You’re implying that immigrants are more likely to work for less and that that is a primary driver of wage suppression or at the very least one driver that you feel deserves a lot more attention than others. I don’t agree with that at all.
The primary driver is a general lack of worker protections which in turn provides little recourse for employees who are being exploited in the workplace. A TFW working in a place with good worker protections will be treated the same as a non TFW employee, that doesn’t suppress or lower wages and yet the TFW is still there. According to your theory that shouldn’t happen.
In places with better worker protections TFWs also won’t be able to “screw Canadians out of their jobs” as you put it, since the jobs of those Canadians would be better protected.
Whether intentionally or not you’re just using a century old talking point that has been used to distract people from focusing on what is really keeping their wages low. Sorry if you took offence to me trying to indirectly point that out, it honestly wasn’t intended to be a personal attack.
Where did I say that?
We've been talking about specific worker programs. Which do pay less. Try to keep up.
Things we know to be true.
Immigration is out of control.
Immigration is still needed to grow our country, just not at this level.
We should prioritize a larger amount of skilled immigration to fill specific needs.
Corporations in Canada have exploited immigration to get low wage workers.
The government has been complicit in this going back before Trudeau.
Canadians are getting screwed out of jobs and wages because of all of this.
This will lead to unproductive workers.
When you painted all TFWs with a broad brush and called them low wage workers who are stealing jobs from Canadians. Why don’t you just admit that that wasn’t the brightest thing to say and we can move on?
Quote:
We've been talking about specific worker programs. Which do pay less. Try to keep up.
Your entire argument is predicated on your assumption that all TFWs earn low wages, which isn’t the case at all, even if you think it is. Try to keep up.
Quote:
Things we know to be true.
Immigration is out of control.
Immigration is still needed to grow our country, just not at this level.
We should prioritize a larger amount of skilled immigration to fill specific needs.
Corporations in Canada have exploited immigration to get low wage workers.
The government has been complicit in this going back before Trudeau.
Canadians are getting screwed out of jobs and wages because of all of this.
This will lead to unproductive workers.
Even if some of those things are true(some are just opinions that you’re trying to pass off as facts but that’s a whole other discussion) it doesn’t justify your previous unfounded statement. You’re just trying to blame immigrants for a problem that has far more to do with provincial legislation than the TFW program. Oddly enough you haven’t made a single complaint about why for the most part the provinces haven’t even tried to address this in their labour/employment standards codes when the overwhelming majority of TFWs working here fall under their jurisdictions, not the federal government’s. Provincial legislation is far more to blame for Canadians being screwed out of wages then the TFW program.
I hate this arguing about whether people come out ahead or behind with the carbon tax. The point of the tax is to make carbon-based fuel more expensive so we use less of it. By rights it should be $1.00 a litre or more. Right now we’re in the boiling the frog stage where we feel a little warm but nowhere near as hot as it’s going to get.
If someone doesn’t like paying it they should drive less or get a more efficient vehicle. The fact that there is a rebate at all is a nice bonus.
I hate this arguing about whether people come out ahead or behind with the carbon tax. The point of the tax is to make carbon-based fuel more expensive so we use less of it. By rights it should be $1.00 a litre or more. Right now we’re in the boiling the frog stage where we feel a little warm but nowhere near as hot as it’s going to get.
If someone doesn’t like paying it they should drive less or get a more efficient vehicle. The fact that there is a rebate at all is a nice bonus.
In theory I'm okay with taxing the #### out of people when it comes to carbon tax because we are a pretty efficient family but I also realize we are a lot more privileged than many people in Canada who can't easily change vehicles or fuel sources and taxing them to be more green is not an appropriate solution. Just look at what has happened in the maritimes this winter with tax on heating oil, the outcry and subsequent carve out for them.
Does it makes sense to relax the carbon tax for the people who use the dirtiest heating source just because they are crying about poverty and hardship? Hell no but I also know that retrofitting a new heat source into an old home is very costly even with $10,000 government subsidies.
At some point we have to come to the conclusion that demanding more and more from the citizens here means that we end up in a worse place and not actually better off despite ideological benefits.
Last edited by calgarygeologist; 03-30-2024 at 11:33 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to calgarygeologist For This Useful Post:
The federal government is cutting the amount of financial relief small businesses will receive from carbon pricing revenues so it can increase the size of the rebate it is providing to rural families.
That's despite the fact the government still owes businesses more than $2.5 billion in promised carbon pricing revenues from the first five years of the program — and refuses to say when that money will flow.
As the federal government faces increasing political pressure to halt a planned increase to its consumer carbon tax, a new report shows industrial carbon pricing has three times the impact on greenhouse gas emissions as the consumer tax.
Much of the debate over carbon pricing centres on what many call the carbon tax, the consumer version of the national price on carbon. The report shows the pricing policy for large emitters accounts for most of the projected emissions cuts.
I know that industry will just pass that tax further down the line, but if it is proven to be more effective, perhaps there should accordingly be offsets to reduce the consumer tax, especially the one on small businesses?
But hey, like I said at least we're reducing global emissions and everyone is happy.
I know that industry will just pass that tax further down the line, but if it is proven to be more effective, perhaps there should accordingly be offsets to reduce the consumer tax, especially the one on small businesses?
But hey, like I said at least we're reducing global emissions and everyone is happy.
What a joke.
A 10% reduction of carbon emissions for almost no cost. That seems like a fantastic deal.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
At some point it costs us something, somewhere. Even administrative costs add up.
Now, you if you want to say that the cost of the tax now versus the cost of increasing emissions in the future is a win, fair enough. But I think that is a complete farce to begin with as Canada cannot control global emissions, and our inaction on exporting our energy is just leading to more emissions from other countries.
