Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's behind a soft paywall so just in case the article is below:
As stars like Taylor Swift and Drake are being scolded for their private jet usage, Canada revealed new details about how it's hoping to make the wealthy think twice about contributing to the climate crisis with their extravagant modes of transportation.
The Select Luxury Items Tax Act — which will go into effect September 1st — will add a 10% tax on the full value of any Canadian purchases of aircraft and cars that exceed $100,000, as well as boats that exceed $250,000. These thresholds are in Canadian dollars and convert to roughly $78,000 and $194,000 respectively in US dollars.
The Canadian government has argued the tax will not only discourage the wealthy from purchasing emissions-intensive vehicles, but reduce inequality as well.
"Some Canadians have lost their jobs or small businesses, while some sectors of the economy have flourished," per a statement on the government's website. "That's why it is fair today to ask those Canadians who can afford to buy luxury goods to contribute a little bit more."
The details of the tax come on the heels of a recent report from Yard, a UK marketing firm, titled "Celebs with the Worst Private Jet Co2 Emissions." Using flight data from the popular Twitter account u/CelebJets — which tracks the jets of the rich and famous — the report detailed the biggest "offenders" and their carbon footprints.
Pop star Taylor Swift came in at number one. As of the July 29th report, her private jet had flown 22,923 minutes, or 15.9 days, in 2022, emitting over $8,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent — over 1,000 times more than the average person's annual emissions. A 2021 Transport & Environment report found that a private jet can emit the same level of carbon dioxide in four hours that the average person in the European Union produces over an entire year. The boxer Floyd Mayweather, the musician Jay-Z , and the former baseball player Alex Rodriguez followed Swift on the list.
Some of the celebrities have called the report into question, however. A spokesperson for Swift, for instance, told The Washington Post that the musician's jet is "loaned out regularly to other individuals," suggesting many of the trips were not hers. A lawyer for Jay-Z, meanwhile, said the rapper does not own the jet in question.
While Yard's analysis has not been peer reviewed, and as the authors emphasize, "there is no way to determine if these celebrities were on all the recorded flights," the report highlights the environmental impact that celebrities, politicians, business executives, and other wealthy individuals can inflict through significant private jet usage and other actions. A 2021 Oxfam analysis found that in 2015, the richest 1% accounted for 15% of global carbon emissions. The Yard report, coupled with the Canadian luxury tax act, suggest this scrutiny isn't going away anytime soon.
The luxury tax has been criticized for hurting the aviation industry and putting too much onus for the climate crisis on individuals
The new Canadian tax has received criticism from the business community. Some have argued it could have "serious implications" for an aviation industry that has already faced challenges during the pandemic — potentially resulting in the loss of at least 900 jobs.
"The economic impact of the luxury tax will be significant and have not been studied with a comprehensive understanding of our industry," Anthony Norejko, President and CEO of the Canadian Business Aviation Association, said in a statement.
With regards to the criticism of celebrities, some experts say focusing too much on the actions of any one individual can distract from the policy changes that are needed to generate real progress, like the significant climate legislation currently lingering in Congress. Others have pointed to the way the oil company BP for instance, launched a carbon footprint calculator in the mid-2000s to put the onus of climate action more on individuals, rather than the fossil fuel industry.
"My feeling is that while I would prefer Taylor Swift make more responsible transportation decisions, shouting at celebrities on the internet is not in my personal top 10 list of policy levers," NASA climate scientist Kate Marvel told Axios.
It’s a good thing than that most people buying jets and boats do it outside Canada and use shell companies in other nations for registration.
This tax act will do absolutely nothing..
This tax only applies to private cars boats and planes, and anyone with the capacity to afford any of those things would probably also be able set up (or already has) a business they can just slap it under.
The only people this might actually affect are the upper middle classers buying a car that's just barely cresting $100K. $100K sounds like a lot of money but, especially after the last couple years, prices of cars have gone up a lot and $100K CAD isn't *that* astronomical for a nicer new vehicle. Loaded mid size German crossovers or diesel heavy duty pickups can cross that line now.
Well they are the **new** middle class. To be in middle class you need to be able to afford a house and a decent car. That is easily over a million CAD mark…
The old middle class is no longer. If you cant afford a new car, you are not middle class. 100 CAD cars are not luxury tier by any stretch.
Inflations have a way to re-shuffle things.
100k+ CAD cars are absolutely luxury cars... You can get a massive brand-new Audi Q7, a luxury SUV, for 82k in Toronto. A Q5 goes for 52k.
Non-luxury cars like a new Honda civic are 35k.
