leader, the party would be powerless to pursue any other course.

I can’t think they mean revenue neutrality is impossible: it’s a simple enough matter to cut taxes — simpler, and more popular, than imposing new ones. So instead they must mean it is unlikely. And the evidence for that, presumably, is that it has not been so in similar situations in the past. Why, remember when the GST was brought in — by the Tories, if memory serves — how it was supposed to be “revenue neutral.” How did that turn out, huh?

Andrew Coyne: Revenue-neutral carbon tax is not a fairy tale | National Post

It's been revenue neutral but people like to misinterpret that to mean they get all their money back (which is stupid)

 

[Danbones]

that doesn't actually answer the question

 

[mentalfloss]

What question?

 

[Danbones]

if you missed it, that's your problem

 

[mentalfloss]

Okay.

 

[petros]

 

[taxslave]

BC carbon tax is a rip roaring success. Brings in far more than what other taxes were reduced and has the added benefit of making everyone outside major population centers pay far more than their fair share of taxes.

$1.14 is cheap gas. WE pay $1.23 except at Costco in COurtenay. SOmehow they can sell it for around $1.10 and make a profit.
Of course if one should be so fortunate as to have a status card they don't have to pay the carbon scam tax cause Indian cars don't polute.

 

[petros]

thats 114 litres not the price. Price per L was $1.32 which was down from $1.37 earlier that day.

 

[Jinentonix]

It's been revenue neutral but people like to misinterpret that to mean they get all their money back (which is stupid)

Oh please, you think revenue neutral means they plow the money back into infrastructure or something. That is NOT revenue neutral, it's called a tax grab.
A tax is revenue neutral if it neither increases nor decreases tax revenues when compared to existing law. In other words, for the carbon tax to be truly revenue neutral, taxes have to be reduced or eliminated elsewhere by an equivalent amount.

But then again, what should anyone expect from a dolt who argues that an ideology equals race/ethnicity. And that's the problem with progtards like you, always revising history and definitions to suit the narratives you're always pushing.