Two-thirds of Canadians approve of Canada's new carbon tax
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
It's done annually.
At the end of the calendar year they either spend the money on projects or offset it with a tax rebate.
If you belief revenue neutral means that every dollar you lose, you get it back later, then you are.. well... That's not what revenue neutral means if that's what you're thinking.
Revenue Neutral means that tax revenue will not change. The total amount of tax revenue will remain the same while individuals may wind up paying more or less tax depending on the distribution of how they pay taxes. What you are describing is not revenue neutral. Your description just means it is a tax grab -- an additional source of revenue but will not be put in general revenues. Having pet projects for the new revenue does not mean neutrality.
Different people react differently. A wealthy person who enjoys driving his Hummer around might just decide to grin and bear it. But a poorer person might decide to take his lower income tax to buy a bicycle so as to avoid the higher cost of public transit resulting from the carbon tax.
That is a problem. I like the way Hong Kong did it with very low income taxes and no value-added tax either.
A relatively tariff-free jurisdiction too.
Trudeau's Carbon Tax was not based on Canadian interest, or the climate for that matter. This was clearly one of JT's ideology, it will affect the countries growth, investments and jobs. Our competitive partner to the south will take advantage of our less than stellar intuitive approach. No business will choose to pay more dollars to do business here.
Try something a little more updated.
But there’s a fundamental problem with the B.C. model and proponents would do well to temper their enthusiasm: B.C.’s carbon tax is not actually revenue neutral. Back in 2008/09, when the province first introduced the carbon tax, the B.C. government promised revenue neutrality. And initially it was. To offset the new revenue, the government introduced new cuts to personal and business tax rates and a new tax credit for low-income earners. The value of these new tax reductions was enough to offset all the new revenue generated from the carbon tax.
However, just five years later, as the carbon-tax revenue increased, the government no longer provided new tax cuts that sufficiently offset the carbon tax’s revenue. In other words, B.C.’s carbon tax ceased being revenue neutral in 2013/14.
How B.C.
Climate change is real.
It's primarily caused by humans.
Carbon pricing is the appropriate remedy.
Get over it, folks, because this is a systemic change ain't going anywhere.
Chamber of Commerce has bold plan for Yukon carbon tax monies
The Yukon Chamber of Commerce has some strong opinions on what to do with carbon tax money that will be collected in the territory.
The federal government has said such a tax will be implemented across the country by 2018; and the Yukon Liberals campaigned last year on a promise to return the tax directly to Yukoners' pockets.
But the organization that represents businesses in the territory has other ideas. It has just released its official policy on both the carbon tax and energy policy for the Yukon.
Key among its recommendations include creating an "arm's length, apolitical, independent and professionally managed third-party Yukon Green Energy Trust," to manage the proceeds of a tax.
The policy reiterates previous stances on a northern carbon tax, noting that Yukon businesses and consumers don't have the same options for reducing their carbon consumption as southern Canadians do; it also points out that because Yukon is cold, dark, and covers a large area with a small population, the carbon footprint per person is disproportionately higher.
It also encourages the Yukon government to work with the other territories to seek "a lower or delayed set of emission targets for the North."
The Chamber is also in favour of a private sector steering committee, to determine how to allocate revenues from carbon pricing.
Chamber president Peter Turner says those revenues should be dedicated to "business-oriented solutions."
"A third party organization [would] look at how to direct those monies, with the objective of getting us off non-renewable solutions. And we're not sure that the government is the right body to do that," Turner said.
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4009831
It's primarily caused by humans.
Carbon pricing is the appropriate remedy.
Get over it, folks, because this is a systemic change ain't going anywhere.
Chamber of Commerce has bold plan for Yukon carbon tax monies
The Yukon Chamber of Commerce has some strong opinions on what to do with carbon tax money that will be collected in the territory.
The federal government has said such a tax will be implemented across the country by 2018; and the Yukon Liberals campaigned last year on a promise to return the tax directly to Yukoners' pockets.
But the organization that represents businesses in the territory has other ideas. It has just released its official policy on both the carbon tax and energy policy for the Yukon.
Key among its recommendations include creating an "arm's length, apolitical, independent and professionally managed third-party Yukon Green Energy Trust," to manage the proceeds of a tax.
The policy reiterates previous stances on a northern carbon tax, noting that Yukon businesses and consumers don't have the same options for reducing their carbon consumption as southern Canadians do; it also points out that because Yukon is cold, dark, and covers a large area with a small population, the carbon footprint per person is disproportionately higher.
It also encourages the Yukon government to work with the other territories to seek "a lower or delayed set of emission targets for the North."
The Chamber is also in favour of a private sector steering committee, to determine how to allocate revenues from carbon pricing.
Chamber president Peter Turner says those revenues should be dedicated to "business-oriented solutions."
"A third party organization [would] look at how to direct those monies, with the objective of getting us off non-renewable solutions. And we're not sure that the government is the right body to do that," Turner said.
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4009831
Capital Weather Gang
Biting cold that set records in Canadian Arctic poised to invade eastern U.S. this weekend
In recent days, some of the coldest March air in decades has gripped portions of Alaska and the Canadian Arctic. Fragments of that frigid air will come crashing into the eastern United States on Friday and into the weekend.