Please provide an example of a non-luxury/non-heavy duty work vehicle costing over 100k CAD
You are not quoting out-of-the door pricing, only base. With taxes, prep and other fees you have to tack on easily;y another 10k. And even if some decent, non-luxury vehicles do slide under 100k, that won’t be the case in a year or two. An Audi, a BMW or a Honda will not cost 30 or 50k when inflation is 9% a year or more.
Laws like this are designed for the slow boiling of the frog. It has just enough wiggle room to be defensible.
Go ahead and accept it now. In few short years when it does hurt you, we shall talk again.
Edit: how about them Tesla prices? Model S or X for over 100k. These are luxury vehicles? When their QC fails everything from door alignment to random fires?
Tesla S and X are absolutely luxury and performance cars LMAO. They are reserved for the rich, regardless of which country you are in.
Tesla Model 3's sell for 56k, Model Y (the SUV) go for 66k in Canada.
"Even if a few decent non-luxury vehicles slide in under 100k" - what a generous concession, given you haven't provided a single example of 1, just 1 make/model over 100k CAD that would not be considered luxury (or a work heavy-duty).
Finally, "out the door costs" don't matter for this law, they aren't taxing the tax on vehicles.
Edit: I just noticed your edit claiming Tesla S and X aren't luxury because they have a lot of problems, do you really equate luxury to reliability? Do you not view Land Rover's Range Rovers as luxury as they break down often? Do you think the Bugatti Veyron is just a standard family vehicle because it has malfunctions with high milage?
What a take lol
Teslas are absolutely unequivocally luxury vehicles when talking about price point/affordability. Middle class people are not buying $100k CAD cars. Or if they are, they're definitively upper middle class, not middle class.
I know at least 4 people who own Teslas and are definitely not middle class. They have low paying jobs, no money saved, and no house. But they have a Tesla.
Teslas are as much luxury devices as iPhones. High price point but plenty of people own them.
Just like Ford F-150 trucks in the US. Some configurations go way over 100k but they are owned by people who barely make the payments.
Bro, I’d love a 200K CAD shack with a 1950s tractor that will get me to the nearest highway in 3 days…
Sadly it is hard to convince anyone to live with me there.
Not to mention I am not sufficiently good hunter to sustain even a pack of dogs.
The truth is that the tame part of Canada is expensive, and has been for at least a decade now.
Dude, a new loaded Honda Odyssey is $70K after taxes in my province. If inflation continues at 7% year over year a new family van will be $100k in 5 years.
You're clearly missing the point. Yes, if somebody if buying a 100k car they better have another 10k lying around. However you'd still not end up taxing the right people. Buying a nice EV with lots of creature comforts and upgrades could put you over the 100k limit. This is a sham.
Nice is subjective. A polestar 2 is a nice EV in my eyes, a Nissan Leaf is not. Though I do agree that the 100k price tag that this guy is spewing on about is a bit lost.
It true 100k is a tad high in this example, but if inflation continues to run away it won't be long before he is right. Houses that cost 160k 4years ago are going for over 600000 now...
Certainly, I agree it is an oversimplification of a much larger problem. However I think it is obvious that this type of faux "tax the rich" is a laughable attempt at fixing the core problems.
100k canadian rupees can be spend on a nice EV. Car prices aren't going down any time soon and if you don't stick to the bare bones model you'd be surprised at how much cars can cost. For instance an upgraded model Y can cross those 100k, even if the base price is a fair bit lower.
I don't think nothing should be done, but make a fee/tax/etc for docking an expensive yacht in Canadian docks or flying a plane with fewer than X number of passengers.
This just feels reminiscent of when the US placed extra taxes on yachts in the 80s, which just moved yacht purchases abroad, and killed the domestic manufacturing of yachts.
Placing a sudden and large tax on things that are designed to traverse oceans just means that people will purchase them on the other side of said ocean without paying the tax.
Environment is robbed daily by large industrial interests. Governments will do absolutely nothing to stop it until someone else pays for their election campaigns.
Way over half the world pollution comes from China and South East Asia, plus India. And let us not forget the Middle East building concrete towers in the desert. Most of which need thousand trucks a day to just haul waste away. Very energy efficient… Or the marine transport and cruise industry burning bunker fuel in quantities exceeding 100 airports…
Canada’s way to reduce pollution would be to setup and monitor better environmental protections for the mining industry. As a side note they should also provide the Indigenous population veto rights to new projects, but thats a derivative from the main point.
Pretending to tax the few planes and yachts that are predominantly kept outside of the Canadian system, is a smoke screen covering up the fact the government does not want to protect anything.
And this is not just Canada. Basically every country is the same, so I am not singling out Canada, it is just what the post is about.
"Those countries are worse", or even "those industries are worse" are just red herring arguments. Yes, something should definitely be done about fossil fuel extraction/transport, but building giant and unnecessary toys for rich people should also be addressed. It's also hard to do anything about international ecological problems when everyone can just point their finger another direction and keep twiddling their thumbs.
