The Mask Gets Ripped Off Yet Another Carbon Tax Lie

[Johnnny]

The first province to institute a carbon tax was B.C.
Now we know why they call it the "Left" Coast.....

Hey I'm staying in either Hearst or Kap on Sunday there. Wanna meet up drink some beers, talk about millennials and smoke some weed? :lol:

 

[DaSleeper]

I haven't smoked in 35 years and don't drink.....much but I do drink coffee...(too much)
So if you might be staying at the Park Inn...
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.4129...4!1sTax4zJ613LTL7Zpr_o3l8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
We could meet at Tim Horton, next door...
I'll P.M. you my phone # later if you decide to stay in Kap!
And the beer store is right across the road, if you don't like coffee...Just swing street view around, and zoom in eastward :lol:

 

[Johnnny]

Now im going to be burning by there, thanks but next time. Next time in land where the trees are roughly the same height.

 

[Angstrom]

The nationally vaunted “revenue-neutral” B.C. carbon tax has finally taken off its mask. It is now just another bare-faced tax grab designed to pinch money from residents’ wallets and plunk it into government coffers.


The new B.C. government made the announcement during its mini- budget presentation in Victoria recently, stating that the B.C. carbon tax would increase to $50 per tonne by the year 2021, a full calendar year ahead of the federally imposed schedule. It will also no longer be “revenue neutral.”


In fact, the B.C. carbon tax hasn’t been “revenue neutral” for British Columbians for several years. In February, the Fraser Institute reported that the then Liberal government was using pre-existing tax credits to make the carbon tax seem revenue neutral. With credits removed from the balance sheet, the carbon tax stopped being “revenue neutral” back in 2013–14, and was hitting British Columbians with a cumulative tax increase of $865 million, or $728 per family of four. The B.C. Liberals subsequently removed some of the older credits to attempt to bring the tax back into balance for their final budget. The newly elected NDP government has altogether abandoned the charade of making the carbon tax appear revenue neutral.

Ratepayer watchdogs, including the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, had long warned that revenue-neutral carbon taxes might be revenue neutral for governments, but that they’re never revenue neutral for families. With Ottawa now requiring all provinces to keep raising taxes on carbon, we are on the path to ever-increasing taxes under the guise of stopping global climate change, and B.C. is leading the way.


How much will this national carbon-tax experiment cost users of carbon? The Trudeau government has that information, but it is refusing to release it. Internal federal government documents recently obtained by the investigative news outlet, Blacklocks Reporter, show that the federally forced carbon tax of $50 per tonne, set to be in place by the year 2022, will cost western Canadian crop farmers $3,705 per year and will do nothing to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions.


Crop farmers use diesel to operate their combines to harvest grains and seeds. A $50-per-tonne carbon tax will tack an extra 13.5 cents per litre of diesel, whose price is already comprised one-third of existing taxes. An intriguing part of the documents obtained by Blacklocks Reporter is that the federal government has determined that farmers in Saskatchewan have already been reducing their carbon dioxide emissions without a carbon tax. The magic lever wasn’t government. It was the scientific innovation of more efficient machinery, better soil management and better plant genetics, managed by people who know their land best: the farmers and business owners themselves.


What about people who aren’t farmers? How much are carbon taxes going to cost them? It’s difficult to get a straight answer out of government, but reports say it will cost drivers 11.6 cents more per litre of gasoline and it will take an extra $50 per month away from people in B.C. And double that for folks in Nova Scotia who depend more on coal and oil for power and heat. Those are just preliminary estimates, of course, and it would be naïve to think that when governments get rolling, it won’t wind up costing more than expected.
For those who want to believe that these imposed carbon taxes are only meant to curb our deplorable behaviour, such as the sin of driving a fossil-fueled car, consider what’s happened in the state of Washington. There, the government cheered on environmentally conscious drivers who worked hard to reduce their use of gasoline. Citizens are car-pooling, moving to transit corridors and buying more fuel-efficient vehicles to skip paying at the pump. But then the government’s bean counters realized that all that reduced gasoline consumption could see gas tax revenues fall by 45 per cent in the next 18 years. So now the state is looking at exploring “road-usage fees,” also known as tolls, also known as taxes, to tax those who can’t be taxed for their carbon use.


