Two-thirds of Canadians approve of Canada's new carbon tax

[Jinentonix]

It's not.

The revenue actually goes toward lowering emissions or reducing other taxes.

No, it doesn't. No place that has a carbon tax has actually managed to reduce emissions via a tax. And so far in Canada, no other taxes have been reduced or eliminated.
You see grasshopper, simply saying that's what it does doesn't make it actually happen. It's called making policy based of hope and feelings.

 

[mentalfloss]

Bullshyte!
And you're delusional!

BC already did it and Alberta is doing it too.

No, it doesn't. No place that has a carbon tax has actually managed to reduce emissions via a tax. And so far in Canada, no other taxes have been reduced or eliminated.
You see grasshopper, simply saying that's what it does doesn't make it actually happen. It's called making policy based of hope and feelings.

Yes, BC already did it.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

It's not.

The revenue actually goes toward lowering emissions or reducing other taxes.

Which taxes have been reduced with the imposition of the carbon tax?

 

[coldstream]

The Carbon Tax is a regressive and futile tax, extremely destructive to Canada's industrial economy and prosperity.. in support of a completely fabricated threat without a iota of scientific merit.

It supports an radical environmental agenda that is purely philosophical and political in nature, and deeply antagonistic to the human cause, which it views as a pestilence on a pristine eco earth utopia. It's really sick.

And its dispiriting to see so many Canadians have been dumbed down sufficiently to believe this nonsense.. including that incompetent little fart of a Prime Minister we are stuck with.

 

[mentalfloss]

Which taxes have been reduced with the imposition of the carbon tax?

Income tax.

 

[Jinentonix]

BC already did it and Alberta is doing it too.



Yes, BC already did it.

No, they didn't. In fact BC's emissions have increased due their natgas industry, and they don't even have a depot. Nor did they reduce or eliminate any taxes otherwise.
It was a tax grab, pure and simple.

 

[mentalfloss]

No, it's gone down since 2008.

There was a temporary bump in 2011 but that would have been much higher without the carbon price.

 

[Jinentonix]

Income tax.

Really now. What was BC's provincial income tax tax rate before and after the introduction of the carbon tax and what rate is the carbon tax currently set at?

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Income tax.

Bull. When did Trudeau/Wynn reduce income tax to cover their carbon tax/price?

 

[mentalfloss]

Don't you guys hate always being wrong?


In practice, the province has cut $760-million more in income and other taxes than needed to offset carbon tax revenue.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/sec.the...bon-tax-it-works/article19512237/?service=amp

 

[DaSleeper]

Bull. When did Trudeau/Wynn reduce income tax to cover their carbon tax/price?

You guys are arguing with the Selfsame of global warming!
His Allah is Al Bore.....

 

[mentalfloss]

I rest my case.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I rest my case.

You can't rest what you don't have.

 

[mentalfloss]

You clearly took advantage of that discount the salt cave is offering.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

You clearly took advantage of that discount the salt cave is offering.

You made a claim which is a lie. If it was truly revenue neutral (and not the stupid and incorrect definition way you use), I would not have an objection to it. But as of 01/01 this year, Wynn/Trudeau are collecting extra money at the pumps from us. There has been no offsetting tax decrease. This is not revenue neutral. It is a tax grab.

 

[petros]

The caveat being the truth.

Truth has no caveat.

 

[Jinentonix]

No, it's gone down since 2008.

There was a temporary bump between in 2011 but that would have been much higher without the carbon price.

No, it didn't go down. You're falling for "net" reduction as opposed to real reduction. Net reduction is based on assumptions and on economic growth vs emissions generation. It assumes that if emissions don't keep pace with economic development then that reduces emissions, regardless of the fact that emissions still increased.
Let's use Norway as an example since they've had a carbon tax since 1991. Because emissions didn't match economic development between 1991-2008, they claimed a "net" reduction of 16%. However, over that same period there was a real increase in emissions of 15%.
It's the same "magic" math that allows corporations to post a profit, but still write it off as a loss to the CRA.

 

[petros]

Bull. When did Trudeau/Wynn reduce income tax to cover their carbon tax/price?

Don't you guys hate always being wrong?


In practice, the province has cut $760-million more in income and other taxes than needed to offset carbon tax revenue.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/sec.the...bon-tax-it-works/article19512237/?service=amp

When was Christie Clark elected PM and Premier of ON?

 

[White_Unifier]

The purpose of the carbon tax is to incentive reductions in carbon.

It does that by providing tax credits or using revenue to fund renewable projects.


Conversely, when habits don't change, the financial benefits are lost.

But it gives an incentive to change habits. That's the whole point of it, just like a tobacco or alcohol tax. Same concept. Not hard to grasp really.

 

[Cannuck]

But it gives an incentive to change habits. That's the whole point of it, just like a tobacco or alcohol tax. Same concept. Not hard to grasp really.

I haven't changed my habits nor do I know anybody that has. The only way a tax will change behaviors is if it hurts.