Federal Government & Politics II

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The people who are getting more in carbon tax payments than they pay in carbon tax are already leading a less carbon intensive lifestyle. Their behavioural change won't make as much difference as someone who realizes how much more they pay because they drive an ICE vehicle, and save all the carbon tax (and carbon dioxide emissions), and switch to an EV. Or ditch their gas furnace, and get an electric heat pump.

The beneficiaries of the carbon tax are either very poor or quite affluent (people who can afford homes close to their workplace, overseas vacations, renovations, late model cars, etc.). The tax is not high enough to induce much change, but it is high enough to annoy a lot of people, particularly in swing suburban ridings.

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by casper

We are talking about a parliamentary democracy. That is how these work. You have the election and the parties meet and try to form a coalition of MPs that through some formal or informal agreement agree to form government. While it is possible to end up with a majority of MPs in a coalition that does not total over 50% of voters it will be close.

Yes, understood - I'm talking more about the idea many have that just adding up popular support for Liberals and NDP = "a majority of Canadians want what the Liberals and NDP are doing". That line of thinking enables extremism. What is more accurate is that a majority of Canadians support the Liberals and the Conservatives, and some moderate approach between those two is what actually has broader support.

Originally Posted by casper

The Liberals were quite balanced in their strategy. Provincially, in BC we had the NDP having to gain the support of the Greens a few years back. That is a far more environmentally aggressive setup.

Lets not forget, we are talking about a Liberal party that built actively had government build an oil pipeline. This past 10 years under the Liberals have resulted in breaking new records for Canadian oil production and export every single year. If that is not a sign that the environmental measures were balanced I am not certain what is.

"Balance" is on a spectrum and in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. I think a more middle ground balance would have been, for example, carbon tax (focused mainly on what is within the public's direct control: fuel, etc., with the proceed targeted to driving alternatives like public transit), but also continuing to promote and permit oil/gas development and gradual transition as a matter of national economic interest. So much was made recently about the preferential carve out for oil heating in Atlantic Canada for example; what would have been more balanced would be to have no carve out (because the carbon tax on heating actually would shift behaviour), but also expand alternatives to oil, like natural gas - which is still very much limited in the East. (Acknowledging that that is hampered by both federal and provincial inaction.)

Originally Posted by acottawa

The beneficiaries of the carbon tax are either very poor or quite affluent (people who can afford homes close to their workplace, overseas vacations, renovations, late model cars, etc.). The tax is not high enough to induce much change, but it is high enough to annoy a lot of people, particularly in swing suburban ridings.

Indeed one of the few examples where the carbon tax could have changed behaviour (oil heating in Atlantic Canada) the Liberals undermined the whole point. What would make more sense is eliminating the gimmick of these rebates, and dedicating the carbon tax entirely to developing alternative choices, like transit, lower-emission heating like heat pumps, natural gas, etc. That would have much more systemic environmental and economic benefit, than sprinkling a few dollars here and there amongst those who are already lower impact.

[Build.It]

It's worth repeating that Canada is the only place in the world that rebates the carbon tax.

[toaster]

/

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by casper

Good to see the Liberals looking to Mark Carney for some advise on economics. He has strong depths of expertise from his time at the Bank of Canada and England. He also is fully committed to addressing the climate change change.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mar...ucus-1.7316546

The real question then becomes are these Liberals ready to hear some uncomfortable truths? Is Carney respected for his Life experience or is he a fellow Climate traveler being brought in to rally the troops? Time will tell but the Climate subject is much further down the list of folks priorities especially since Covid.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Build.It

It's worth repeating that Canada is the only place in the world that rebates the carbon tax.

And this is one of the greatest problems I have with the carbon tax.

By collecting it and then rebating it (to virtuous or less privileged taxpayers), you have effectively just created a vehicle for income redistribution. You are employing a few thousand new civil servants in Revenue Canada just to reshuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is an absurd tax.

I am not 100% philosophically opposed to a modest punitive carbon tax, but, Jesus Christ, if you are going to collect the money, then do something creative with it! I would prefer if they used the money for climate mitigation strategies instead

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I agree with you that the Axe the Tax thing is not top priority for almost everyone. It's a true gimmick and would be a letdown for so many people who get more in payments than what they pay.

I'm glad that you many the so many more important issues that PP won't tell us his plans or where he stands on the issues.