The moral is this: Taxes are always just taxes, dollars taken away from people by government. The government — whether those elected or in the bureaucracy — is just a collection of well-paid people with varied political opinions and varied expertise who get to decide how to spend your money and alter your behaviour. And government will continue to grow and spread and demand more taxes — using any reason it can think of — until it is pruned back by fed-up ratepayers and voters.

Kris Sims is the B.C. director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.



The mask gets ripped off yet another carbon-tax dishonesty | Financial Post

We all called it.

 

[taxslave]

The first province to institute a carbon tax was B.C.
Now we know why they call it the "Left" Coast.....

It was done by the previous BCLiberal government as a vote buyer several elections ago. Worked like a charm as the leftard were so stupid as to think itwas a good thing when in reality it is just another cash cow to milk. Now we have a dipper government that doesn't even pretend it is revenue neutral and they are milking it hourly.

 

[petros]

The nationally vaunted “revenue-neutral” B.C. carbon tax has finally taken off its mask. It is now just another bare-faced tax grab designed to pinch money from residents’ wallets and plunk it into government coffers.


The new B.C. government made the announcement during its mini- budget presentation in Victoria recently, stating that the B.C. carbon tax would increase to $50 per tonne by the year 2021, a full calendar year ahead of the federally imposed schedule. It will also no longer be “revenue neutral.”


In fact, the B.C. carbon tax hasn’t been “revenue neutral” for British Columbians for several years. In February, the Fraser Institute reported that the then Liberal government was using pre-existing tax credits to make the carbon tax seem revenue neutral. With credits removed from the balance sheet, the carbon tax stopped being “revenue neutral” back in 2013–14, and was hitting British Columbians with a cumulative tax increase of $865 million, or $728 per family of four. The B.C. Liberals subsequently removed some of the older credits to attempt to bring the tax back into balance for their final budget. The newly elected NDP government has altogether abandoned the charade of making the carbon tax appear revenue neutral.

Ratepayer watchdogs, including the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, had long warned that revenue-neutral carbon taxes might be revenue neutral for governments, but that they’re never revenue neutral for families. With Ottawa now requiring all provinces to keep raising taxes on carbon, we are on the path to ever-increasing taxes under the guise of stopping global climate change, and B.C. is leading the way.


How much will this national carbon-tax experiment cost users of carbon? The Trudeau government has that information, but it is refusing to release it. Internal federal government documents recently obtained by the investigative news outlet, Blacklocks Reporter, show that the federally forced carbon tax of $50 per tonne, set to be in place by the year 2022, will cost western Canadian crop farmers $3,705 per year and will do nothing to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions.


Crop farmers use diesel to operate their combines to harvest grains and seeds. A $50-per-tonne carbon tax will tack an extra 13.5 cents per litre of diesel, whose price is already comprised one-third of existing taxes. An intriguing part of the documents obtained by Blacklocks Reporter is that the federal government has determined that farmers in Saskatchewan have already been reducing their carbon dioxide emissions without a carbon tax. The magic lever wasn’t government. It was the scientific innovation of more efficient machinery, better soil management and better plant genetics, managed by people who know their land best: the farmers and business owners themselves.


What about people who aren’t farmers? How much are carbon taxes going to cost them? It’s difficult to get a straight answer out of government, but reports say it will cost drivers 11.6 cents more per litre of gasoline and it will take an extra $50 per month away from people in B.C. And double that for folks in Nova Scotia who depend more on coal and oil for power and heat. Those are just preliminary estimates, of course, and it would be naïve to think that when governments get rolling, it won’t wind up costing more than expected.
For those who want to believe that these imposed carbon taxes are only meant to curb our deplorable behaviour, such as the sin of driving a fossil-fueled car, consider what’s happened in the state of Washington. There, the government cheered on environmentally conscious drivers who worked hard to reduce their use of gasoline. Citizens are car-pooling, moving to transit corridors and buying more fuel-efficient vehicles to skip paying at the pump. But then the government’s bean counters realized that all that reduced gasoline consumption could see gas tax revenues fall by 45 per cent in the next 18 years. So now the state is looking at exploring “road-usage fees,” also known as tolls, also known as taxes, to tax those who can’t be taxed for their carbon use.


