Kevin O'Leary's Letter to Premier Notley - Carbon Tax Discussion

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Again, righteous sanctimony from the leftist bureaucrats is a go to platform rather than listening to the concerns of those who feel the impact.

It's a wealth redistribution initiative dressed up as environmental policy. Just admit it.

One week it's hurting the poor the most because the numbers are wrong, the next week it's a wealth redistribution. The right can never get their fear mongering story straight.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by belsarius

One week it's hurting the poor the most because the numbers are wrong, the next week it's a wealth redistribution. The right can never get their fear mongering story straight.

Oh come on now. It is both a wealth redistribution and it hurts the poor.

The rebates (i.e. wealth transfer) will not be enough to offset increased costs.

And why does it have to be this left vs. right rhetoric all the time?

A carbon tax is a reasonable idea if it is carried out the way B.C. has implemented theirs. Let's not kid ourselves that our carbon tax is anything more than a new source of tax revenue for the NDP.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Again, righteous sanctimony from the leftist bureaucrats is a go to platform rather than listening to the concerns of those who feel the impact.

It's a wealth redistribution initiative dressed up as environmental policy. Just admit it.

It's not righteous sanctimony. It's reality.

The tax works because you pay it on all carbon fuels even if you get the rebate.

And the unhinged hyperventalating that's going on "Cash grab!" "Wealth redistribution!" Blah blah.

Taxing pollution is the center of neo-classical economics, ie. right-wing dogma. It's the polluter pay principle. What is wrong with that from first principles? The fact that people without the means to shoulder than extra cost are then provided rebates is a GOOD thing. You still lower pollution while easing the burden on those least able to; that's a design feature of the policy not a bug.

In the end, this comes down to people with a political axe to grind masquerading as policy wonks.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Oh come on now. It is both a wealth redistribution and it hurts the poor.

The rebates (i.e. wealth transfer) will not be enough to offset increased costs.

And why does it have to be this left vs. right rhetoric all the time?

A carbon tax is a reasonable idea if it is carried out the way B.C. has implemented theirs. Let's not kid ourselves that our carbon tax is anything more than a new source of tax revenue for the NDP.

It really can't be both, if it is hurting the poor then getting the rebate isn't redistributing anything, it is returning a portion of the costs they have paid. If it's redistribution then the people receiving rebates are not paying their share into the tax and are more wealthy because of the tax.

I was responding to a comment "Again, righteous sanctimony from the leftist bureaucrats" so that's why I included a right rhetoric, but also because that is the main divide on the issue.

I absolutely agree is a new source of tax revenue for the NDP. The reason BC was able to provide revenue neutrality is they have a 7% PST. If the NDP put in a PST to supplement the revenue and made the current carbon tax I would be with you, but the fact is the government needs more revenue to continue operating. Besides if they put in a PST and made the CT "revenue neutral" it really isn't neutral at all.

There is pretty strong support to do "something" for the environment across the province and this will cost money, the NDP chose to raise this money with the carbon tax. I am under no illusions it is a PST replacement on a much lesser scale with targeted goals.

[IliketoPuck]

It is absolutely both.

Just because those eligible for a full rebate are being hurt less by receiving a rebate doesn't mean they aren't facing an additional burden. And let's not act like the NDP have a legitimate handle on how much this carbon tax is actually going to cost. Their estimates are flawed at best. Best case scenario, the rebate MIGHT offset the full amount of additional costs to a poor family.

The partial offset of those costs being paid for by those above an arbitrary income line is the very definition of a wealth redistribution.

So, no. It is both a wealth redistribution and it is detrimental to the poor.

[Locke]

Yeah, it totally is both.

This carbon tax is a boondoggle of the highest order.

If its such a minor amount of money then it isnt going to be enough incentive to change behaviour and ergo not reduce carbon usage in the slightest, and yet its still there.

Maybe someone just needs money? Anyone know someone who might need money? Is it the Province? It is? No way...

In the end this is a tax. Its in the name, albeit not the 'official' name, but they just want you to feel good about paying it. You're easing the pain of Mother Gaia...well, maybe not 'feel good' but more 'not blaming the NDP' because you're the one using all that filthy carbon!

Its like when an over-zealous mother goes to a PTA meeting to ban 60 watt lightbulbs because they burn her precious baby's retinas to a sweet crisp.

You know shes batcrap nuts but you cant do anything about it because 'the children.'

All they've done here is replace 'the children' with 'the environment....for the children.'

Its a double-whammy. And seeing as most people are content to be led around by the nose based on that narrative you cant really complain about its effectiveness.

Especially as we...and I'm using the 'Royal We' in this instance, handed them the license for this.

[IliketoPuck]

Damn filthy carbon (dioxide).

[Locke]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Damn filthy carbon (dioxide).

Damned filthy carbon (dioxide).

They'll not rest until all of the carbon is eliminated from our environment and our Globe is made pure.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

It is absolutely both.

