I started this thread for two reasons. Curious what people's MPG is in different cars, and all this carbon tax talk has got me thinking about the cost to ordinary folks in Alberta, and the potential revenue for the province.
Home electricity and gas consumption could muddy the waters when it comes to calculating costs, as well as tax situations, so we'll leave it as vehicles. So here goes.
I have two vehicles. Let's say gas is $1.20/l average for 2017, before any type of carbon tax.
1. 2016 GMC Sierra V8 engine.
- Average 13l/100km.
- Average km driven: 15,000km
- Total litres= 1,950
- Total cost = $2,340
2. 2016 Nissan Altima 4 cylinder
- Average 6l/100km
-Average km driven: 10,000km
- Total litres = 600
-Total cost = $720
Total for CroFlames household= $3060, total litres = 2,550l
Since they are predicting that the carbon tax will add 4.5 cents/l, in theory the cost of the tax to my household for transportation only is $115.
Alberta is such a tiny drop in the bucket when it comes to global emissions, that this scheme will do nothing but make Alberta less competitive and punish the working class. $115 for someone like me with no kids is not unbearable, but again that's only to drive myself around. What about heating my home? All the costs that businesses pass along to the consumer for transporting their goods? Will consumers who have a few kids and two cars be able to keep up? I have my doubts in this economic climate and I highly doubt they realize any type of meaningful rebate.
The only way to make a carbon tax work is if the entire country is on-board, but more importantly, the USA.
Oh no - we have to pay an extra $100 on gas per year.
Imagine what it would cost if we had a PST like every other province? Even at 5%, which only SK has, that'd be $150 extra for your gas costs.
And if you remember, Jim Prentice was also going to raise fuel taxes (among others) by 4 cents.
So whether you call it a carbon tax or a fuel tax or a PST we're going to have to pay a bit more because we can't rely solely on oil & gas royalties.
Google says my car gets a city/highway combined avg of 10L/100km. And yes, L/100km is a dumb measurement.
Last edited by Torture; 01-03-2017 at 09:32 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Torture For This Useful Post:
Oh no - we have to pay an extra $100 on gas per year.
Imagine what it would cost if we had a PST like every other province? Even at 5%, which only SK has, that'd be $150 extra for your gas costs.
And if you remember, Jim Prentice was also going to raise fuel taxes (among others) by 4 cents.
So whether you call it a carbon tax or a fuel tax or a PST we're going to have to pay a bit more because we can't rely solely on oil & gas royalties.
Google says my car gets a city/highway combined avg of 10L/100km.
Weird. I was told we were saving the environment.
Anyway, this is hopefully a drive-by. My new years resolution is to stop arguing about politics. Made it 3 days...
Location: Chiefs Kingdom, Yankees Universe, C of Red.
Exp:
Personally, I'm not a fan of additional taxation, especially when government spending is out of control. However, 4.4 cents per litre is going to be hard to notice since the price of fuel fluctuates so frequently.
Are you using the number off the advertisement or hand calculated numbers? Over how many km or months?
I use what my true average is, not what the manufacturer says it should be. I estimate my annual kms.
I do a combination of city and highway driving, so using a combined average is the best measurement IMO. Some days my truck gets 11.5l/100km average or better when I'm driving around Stoney or out of Calgary, and some days it's up to 18 or 19l if I'm driving through the city.
Given how narrow the margins are, and how wide the error bars are going to be on both your estimated mileage and your average fuel economy and the average price of gas, this is all fairly useless speculation.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I use what my true average is, not what the manufacturer says it should be. I estimate my annual kms.
I do a combination of city and highway driving, so using a combined average is the best measurement IMO. Some days my truck gets 11.5l/100km average or better when I'm driving around Stoney or out of Calgary, and some days it's up to 18 or 19l if I'm driving through the city.
If you know the true average mileage, you know your distance driven as well since you have to have distance to do the calculation.
Wow, I must be a complete idiot! I've always wanted to have my cake and eat it to, and just needed the government to show me how.
If you're having problems comprehending how taxing bad things like pollution could achieve both a reduction in that pollution and increase government revenues which would achieve both outcomes (that you're saying isn't possible) then I suggest you make some better new years resolutions.
Wait, Lexus hybrids take regular fuel? Since when?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Oh no - we have to pay an extra $100 on gas per year.
Imagine what it would cost if we had a PST like every other province? Even at 5%, which only SK has, that'd be $150 extra for your gas costs.
And if you remember, Jim Prentice was also going to raise fuel taxes (among others) by 4 cents.
So whether you call it a carbon tax or a fuel tax or a PST we're going to have to pay a bit more because we can't rely solely on oil & gas royalties.
Google says my car gets a city/highway combined avg of 10L/100km. And yes, L/100km is a dumb measurement.
But paying for missing oil and gas revenue isn't what the carbon tax does. At all. They even tell you that on their commercials.
Location: Chiefs Kingdom, Yankees Universe, C of Red.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Given how narrow the margins are, and how wide the error bars are going to be on both your estimated mileage and your average fuel economy and the average price of gas, this is all fairly useless speculation.
Isn't the carbon tax 4.4 cents per litre? All you need to know is how many litres you purchase annually to figure out what the carbon tax will cost you. Price of fuel isn't relevant.
What is the MPG (or l/100km) on your vehicle?