"Axe the tax" exists because it's the only way to give a high profile tax cut without actually reducing government revenue. Most people don't understand it. Even on here, despite it being explained for the umpteenth time. Can't blame Poilievre for taking advantage of the ignorance of average voters. He'll cut the carbon tax for consumers (which isn't really a tax cut, when the rebate is gone). Any real tax cuts will actually go to upper income and corporations. And those will be paid for with real cuts.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

"Axe the tax" exists because it's the only way to give a high profile tax cut without actually reducing government revenue. Most people don't understand it. Even on here, despite it being explained for the umpteenth time. Can't blame Poilievre for taking advantage of the ignorance of average voters. He'll cut the carbon tax for consumers (which isn't really a tax cut, when the rebate is gone). Any real tax cuts will actually go to upper income and corporations. And those will be paid for with real cuts.

100%

Trudeau and the gang are so sanctimonious they don’t realize they needed to reframe the election. A capital gains tax increase was fine but some other tax cut to match. And most importantly an offsetting tax cut in lieu of rebates.As we discussed GST for example.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

And this is one of the greatest problems I have with the carbon tax.

By collecting it and then rebating it (to virtuous or less privileged taxpayers), you have effectively just created a vehicle for income redistribution. You are employing a few thousand new civil servants in Revenue Canada just to reshuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is an absurd tax.

I am not 100% philosophically opposed to a modest punitive carbon tax, but, Jesus Christ, if you are going to collect the money, then do something creative with it! I would prefer if they used the money for climate mitigation strategies instead

As explained here so many times before. The purpose of the carbon tax is to put a price on carbon. Not to collect revenue for the government. Doing what you suggest would be a massive increase in net taxation and would be highly regressive. Rebates make it highly progressive. Even if most of those benefiting don't understand it.

And for the fucking millionth time, ever province has the right to implement what they want. The federal plan only applies to provinces that refuse to apply a compliant plan. BC and Quebec don't give rebates. If you have a problem with the plan in your province, you should be asking your provincial government why they don't have a plan and are defaulting to the federal backstop.

Repeating this every 2 months is exhausting. Some of you can't seem to actually learn.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

100%

Trudeau and the gang are so sanctimonious they don’t realize they needed to reframe the election. A capital gains tax increase was fine but some other tax cut to match. And most importantly an offsetting tax cut in lieu of rebates.As we discussed GST for example.

Trudeau's plan was dumb, late and desperate. The time to implement tax increases was 2015 when they could have argued that it was necessary to pay for the new social program. Or even in 2019. They could have targeted property appreciation with taxes on non-primary residence. Now they want to play like they are fighting the rich. And of course, it's not going to work. This is obviously going to get reversed.

[Build.It]

BC was the first place that ever ran a carbon tax rebate program, and then they stopped doing it.

Right now the only place in the world that have a carbon tax rebate program are certain other Canadian provinces.

Only in LPC world does it make sense to fight climate change by returning the pollution punishment and making electric vehicles more expensive.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Build.It

It's worth repeating that Canada is the only place in the world that rebates the carbon tax.

Canada is pretty much the only country in the world with a consumer-facing carbon tax.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Canada is pretty much the only country in the world with a consumer-facing carbon tax.

This is like the debate about including the sales tax or separating it. What's the functional difference between cap-and-trade, except for being less efficient and transparent? The Europeans favour cap-and-trade specifically because it is opaque and creates markets for emissions trading and derivatives. I would argue that a system that creates room for thousands of highly paid rent-seeking traders is inefficient.

You're usually pretty astute. But you're letting your dislike for the Liberals blind you here. As a policy, a fee and rebate system is far more transparent and efficient and less distortionary than literally any other carbon pricing scheme. If you don't believe carbon should be priced, that's at least more honest.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is like the debate about including the sales tax or separating it. What's the functional difference between cap-and-trade, except for being less efficient and transparent? The Europeans favour cap-and-trade specifically because it is opaque and creates markets due emissions trading and derivatives. I would argue that a system that creates room for thousands of highly paid traders is inefficient.

You're usually pretty astute. But you're letting your dislike for the Liberals blind you here. As a policy, a fee and rebate system is far more transparent and efficient and less distortionary than literally any other carbon pricing scheme. If you don't believe carbon should be priced, that's at least more honest.

But no other jurisdiction of any size that has anything that behaves like a carbon tax. Europe has a very limited cap and trade system on the industrial sector. China has an even more limited cap and trade system on the industrial sector. The US has nothing at a national level. India has nothing. Russia has nothing. Australia has nothing. There is no jurisdiction of any size that is “pricing” carbon on consumers.

