What a dumb post, but exactly in line with the elitist stupidity evidenced in this thread.
"Buy an EV and slap on some solar panels if you don't want to pay the carbon tax."
What was the income poll again? Top 1%? Really telling in this thread.
Taking away the obvious climate change denial underpinnings of your concerns about the effect on low income Canadians, EV’s are cheaper than ICE vehicles. That is why I bought one, I bought the cheaper vehicle when you amortize cost over the lifetime of the vehicle.
I am assuming that this zeal for low income people also extends to you supporting making sure the 1% pay their fair share when it comes to capita gains taxes, that a dollar earned whether it is through employment or investment should be taxed the same way? Or is it just on climate change initiatives?
He spent an entire year obsessively talking about it and trying to make fun of me for saying tens of thousands of dollars each spent for every single business, classroom, and other public setting for improved ventilation wasn’t realistic. So, I assume he just forgot and will thank me for bringing it up.
Cause we gotta band together to fight those 1% guys in fantasyland, you know?
I just assumed they worked in HVAC and wanted more coin.
Taking away the obvious climate change denial underpinnings of your concerns about the effect on low income Canadians, EV’s are cheaper than ICE vehicles. That is why I bought one, I bought the cheaper vehicle when you amortize cost over the lifetime of the vehicle.
I am assuming that this zeal for low income people also extends to you supporting making sure the 1% pay their fair share when it comes to capita gains taxes, that a dollar earned whether it is through employment or investment should be taxed the same way? Or is it just on climate change initiatives?
You didn’t buy a cheaper vehicle amortized over the life time. Your statement that you did speaks to your privilege.
First your new vehicle total cost per km is going to be more expensive than a used ICE vehicle. Low income people don’t drive new vehicles. Second you borrowed more money up front which requires more income because in means testing loans they don’t consider the lack of gas cost as a savings.
The simple way to rebut azures concerns is that the federal carbon tax is rebated in advance and has a mild income redistribution affect as lower income people spend less overall therefore will likely spend less on carbon and receive a larger rebate.
But I did enjoy your flaunting that you somehow made an economic decision in buying a new EV when continuing to drive your existing vehicle or purchasing a newer used vehicle was the more economic choice. You just wanted a new car.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
You didn’t buy a cheaper vehicle amortized over the life time. Your statement that you did speaks to your privilege.
First your new vehicle total cost per km is going to be more expensive than a used ICE vehicle. Low income people don’t drive new vehicles. Second you borrowed more money up front which requires more income because in means testing loans they don’t consider the lack of gas cost as a savings.
The simple way to rebut azures concerns is that the federal carbon tax is rebated in advance and has a mild income redistribution affect as lower income people spend less overall therefore will likely spend less on carbon and receive a larger rebate.
But I did enjoy your flaunting that you somehow made an economic decision in buying a new EV when continuing to drive your existing vehicle or purchasing a newer used vehicle was the more economic choice. You just wanted a new car.
Doesn't belong here maybe, but it does have a political bend
Evan Solomon exits CTV Powerplay and Question Period. I kind of liked him because at times he wasn't afraid to challenge his guests, and call them out for misleading statements.
Taking away the obvious climate change denial underpinnings of your concerns about the effect on low income Canadians, EV’s are cheaper than ICE vehicles. That is why I bought one, I bought the cheaper vehicle when you amortize cost over the lifetime of the vehicle.
I am assuming that this zeal for low income people also extends to you supporting making sure the 1% pay their fair share when it comes to capita gains taxes, that a dollar earned whether it is through employment or investment should be taxed the same way? Or is it just on climate change initiatives?
First of, to think that the implementation of the carbon tax in Canada will move the needle of climate change in a positive direction is complete bull####. Canada already contributes basically nothing to worldwide carbon emissions, and please tell me you don't actually think the carbon tax is the reason EVs are growing in popularity. The fact is that even without the tax, many of the advancements in the field of clean energy & overall carbon emission reduction would happen regardless of whatever tax the Liberals are pushing. This is evidenced by what China, Europe, the US and many other BIG economies are doing despite NOT having a carbon tax. Effectively the implementation of the carbon tax, where it is tax that the consumer pays, instead of a incentive that encourages big business to invest in clean energy, basically means that it will disproportionately affect households in a net negative manner, while the 'emitters' will continue passing on the costs.
This is also evidenced by the report from the PBO, which clearly states that household are absolutely not coming out ahead, and it will continue to get worse. So whatever rebate you are so proud of getting, and whatever no interest loan you got to slap on some solar panels, it doesn't actually magically make every household come out ahead. And the fact that you are even in a position to buy an EV, or qualify for a loan to place solar panels, means that you are in the top 1% of income earners in Canada. The fact that you are so ignorant as to not see how most middle to lower class families have the means to take similar action is the same typical elitist stupidity that is clearly evidenced by the supporters of the carbon tax, including those who are lying that consumers will come out ahead.
From the PBO. Which apparently PepsiFree and his gang of cheerleaders haven't had the time to read.
Quote:
Under the Government’s A Healthy Environment and A Healthy Economy (HEHE) climate plan, the federal carbon levy is set to rise by $15 per year from $50 per tonne in 2022 until it reaches $170 per tonne in 2030.