The moral is this: Taxes are always just taxes, dollars taken away from people by government. The government — whether those elected or in the bureaucracy — is just a collection of well-paid people with varied political opinions and varied expertise who get to decide how to spend your money and alter your behaviour. And government will continue to grow and spread and demand more taxes — using any reason it can think of — until it is pruned back by fed-up ratepayers and voters.

Kris Sims is the B.C. director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.



The mask gets ripped off yet another carbon-tax dishonesty | Financial Post

I sequester 1.3t per acre using modern zero till seed drills pulled by a tier 3A tractor.

I was supposed to be getting $15 per acre in sellable carbon credits to offset the $650K to be a hi-tech redneck.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I love how some people continue to eat the bullsh!t sandwiches the government serves up.

Privilege? Wow. People already do pay for the (rolling eyes) privilege. It's called purchasing the fuel.

Basically, you're saying it's okay that they lied, just because it feeds your warped view that fuel is evil..

You'd think environmentalists would be rabid that the revenue neutral carbon tax is not going toward new clean energy endeavors. But then being an environmentalist isn't really about making the planet a cleaner better place. It's about being a part of an exclusive club of bullsh!t artists. And it's probably a cool way to meet chicks.

Yeah I think of your point every time a see a single occupant of a monster pickup. As I said, if you want to burn fossil fuels then pay for the privilege.

 

[petros]

You are jealous of people who drive trucks. There are a lot of your type.

Did you know my big ol', badass truck is more fuel efficient than flossy's 2007 Honda Civic?

 

[MHz]

The first province to institute a carbon tax was B.C.
Now we know why they call it the "Left" Coast.....

How much money was collected and on what was it spent on?

A solar power smartphone would cost somebody in the tropics how much per year @ $15/tonne. Plus other things at 3V such as LED lighting. We called them trinkets when the fur trade was the first shot in the war against the North American people. The rest is history so to speak.

I'm thinking if I drove a truck that hauled the same fuel I used it would be getting the best fuel mileage when compared to an economy car. (at least until forensic accounting came along)

 

[JamesBondo]

Yeah I think of your point every time a see a single occupant of a monster pickup. As I said, if you want to burn fossil fuels then pay for the privilege.

You dumas, you sound just like Donald Trump. Trucks move building supplies and tools. That hybrid car of yours should be in the carpool lane but you won't let anyone sit in it.

 

[captain morgan]

You dumas, you sound just like Donald Trump. Trucks move building supplies and tools. That hybrid car of yours should be in the carpool lane but you won't let anyone sit in it.

The tards will never understand that gas/diesel for a personal vehicle are not the only uses of hydrocarbons.

Groceries on the store shelves, electronics and everyday goods all depend on truck and rail to get into the hands of the consumer... Hell, these same savants can't put together their use of nat gas for heating or power generation

 

[taxslave]

Yeah I think of your point every time a see a single occupant of a monster pickup. As I said, if you want to burn fossil fuels then pay for the privilege.

Sounds like you got a really bad case of penis envy.

The tards will never understand that gas/diesel for a personal vehicle are not the only uses of hydrocarbons.

Groceries on the store shelves, electronics and everyday goods all depend on truck and rail to get into the hands of the consumer... Hell, these same savants can't put together their use of nat gas for heating or power generation

We are not allowed to have natural gas. If we did there would be no one to tax. So we burn wood which is the one truly sustainable fuel.

 

[captain morgan]

We are not allowed to have natural gas. If we did there would be no one to tax. So we burn wood which is the one truly sustainable fuel.