At some point it costs us something, somewhere. Even administrative costs add up.
Now, you if you want to say that the cost of the tax now versus the cost of increasing emissions in the future is a win, fair enough. But I think that is a complete farce to begin with as Canada cannot control global emissions, and our inaction on exporting our energy is just leading to more emissions from other countries.
I didn’t say no cost. I said almost no cost. But at the $/tonne saved level post rebate using the currently available data is a fairly efficient way of reducing consumer carbon emissions.
I disagree that it’s a complete farce
For example Europe has implemented a program charging carbon tax on all imports.
And yet the world is building carbon intensive energy production systems at an increasing rate, and that is without the next 50 years of 3rd world countries moving into 2nd and 1st world status also requiring serious energy.
Still waiting to hear how small businesses should manage with the increased in the carbon tax with no plan at all for rebates.
Because that cost is being passed on with no end in sight.
I hate this arguing about whether people come out ahead or behind with the carbon tax. The point of the tax is to make carbon-based fuel more expensive so we use less of it. By rights it should be $1.00 a litre or more. Right now we’re in the boiling the frog stage where we feel a little warm but nowhere near as hot as it’s going to get.
If someone doesn’t like paying it they should drive less or get a more efficient vehicle. The fact that there is a rebate at all is a nice bonus.
I'm with you somewhat, but you cannot do a simple tax on carbon without the rebate, or you end up unfairly targeting the poorer people unintentionally. Wealthier people can afford a heat pump, electric vehicle, poorer people can't.
If your intention is to change people's habits and not unfairly punish people who cannot afford to make the changes required to change their habits, you give means tested rebates.
I'm with you somewhat, but you cannot do a simple tax on carbon without the rebate, or you end up unfairly targeting the poorer people unintentionally. Wealthier people can afford a heat pump, electric vehicle, poorer people can't.
If your intention is to change people's habits and not unfairly punish people who cannot afford to make the changes required to change their habits, you give means tested rebates.
I agree, and fully support the rebate scheme. I just find the hair-splitting over whether people make a bit of money or lose a bit of money on it tiresome.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
I'm with you somewhat, but you cannot do a simple tax on carbon without the rebate, or you end up unfairly targeting the poorer people unintentionally. Wealthier people can afford a heat pump, electric vehicle, poorer people can't.
If your intention is to change people's habits and not unfairly punish people who cannot afford to make the changes required to change their habits, you give means tested rebates.
So if the percentage who can afford heat pumps and EVs to change their habits and leave the rest to carry on, what have you fixed? Are the middle and upper earners really responsible for the bulk of emissions (excluding the yacht and jet setters)? I have no idea what the emissions difference is between wage earners.
So if the percentage who can afford heat pumps and EVs to change their habits and leave the rest to carry on, what have you fixed? Are the middle and upper earners really responsible for the bulk of emissions (excluding the yacht and jet setters)? I have no idea what the emissions difference is between wage earners is.
You pay the Tax or you get turned into Soylent Green.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
So if the percentage who can afford heat pumps and EVs to change their habits and leave the rest to carry on, what have you fixed? Are the middle and upper earners really responsible for the bulk of emissions (excluding the yacht and jet setters)? I have no idea what the emissions difference is between wage earners is.
Probably? The are mroe likely to have multiple vehicles and not use public transit, have larger houses with A/C to heat and cool, potentially have a second vacation home sitting empty 95% of the time, fligts as you mentioned, and just generally consume more because they can afford to.
I'd kind of prefer a "basic exemption" for CO2 emissions that decreases over time, so that just existing doesn't cost you anything, but if you consume more than your basic you pay for that at an increasing rate. But that is very hard to measure, and can essentially be handled through the rebate system(though I'd prefer it to be more progressive, punishing higher users).
You pay the Tax or you get turned into Soylent Green.
Wouldn’t an emissions rating be a better factor for who becomes Soylent Green, if a healthy environment is the end game? Does my well maintained truck with DEF exhaust system emit more than a 20 year old, never maintained POS?
And yet the world is building carbon intensive energy production systems at an increasing rate, and that is without the next 50 years of 3rd world countries moving into 2nd and 1st world status also requiring serious energy.
Still waiting to hear how small businesses should manage with the increased in the carbon tax with no plan at all for rebates.
Because that cost is being passed on with no end in sight.
Business pass there costs to customers, customers get rebates. Businesses will choose to sell a less carbon intensive alternative or make investments to be less carbon intensive to reduce their costs. Thats how it’s supposed to work. It’s the most market driven approach to reducing carbon emissions.
Do you have a source for your statement of the world is building carbon intensive energy production systems at an increasing rate. I’d like to know specifically what you are including in that statment.
Yes the bringing up the standard of living of the rest of the world in a sustainable manner is a challange.
Probably? The are mroe likely to have multiple vehicles and not use public transit, have larger houses with A/C to heat and cool, potentially have a second vacation home sitting empty 95% of the time, fligts as you mentioned, and just generally consume more because they can afford to.
I'd kind of prefer a "basic exemption" for CO2 emissions that decreases over time, so that just existing doesn't cost you anything, but if you consume more than your basic you pay for that at an increasing rate. But that is very hard to measure, and can essentially be handled through the rebate system(though I'd prefer it to be more progressive, punishing higher users).
I’d be more comfortable with the carbon tax if it wasn’t returned as a rebate, but was used to reduce actual emissions. If you can’t afford to maintain your furnace or car to a certain efficiency, maybe basic repairs are subsidized? No idea how that would work. Just asking dumb questions while mailing in a workout