When losses in economic efficiency are added to fiscal impacts of federal carbon pricing, the net carbon cost increases for all households in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Most households in provinces under the backstop will see a net loss resulting from federal carbon pricing under the HEHE plan. That is, household carbon costs will exceed the Climate Action Incentive payments households receive.
Relative to disposable income, our estimates of household net carbon costs continue to show a progressive impact that is, larger net costs for higher income households.
We estimate that carbon pricing under HEHE will reduce the budgetary balance (increase the budgetary deficit) by $0.9 billion in 2021-22 and ultimately by $5.2 billion in 2030-31.
But wait, Fuzz and the gang said that most households will come out ahead, didn't they? But hey, its just the PBO. The supposed neutral, non-partisan party independent of government. What do they know?
If we really want to reduce worldwide carbon emissions, which is the goal right? Then we should be developing our fossil fuel technology and exporting it to the rest of the world. As of 2020, coal still generated 40% of the world's electricity. I'm sure that number has come down since, but it is moving far too slow. But hey, as long as you and the cheerleading section can signal to the rest of the world how 'green' you are. Congrats.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
I just assumed they worked in HVAC and wanted more coin.
To respond to this stupidity, I actually only looked at early results of zero COVID transmission in airplanes during flight. Filtered air. Hard to believe it would make a difference, right?
First of, to think that the implementation of the carbon tax in Canada will move the needle of climate change in a positive direction is complete bull####. Canada already contributes basically nothing to worldwide carbon emissions, and please tell me you don't actually think the carbon tax is the reason EVs are growing in popularity. The fact is that even without the tax, many of the advancements in the field of clean energy & overall carbon emission reduction would happen regardless of whatever tax the Liberals are pushing. This is evidenced by what China, Europe, the US and many other BIG economies are doing despite NOT having a carbon tax. Effectively the implementation of the carbon tax, where it is tax that the consumer pays, instead of a incentive that encourages big business to invest in clean energy, basically means that it will disproportionately affect households in a net negative manner, while the 'emitters' will continue passing on the costs.
This is also evidenced by the report from the PBO, which clearly states that household are absolutely not coming out ahead, and it will continue to get worse. So whatever rebate you are so proud of getting, and whatever no interest loan you got to slap on some solar panels, it doesn't actually magically make every household come out ahead. And the fact that you are even in a position to buy an EV, or qualify for a loan to place solar panels, means that you are in the top 1% of income earners in Canada. The fact that you are so ignorant as to not see how most middle to lower class families have the means to take similar action is the same typical elitist stupidity that is clearly evidenced by the supporters of the carbon tax, including those who are lying that consumers will come out ahead.
From the PBO. Which apparently PepsiFree and his gang of cheerleaders haven't had the time to read.
But wait, Fuzz and the gang said that most households will come out ahead, didn't they? But hey, its just the PBO. The supposed neutral, non-partisan party independent of government. What do they know?
If we really want to reduce worldwide carbon emissions, which is the goal right? Then we should be developing our fossil fuel technology and exporting it to the rest of the world. As of 2020, coal still generated 40% of the world's electricity. I'm sure that number has come down since, but it is moving far too slow. But hey, as long as you and the cheerleading section can signal to the rest of the world how 'green' you are. Congrats.
Quote:
The 1stquintile represents the lowest household income quintile and the
5thquintile represents the highest household income quintile
It would be interesting to see the actual dollar values of the quintiles, but it seems to me that the first 3 probably cover all the lower class, and probably much more. So you come out pretty even until you get to the high earners, who I'd also assume burn the most fossil fuels, but also have the most means to reduce their usage, which this should incentivize them to do. So, uhm, what is the actual issue here?
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
First of, to think that the implementation of the carbon tax in Canada will move the needle of climate change in a positive direction is complete bull####. Canada already contributes basically nothing to worldwide carbon emissions,
I can see why people dislike the Carbon Tax or question its effectiveness. But the argument that "Canada is contributing very little of the global carbon emissions, therefore we shouldn't worry or do anything" is a ridiculous line of thinking. I mean, it only makes sense as an argument if you think Climate Change is a hoax.
Apply the same logic to other issues and it sounds equally ridiculous:
"Canada contributes basically nothing to worldwide instances of human trafficking, therefore we shouldn't worry about it or do anything about it in our own country".
I consider it fairly common sense, that regardless of a terrible thing's occurence rate in our nation we should do SOMETHING to stop it.
You could certainly argue that the Carbon Tax isn't the best method to combat climate change, but then what do you argue should be done? If climate change is an issue that requires our attention, what should we do?
I know personally in my own life, the rising price of fuel (worldwide price fluctuations + the carbon tax) have pushed myself and my wife to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles (I don't own an EV). I look at the fuel efficiency ratings as one of the key attributes of my vehicle purchases. So I guess in that sense, the Carbon Tax (along with other price contributors) has impacted my purchasing decisions.