[theman23]

Apparently the Liberals secret weapon against inflation was tanking productivity. It's a feature, not a flaw!

At 8:39:
• Video Link
Love Vassy Kapelos' "WHAT??"

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is like the debate about including the sales tax or separating it. What's the functional difference between cap-and-trade, except for being less efficient and transparent? The Europeans favour cap-and-trade specifically because it is opaque and creates markets for emissions trading and derivatives. I would argue that a system that creates room for thousands of highly paid rent-seeking traders is inefficient.

You're usually pretty astute. But you're letting your dislike for the Liberals blind you here. As a policy, a fee and rebate system is far more transparent and efficient and less distortionary than literally any other carbon pricing scheme. If you don't believe carbon should be priced, that's at least more honest.

The Europeans haven't really added cap and trade that impacts consumers either. Mostly because they already had excise taxes on gasoline. They do charge fees for car registration and purhcase depending on the jurisdiction that have increased but there is no argument that that increaess consumer prices. Not only do they have no carbon tax on heating fuels they recently have been subsidizing them. But they certainly tax peronsal transport so that is fair. And it clearly works at reducing it's contribution to carbon.

Taxing it on the margins may get a few furnace swithcers and hybrid purchases but isn't going to funadmentally change our lifestyle which is what is required. That is simply not going to happen politically for some nebulous meaningless contrbution to worldwide climate change.

Carbon Tax and rebate makes sense if we are committed to change and ramping it up over 20 years could get us to European tax levels but it's very much a technocratic response ignoring political realities. Surveys saying Canadians demand climate change action ignore they really only want ot do it if it doesn't cost them anything. Which isn't real commitment.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But no other jurisdiction of any size that has anything that behaves like a carbon tax. Europe has a very limited cap and trade system on the industrial sector. China has an even more limited cap and trade system on the industrial sector. The US has nothing at a national level. India has nothing. Russia has nothing. Australia has nothing. There is no jurisdiction of any size that is “pricing” carbon on consumers.

You're better than this. Come on now. Again, can you explain what the functional difference is between cap-and-trade at the industrial level which filters through to consumers and consumer carbon tax? Is your argument here that the wrong system was implemented? In which case, again, any province has the choice to do just that. See Quebec. For the fucking millionth time, nobody has to use the federal backstop. If your argument is that we just shouldn't price emissions at all say that.

You're right that India and Russia don't have carbon prices. Why should we care? How much do we trade with them beyond services for India? As for the US, that may not apply carbon pricing at home, but they are running headlong into implementing carbon tariffs for imports.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The Europeans haven't really added cap and trade that impacts consumers either.

This is massively ignorant on economics. Are you actually arguing that European oil refiners simply eat the carbon tariffs they pay and don't pass it on to consumers? Why do you think their power prices, petrol prices, natural gas prices, etc are so high?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You're better than this. Come on now. Again, can you explain what the functional difference is between cap-and-trade at the industrial level which filters through to consumers and consumer carbon tax? Is your argument here that the wrong system was implemented? In which case, again, any province has the choice to do just that. See Quebec. For the fucking millionth time, nobody has to use the federal backstop. If your argument is that we just shouldn't price emissions at all say that.

You're right that India and Russia don't have carbon prices. Why should we care? How much do we trade with them beyond services for India? As for the US, that may not apply carbon pricing at home, but they are running headlong into implementing carbon tariffs for imports.

As I said above there isn't a cap and trade acting like a consumer carbon taxin the EU. Quebec's cap and trade is not hitting consumers like the federal backstop is. It's claimed to be 10 cents a litre but it's a bit opaque and looking at gas prices in Quebec they seem to have converged wtih Ontario and when Ontario reintrouduces our excise tax Ontario will be priced above Quebec which will be very new as Quebec like Europe has had higher excise taxes for 30+ years.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is massively ignorant on economics. Are you actually arguing that European oil refiners simply eat the carbon tariffs they pay and don't pass it on to consumers? Why do you think their power prices, petrol prices, natural gas prices, etc are so high?

I agree there isn't an economic difference if they are the same price.

But in Europe the high excise taxes have existed for a long time and any new tarrifs included giving free credits to large emmitters making increases a drop in the bucket. Some jurisdictions have lowered excise taxes as well or provided other aide. Europe is revolting against high energy costs but it's not something new.

Yes there are proposals for a Border Carbon adjustment that would start to hit refiners and cause increaes that are more noticeable. We will see if the non-democractic EU can get these pushed through despite member state oppposition.