You guys in BC are so lucky that you have access to that non-carbon based wood that doesn't emit any GHGs

 

[petros]

They have banned wood fireplaces and stoves in new construction.

 

[captain morgan]

Even with that non-carbon based wood that doesn't emit any GHGs?

 

[Highball]

Two University of California , San Francisco junk scientists after being exposed for using plagerized and unsupported data dealing with this question.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Yeah I think of your point every time a see a single occupant of a monster pickup. As I said, if you want to burn fossil fuels then pay for the privilege.

Ummm.....FVCK YOU!!!

Who are you or anyone else to decide what my privileges are? Why does every leftard think they have some right to dictate how other people live? Mind your own damn business!

 

[Bar Sinister]

You are jealous of people who drive trucks. There are a lot of your type.

Did you know my big ol', badass truck is more fuel efficient than flossy's 2007 Honda Civic?

I had no idea you and he lived so close together you could compare the fuel efficiency of your respective vehicles. And I just wonder how your truck compares in fuel efficiency with other automobiles of the same year.

You dumas, you sound just like Donald Trump. Trucks move building supplies and tools. That hybrid car of yours should be in the carpool lane but you won't let anyone sit in it.

Dumbass? I think that word reflects you far better than me. I'm betting you didn't understand my post. I said nothing about transport trucks. And what hybrid? And what carpool lane? You really have a reading problem putting all that unstated info into my posts.

Sounds like you got a really bad case of penis envy.

I certainly would not have to worry about that in your case.

Ummm.....FVCK YOU!!!

Who are you or anyone else to decide what my privileges are? Why does every leftard think they have some right to dictate how other people live? Mind your own damn business!

Somehow I don't think you can control anything I say. However, I am certainly happy that it seems to have spoiled your day.

 

[EagleSmack]

I love how some people continue to eat the bullsh!t sandwiches the government serves up.

Privilege? Wow. People already do pay for the (rolling eyes) privilege. It's called purchasing the fuel.

Basically, you're saying it's okay that they lied, just because it feeds your warped view that fuel is evil..

You'd think environmentalists would be rabid that the revenue neutral carbon tax is not going toward new clean energy endeavors. But then being an environmentalist isn't really about making the planet a cleaner better place. It's about being a part of an exclusive club of bullsh!t artists. And it's probably a cool way to meet chicks.

That sums it up nicely.

 

[Decapoda]

We're finally told what Trudeau's carbon tax will cost us. Are you sitting down?

Far from being painless as advertised, the costs to households will be significant.

Three provinces — Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia — will be hit with more than $1,000 of carbon tax per year to comply with the $50-per-tonne carbon tax Ottawa has mandated for 2022. Nova Scotia ($1,120) and Alberta ($1,111) will have the highest bills, followed by Saskatchewan ($1,032), New Brunswick ($963), Newfoundland ($859) and Prince Edward Island ($788 ). The average household in Ontario will pay $707 a year to comply with the carbon tax once its fully implemented.

Who gets the lowest bill? British Columbia ($603 per year), Quebec ($662) and Manitoba ($683). Simply put, households in provinces with the lowest bills will pay just a bit more than half compared to households in the hardest-hit provinces.

But it gets worse, since most experts say carbon prices must continue to increase sharply to effectively lower emissions. At $100 a tonne, for example, households in Alberta will pony up $2,223, in Saskatchewan they’ll pay $2,065 and in Nova Scotia, $2,240. In fact, at $100 a tonne, the average price for households in all provinces is well north of $1,000 per year.

Already across Canada, particularly in the Maritimes, a significant number of households fit the definition of “energy poverty” — that is, 10 per cent or more of household expenditures are spent simply procuring the energy needed to live (to power the home and transportation). In 2016, the Fraser Institute measured energy poverty in Canada and found that when you add up the costs to power the home and cars, 19.4 per cent of Canadian households devoted at least 10 per cent or more of their expenditures to energy.

--
Revenue neutral, eh?? Nope, just another tax grab.