The air spilling into the Great Lakes, Northeast and Mid-Atlantic may not fall to record levels, but it could bring the coldest weather to parts of the region since January.
Its pedigree is impressive.
On Saturday, Mould Bay in the Canadian Arctic set an all-time record low of minus-66.5 degrees (minus-54.7 Celsius).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tern-u-s-this-weekend/?utm_term=.8116d625b3f4
yup
global warming is real fake and the carbon tax is just a butt screw
we are going into a monster cold cycle and we are gonna be double screwed thanks to liebarrel stupidity
Biting cold that set records in Canadian Arctic poised to invade eastern U.S. this weekend
In recent days, some of the coldest March air in decades has gripped portions of Alaska and the Canadian Arctic. Fragments of that frigid air will come crashing into the eastern United States on Friday and into the weekend.
The air spilling into the Great Lakes, Northeast and Mid-Atlantic may not fall to record levels, but it could bring the coldest weather to parts of the region since January.
Its pedigree is impressive.
On Saturday, Mould Bay in the Canadian Arctic set an all-time record low of minus-66.5 degrees (minus-54.7 Celsius).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tern-u-s-this-weekend/?utm_term=.8116d625b3f4
yup
global warming is real fake and the carbon tax is just a butt screw
we are going into a monster cold cycle and we are gonna be double screwed thanks to liebarrel stupidity
Normally you'd hear west coast people brag about tulips and daffodils at this time of year while the rest of Canada waits another 6-8 weeks for the grass to turn green.
Not this year.
Correct.
No, it's not. Human contribution? Most likely. Primary driver? Not likely
No, it's not. An appropriate remedy would be one that actually worked. This is a policy based on a lot of assumption and little actual study.
And that's why it'll work. Tax the livng sh*t out of everyone, send the money out of country and everyone will be too poor to spend their hard-earned cash on frivolous bullsh*t like heating in the winter or a/c in the summer for those in certain parts of Canada, that'll sure cut down on emissions.
It's already affecting the cost of food and not in a good way. Just three years ago we could spend $250 in the grocery store and come away with a crap-ton of food and beverages. Not today, especially if you want to eat meat.
Another perfect example of how this is simply a cash grab is the cattle industry. It takes a lot of land to farm cattle and the incredible numbers of them do produce a surprising amount of methane. It also takes a lot of land to grow feed for the cattle since the days of pasture fed beef are pretty much gone. But a farmer in PEI discover something amazing, something that was picked up on at one of our universities in Nova Scotia I believe. They've discovered that particular form of red seaweed not only makes a fantastic cattle feed, it also reduces the methane in cow farts literally to zero. Which in science terms means there's no real measurable output of methane.
Where's the govt jumping all over that idea and promoting the hell out of it? Why is the govt promoting carbon taxes and pricing and yet doing very little to encourage people to generate as much of their own power as they can? You want people less reliant on fossil fuels for power generation? Then give them real incentives to generate their own. Don't just tax the crap out of something you force them to use, that's just bullsh*t. And I'm pretty sure if you thought hard enough about it, you'd agree.
You got a cite for that? My understanding is even climate scientists won't commit to more than that humans are having an impact, but at some immeasurable level.
Why? It's not working. It's not going to work. It costs a fortune. None of the world's major emitters has or will commit to reducing Co2 emissions except, maybe, a few decades down the line. Most of the world won't even commit to that. Has all of this escaped your notice, somehow?
Well, it'll cut down on OUR emissions. But suppose we completely eliminate OUR emissions. What does that do for the environment? Because India's annual increases over the next twenty years are planned to be, well, roughly the same as our entire current emissions. Which means that if we voluntarily go back to the bushes and make no emissions, the Indians will replace our lost emissions in one year. Then the next year, they'll double them, and the next year, triple them, and the next year, quadruple them, etc., etc., etc...
Actually that is not correct. Almost every major industrial power has committed to reducing carbon emissions including nations like China and India which are among the worst polluters. However, you cannot expect these nations to do their part if countries like Canada do nothing.
This is simply not true. China has said that in about 30 years they'll start cutting Co2 emissions, but haven't committed to any real numbers. India has said it's the responsibility of the West and it is focusing on economic expansion (thus the growing number of coal fired generators). It has said that it will 'do its part' in future, but it's goals contain no set targets for overall CO2 reduction.
I'm willing to make the same commitment China and India is, if that comforts you.
I stand by what I said unless you have an actual statement from an authoritative source which shows the severity of the impact human beings are having on the degree of global warming. As far as I'm aware no one has quantified just how much impact humans are having.
Yep. The best argument I heard went something like this. Say you and I are neighbours and we both enjoy having backyard fires. Now let's say that you have a limited access to firewood so you only have a fire 1-2 nights a week, while I have a near limitless supply and have a fire 7 nights a week. Now let's say someone convinces me that these little fires are really bad for the environment and cause global warming so I give them up, but being such a good neighbour I give you access to my firewood supply and you have a backyard fire 7 days a week. Other than the two days a week when we'd both be having fires, I've actually reduced my emissions by bugger-all since I merely passed the buck on to you.
If we're still digging coal to ship to China and India, then we're not really doing SFA to reduce emissions.