Just because those eligible for a full rebate are being hurt less by receiving a rebate doesn't mean they aren't facing an additional burden. And let's not act like the NDP have a legitimate handle on how much this carbon tax is actually going to cost. Their estimates are flawed at best. Best case scenario, the rebate MIGHT offset the full amount of additional costs to a poor family.

The partial offset of those costs being paid for by those above an arbitrary income line is the very definition of a wealth redistribution.

So, no. It is both a wealth redistribution and it is detrimental to the poor.

By pure definition, sure you aren't wrong, I'll concede that. Part of the effect of the rebates results in wealth redistribution, you are right, but it is in the same way the GST does or a progressive income tax. The numbers are skewed and it will add in costs, sure. So yeah I will concede at the very lowest of level it does both.

But it isn't designed as some wealth redistribution scheme as some here try to make it out to be. Even the CTF put the number at $600 for the cost to a family in 2018, with a $540 rebate that is hardly a hardship. No I don't trust fully numbers released by the government, but I do trust economists like Trevor Trombe out of the UofC who is showing that it isn't as bad as some are making it out to be.

When Alberta moved back to a progressive income tax system there wasn't outrage that it was just wealth redistribution. Calling it this is just a political rhetoric designed to incite an uninformed populous against it.

A majority of economists worldwide agree that pricing carbon is one of the most effective methods for reducing emissions in a market economy. By pricing it, it lets market forces work instead of relying on the government to be the sole chooser of winners and losers. It makes investment in non carbon energy more accessible to give a return on investment that otherwise wouldn't be there. One of the biggest problems in Europe was when the subsidies ran out the green companies could no longer compete without them. By pricing the carbon it makes the true societal costs of using it more reflective.

No one likes taxes, I get it, but a carbon tax is probably the best way forward to help direct the economy away from the fossil fuel industry. If you have a better way, please tell me because for all of the complaining in these threads, there is very little given in the way of alternatives in how to move away from fossil fuels.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by belsarius

By pure definition, sure you aren't wrong, I'll concede that. Part of the effect of the rebates results in wealth redistribution, you are right, but it is in the same way the GST does or a progressive income tax. The numbers are skewed and it will add in costs, sure. So yeah I will concede at the very lowest of level it does both.

But it isn't designed as some wealth redistribution scheme as some here try to make it out to be. Even the CTF put the number at $600 for the cost to a family in 2018, with a $540 rebate that is hardly a hardship. No I don't trust fully numbers released by the government, but I do trust economists like Trevor Trombe out of the UofC who is showing that it isn't as bad as some are making it out to be.

When Alberta moved back to a progressive income tax system there wasn't outrage that it was just wealth redistribution. Calling it this is just a political rhetoric designed to incite an uninformed populous against it.

A majority of economists worldwide agree that pricing carbon is one of the most effective methods for reducing emissions in a market economy. By pricing it, it lets market forces work instead of relying on the government to be the sole chooser of winners and losers. It makes investment in non carbon energy more accessible to give a return on investment that otherwise wouldn't be there. One of the biggest problems in Europe was when the subsidies ran out the green companies could no longer compete without them. By pricing the carbon it makes the true societal costs of using it more reflective.

No one likes taxes, I get it, but a carbon tax is probably the best way forward to help direct the economy away from the fossil fuel industry. If you have a better way, please tell me because for all of the complaining in these threads, there is very little given in the way of alternatives in how to move away from fossil fuels.

I think what economists like Trevor Toombe (I like him also) can say is if we decide taxing carbon is the way to go then pricing it this way is the least economically damaging way to do it - though that's almost always with the caveat that it's revenue neutral.

Which is probably true, but that's not the same as saying it's effective to actually reduce carbon, esp in a global context, or that least economically damaging = not economically damaging, esp as Alberta is not remotely revenue neutral.

Sarah Dobson from the U of C also has some great stuff on carbon taxes, and a recent piece on Albertas rebate scheme that points out that most families in Alberta won't receive a rebate of any kind, never mind one that offsets costs. For the majority of Alberta families this is a straight tax.

[puckedoff]

Do I have to file my taxes in order to get my refund?

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I think what economists like Trevor Toombe (I like him also) can say is if we decide taxing carbon is the way to go then pricing it this way is the least economically damaging way to do it - though that's almost always with the caveat that it's revenue neutral.

Which is probably true, but that's not the same as saying it's effective to actually reduce carbon, esp in a global context, or that least economically damaging = not economically damaging, esp as Alberta is not remotely revenue neutral.

Sarah Dobson from the U of C also has some great stuff on carbon taxes, and a recent piece on Albertas rebate scheme that points out that most families in Alberta won't receive a rebate of any kind, never mind one that offsets costs. For the majority of Alberta families this is a straight tax.