But what always makes me chuckle is the family members/colleagues/whoever who argue that the Carbon Tax is terrible while also driving a Dodge Ram/F-150 as their commuter vehicle. I mean, I guess any tax sucks, but some people aren't doing themselves any favours with their driving/purchasing decisions.
Last edited by b1crunch; 10-03-2022 at 07:29 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to b1crunch For This Useful Post:
It would be interesting to see the actual dollar values of the quintiles, but it seems to me that the first 3 probably cover all the lower class, and probably much more. So you come out pretty even until you get to the high earners, who I'd also assume burn the most fossil fuels, but also have the most means to reduce their usage, which this should incentivize them to do. So, uhm, what is the actual issue here?
The scary numbers at the top are lost investment returns due to Carbon tax impacts in carbon intensive industries. I can’t tell from the report if it accounts for things like Tier which limits the impact of the carbon tax for carbon intensive industries. Can anyone tel from that report?
It would be interesting to see the actual dollar values of the quintiles, but it seems to me that the first 3 probably cover all the lower class, and probably much more. So you come out pretty even until you get to the high earners, who I'd also assume burn the most fossil fuels, but also have the most means to reduce their usage, which this should incentivize them to do. So, uhm, what is the actual issue here?
Well, in another case of Azure being completely full of baloney, he very obviously did not read that report, and may have only read what is included in the summary AFTER his last few posts, given that the report directly contradicts his whole spiel about “the CP 1% have it so easy buying up solar panels and EV cars while the lower class struggles to make ends meet and the carbon tax is hurting them!!” What does the report actually show? Yeah, the opposite, that low income families maintain and will maintain a net benefit thanks to the carbon tax right through the year 2030 when the price goes up to $170, while high income earners (that devilish CP 1%!) is at a loss now and having it only get worse.
Usually the quintiles are just a even split of numbers. So you rank every household from 1 to approximately 15M by income, and the first 3M are the 1st quintile and the last 3M are the fifth quintile. This means that the last one is going to include a household making a couple hundred thousand and a household making a billion.
It’s also important to remember that the entire report is based on estimates and modelling. It has plenty of limitations, and the PBO has been forthright about all of them. It’s only meant to help politicians discuss the issue, it’s not meant to be proof of anything (though I doubt some people care about the difference).
What it also shows, which Azure either didn’t read or ignored, is that the majority of households do (in fact!) get more money back than what they spend on the tax, which is totally in line with what everyone has been saying and if Azure was being honest he’d know that. If we want to take the PBO’s estimates at face value, fine, but we also have to recognize that it doesn’t include any potential economic benefits (on purpose), negative impacts of climate change (on purpose), changes households might make on account of reduced employment income (on purpose), or any other real world factors that will absolutely play a role. It does include estimated lost employment income, and tries to apply that across the board. It’s also averages, meaning that one person losing their job in a carbon intensive industry has a bigger impact on the model than 5 houses getting the maximum rebate. And on top of all that, a household where a single person with no dependents making 100k is weighted the exact same as a household with one earner making 100k with 3 dependents despite the differences between them.
Basically, there is nothing wrong with the report if you treat it as it’s meant to be treated. But it has enough limitations and the scope is narrow enough (again, totally on purpose) that everyone from politicians to random plumbers on the internet using it as proof of anything are wildly out to lunch. The PBO said it himself, though it seems like certain people only want to hold the PBO as an authority when it suits their point, and not (strangely) when it completely contradicts it lol.
This is the dilemma of our times. True North is obviously a bias news ource and I know nothing of the site that actually reported this news to know if its legit or not.
So now we hit a point where either
a) You don't trust True North so you wait for mainstream media to report on it and if they don't - you assume its likely either not true or wildly overblown
b) you don't trust mainstream media - so if they don't report on it - you assume they are covering up for Liberal or policial overlords.
This is the dilemma of our times. True North is obviously a bias news ource and I know nothing of the site that actually reported this news to know if its legit or not.
So now we hit a point where either
a) You don't trust True North so you wait for mainstream media to report on it and if they don't - you assume its likely either not true or wildly overblown
b) you don't trust mainstream media - so if they don't report on it - you assume they are covering up for Liberal or policial overlords.
Agree with you totally.
This is where this story first came from.
Gotta love going green. Must not care THAT much about the environment.
Quote:
Drax runs Britain's biggest power station, which burns millions of tonnes of imported wood pellets - which is classed as renewable energy.
The BBC has discovered some of the wood comes from primary forests in Canada.
The company says it only uses sawdust and waste wood.
Panorama analysed satellite images, traced logging licences and used drone filming to prove its findings. Reporter Joe Crowley also followed a truck from a Drax mill to verify it was picking up whole logs from an area of precious forest.
Ecologist Michelle Connolly told Panorama the company was destroying forests that had taken thousands of years to develop.
"It's really a shame that British taxpayers are funding this destruction with their money. Logging natural forests and converting them into pellets to be burned for electricity, that is absolutely insane," she said.
The provincial government of British Columbia says old-growth forests are particularly important and that companies should put off logging them.
Drax's own responsible sourcing policy says it "will avoid damage or disturbance" to primary and old-growth forest.
However, the latest satellite pictures show Drax is now cutting down the forest.
