[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Firebot

You basically mocked the PBO's own report and reporting methods just to get a chance for a one liner at me because you simply cannot accept data that the tax may have an overall negative monetary impact when more factors are included? That's pretty funny yet sad.

Yes, PepsiFree, if you do basic math and only focus on the basics, you come out ahead! That's what the Liberals have been selling with the Canada Carbon Rebate being a big quarterly paycheck courtesy of Liberal action. Basically you are readily admitting you will only accept stats that agree with your personal narrative?

https://pbo-dpb.ca/en/publications/R...emissions-2030

The report focuses on 2030, because it's called "A Distributional Analysis of the Federal Fuel Charge under the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan".

It's also focusing on 2030, because as you may or may not have noticed based on today, the carbon tax is not static and increases every year as part of the plan until we hit 170$ per tonne! Also to dismiss the number due to it being an average is quite the cop out. All but the lowest quantile and a couple provinces in the 2nd lowest come out negative, and the lowest quantile are households at or under the poverty line. Apparently the "most households" statement was just completely ignored by you.

If the Liberals came out and admitted that carbon tax is not meant to be revenue neutral, is a punitive tax to Canadians that will be costly but is worth it to fight climate change (well they can't because of that whole heating oil carve out for politics thing) at least it would be truthful. Instead, we have this rhetoric:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/car...%20in%20Ottawa.



It's ok, go right ahead make a quick one liner and sail on.

Maybe we should defer to Giroux himself?

Conservative MP Phil Lawrence asked Giroux whether there is ultimately “more money coming into Canadians’ pockets or leaving their pockets” for those where the backstop applies.

“If one looks at the fiscal impact, that is the amount of the carbon tax paid directly, indirectly and the GST that applies on these embedded direct carbon taxes paid minus the carbon rebate, most families are better off — we estimate around 80 per cent,” said Giroux.

But, it’s OK, that’s just “basic math” right? Here’s your smoking gun:

However, the numbers changed once the PBO included the economic impacts of the introduction of the carbon tax. The assumption is that the tax will have had an impact on some sectors of the economy, and therefore family incomes.

“Then, we find that most Canadian families, in provinces where the federal backstop regime is in place, will see a small negative impact of the carbon tax,” Giroux told MPs.

Ah, right, so the cold hard data that I’m not “accepting” are what the National Post refers to as “assumptions.” Damn, man. What a smoking gun. “Well, 80% of households are better off, but assuming the tax has a negative economic impact on incomes and investments… maybe not.” Firebot: OMG

With such sound data, that you’ve clearly seen, it is surely all encompassing, correct?

The Canadian Climate Institute, for example, accused the PBO of being “misleading” for failing to consider “economic benefits of carbon pricing and the costs of climate inaction, both in terms of stabilizing the climate and competing in a global economy racing to net zero.”

And this week, hundreds of economists signed an open letter saying that a national carbon price is the cheapest way to cut the most emissions, while disputing arguments put forward by Poilievre that the carbon price is driving up inflation and the cost of living.

You’re so confident, so the PBO must be, yeah?

However, the PBO did attempt to account for the cost of climate change in a report back in 2022. The analysis noted that extreme weather had already reduced Canada’s GDP by 0.8 per cent between 1981 and 2021 and that the GDP could be further reduced by five per cent by 2100. But the report noted that “accounting for the cost of climate change is not straightforward.”

Liberal MP Irek Kusmierczyk challenged Giroux this week and said it “boggles the mind” that the PBO did not account for the costs of climate change in its carbon tax analysis.

Giroux said that his mandate is to estimate the cost of government proposals, and encouraged other entities like think tanks or the government itself to disclose their numbers if they want to venture in a cost-benefit analysis of the carbon tax.

…

“So that’s why even though it would be ideal to have the cost-benefit analysis, the benefits are not always very tangible, and not easily measurable.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...-pbo-says-both

(all from the leftist National Post)

So, you, the freedom convoy, and PP on one side, “hundreds” of economists on the other. You’re smarter than they are, yeah?

And the PBO, who openly admits they’re making some assumptions and estimates with incomplete data and data they simply do not have… that’s your smoking gun?

Sorry it was more than one line. Don’t skip on the round red nose. It really completes the whole fit.