Well instead of saying most effective I should have said cheapest method to reduce emissions. What I think gets lost is that that kind of statement is taken as because of the tax people drive less and reduce emissions. While that is part that is also a very small almost inconsequential part.

Much larger is how the pricing effects the commodity as a whole. By increasing the price is makes alternatives more profitable and lucrative. It incentivizes more research and development into alternatives. Solar and wind power is no where near ready to take over the grid, but unless we make it more cost effective to increase our development there it just won't happen.

Alberta is also in a unique position that it needs revenue badly. Cuts need to be made but there is a much larger revenue problem by decades of supplementing with oil money. I don't see that a revenue neutral carbon tax acts any differently unless all other factors remain the same, which they won't.

Many Albertans don't want any new taxes, but that just isn't an option anymore, oil can't bail us out. People keep pointing at BC for a revenue neutral carbon tax, but if we were to take BC's tax scheme we would have a much more progressive income tax regime (way more wealth redistribution than there is now) plus a 7% PST. I am all for it. The problem is people want revenue neutral and no other increased costs... unfortunately that just isn't possible.

The NDP dressed up a PST in a carbon tax dress and sent it to prom, I'm not denying that. But instead of administering two programs, we now only administer one, reducing beaurocracy and overall costs. Isn't that a good thing?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Do I have to file my taxes in order to get my refund?

Yes.

The Provincial Government determines your rebate eligibility based on your filed Provincial Tax Return.

Thats why they say 'you dont have to apply' because they filter out eligible individuals based on the tax information they have on file.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Locke

Damned filthy carbon (dioxide).

They'll not rest until all of the carbon is eliminated from our environment and our Globe is made pure.

That will be great for the remaining species on the planet but humans will all be long extinct due to starvation across the globe. Guess where the fertilizer used on crops around the world comes from? That's right Sulfur recovery.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

That will be great for the remaining species on the planet but humans will all be long extinct due to starvation across the globe. Guess where the fertilizer used on crops around the world comes from? That's right Sulfur recovery.

Well...I hate to nerd out on you, but that was a 'Carbon-Based Lifeforms' joke.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well...I hate to nerd out on you, but that was a 'Carbon-Based Lifeforms' joke.

I realize that but ultimately the joke is on us if we continue to believe we can exist without being dependent on fossil fuels.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I realize that but ultimately the joke is on us if we continue to believe we can exist without being dependent on fossil fuels.

Well. You're just objectively wrong. Just read the NDP propaganda facts.

[Bownesian]

https://www.alberta.ca/climate-carbon-pricing.aspx

$6.2 billion will help diversify our energy industry and create new jobs in new government spending:

• $3.4 billion for large scale renewable energy, bioenergy and technology (New Government Spending)
  
• $2.2 billion for green infrastructure like public transit (New Government Spending)
• $645 million for Energy Efficiency Alberta, a new provincial agency that will support energy efficiency programs and services for homes and businesses (New Government Spending)

$3.4 billion will help households, businesses and communities adjust to the carbon levy in wedge-political wealth redistribution:

• $2.3 billion for carbon rebates to help low- and middle-income families (wedge spending)
• $865 million to pay for a cut in the small business tax rate from 3% to 2% (wedge spending)
• $195 million to assist coal communities, Indigenous communities and others transition to a cleaner economy (wedge spending and cleaning up the mess of their policies)

The conservative (economic) argument for a revenue-neutral carbon tax is to force prices to rise and let private and personal investment respond to those new prices to increase efficiency. Taking that money out of the private economy and spending it on NDP wedge-political spending and government bloat is net-negative for the economy.

My problem is entirely on the spending side of the ledger.

If I were king of Alberta and we instituted a carbon tax, the monies would be:

• Refunded personally via an increase in the basic exemption, plus a rebate for those below the new basic exemption level, enough to refund all the money collected from individuals.
• Refunded to corporations via an identical reduction in both the small and large business tax rates as well as:
• A charge/rebate (similar to how Value Added Taxes like the GST works) for imports/exports to and from other jurisdictions to make the tax neutral and applied identically relative to input carbon emissions. If a foreign jurisdiction (province/country) has no carbon tax, we shouldn't incent production there by making their goods cheaper than domestically produced ones. This would protect exporters and make the tax entirely domestic. If this exemption means the tax rate has to be higher to change behaviours, so be it.

[Fuzz]

I'm not sure you can call $2.2 billion for green infrastructure like public transit (New Government Spending) because it's stuff they were going to fund anyway, like the Green Line. Prepare for that announcement, "funded by the carbon tax!" so they can score some points soon enough. But they would have funded public transit anyway. So it's not really "new" like the first item.

[Bownesian]

They NDP made the link, not I.

The implication is that the province wouldn't have had the money to make that infrastructure investment were it not for the carbon tax.

Hell, I would be fine if they collected the tax and put it on the deficit (because that defrays future taxes) - just not collecting it to spend more money or to make investments they can't afford.