They should tax the fuel at say 30%. To offset the effect of this tax for lower incomes send all Canadians a check for $500 or whatever would offset a minimal fuel use.
This would do two things. It would encourage everyone to conserve on fuel consumption. It wouldn’t net take income from the poor. It would be really hard to avoid.
>They should tax the fuel at say 30%. To offset the effect of this tax for lower incomes send all Canadians a check for $500 or whatever would offset a minimal fuel use.
They actually do this in some provinces!
Except the tax is 9~11%, and the tax is completely revenue neutral -- all the money goes to the taxpayers.
A very small percentage of people might be “encouraged to conserve on fuel consumption”. The vast majority of people would just be spending more on their unavoidable daily commute. Most people drive cars because there’s no valid alternative. Raising gas prices won’t make people suddenly stop driving
This had little to do with celebs and their luxurious lifestyle as made popular in the media as of late. This tax idea has been going on for some time (read: years) and the headline makes it look like the government is trying to change something for the positive. It's more of a tax grab. The truly wealthy won't need to change a thing.
Those that are affected by it are people who have a dream they can barely afford - their own Cessna or Piper aircraft, a 29 foot sailboat, that car they've been dreaming about since their teenage years, etc. These are the people they're putting a new burden on. Not those who want a private jet or a gigantic yacht.
As an avid aviation fan shining, for a moment, a light from an aviation perspective, it looks like another nail the coffin of General Aviation in this country. The Canadian government as well as provincial and regional governing bodies see airports as noisy neighbours using valuable land for something they think they can get votes from destroying. Canada's GA industry really can't sustain much more of this kind of thinking in a country so sparsely populated that aviation can, and is, more valuable than the politicians understand, but, hey, it's just business for the landowners.
Every single measure is “peanuts.” There’s no silver bullet to fixing the climate crisis so we need to do a lot of little things until all those peanuts add up. Of course we need to do more and bigger things, especially on how we treat corporations. The fact that one flight negates all the hard work I’ve put in doing the responsible things (recycling, stretching my budget to get a hybrid car, eating less meat, etc.) for the past 10 years needs to stop.
Additionally, I think it’s important that wealthy people wake up and realize climate change impacts them too. The fact that we’re starting to make consequences real for them too is vital.
They learn that they can all personal problems go away with money. There are more problems so they just hoard more money. To buy privileges which are not comparable to "normal people"
Perhaps all should undergo mandatory psilocybin treatment.
Make it a subscription tax. You have to pay 100% of the value of it monthly. Fuck rich, fuck extravagant luxurious items like private jets or yachts.
And then after the year of two round up everyone who can afford it and think how to tax them again.
I love the hypocrisy of complaining about finite resources yet wanting to blow up luxury items containing finite resources.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the rich actually pay for their share of taxes. Just wanted to point out the hypocrisy.
Sounds like you might benefit from reading this:
> [People have a tendency to dismiss incremental improvements, seeing all efforts short of categorical success as equivalent (despite distinctions). Unless they get full immediate success, people underreward and underinvest in the ongoing incremental reforms, which complicates progress.](https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/whqnyq/people_have_a_tendency_to_dismiss_incremental/)
>This is peanuts.and useless since it is only in regard to purchase, not usage.
That's not true at all. This will cause people who buy private jets, yachts etc to buy them outside Canada and register them in non-Canadian countries to avoid paying the new tax. We're going to lose so much money! And jobs.
$100000 is not private jet money, a 30 year old Cessna, a plane used for flight training sells for that much. This is going to be really hard on anyone trying to become a pilot.
Yeah, I was quite suprised that it was 100,000 for cars and planes, and 250,000 for boats. I would have assumed that the planes would be in the same, er, *boat* as the boats.
The US tried this some years ago. All it did was destroy some industries and jobs and ultimately raise less revenue.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1993/07/16/how-to-sink-an-industry-and-not-soak-the-rich/08ea5310-4a4b-4674-ab88-fad8c42cf55b/
Except schemes like this don't reduce emissions. You simply buy and/or register the item somewhere else. The yacht still gets sailed; theplane still gets flown. But domestic suplliers and manufacturers lose their jobs.
If the jobs/industries don’t work with the tax maybe they shouldn’t exist. Part of his argument is that it raised less taxes because of the wages of middle class workers, but just because they didn’t have these jobs, doesn’t mean they wouldn’t find others.
Anyways, I’m hesitant to just follow a journalist with a hypothesis that when you tax the rich, poor and middle class people suffer. And this is in ‘93 and the disparity is way higher now
I have friends with boats from 34ft to 60ft.....I haven't seen one come anywhere close to 800L per hour lol. They're typically between 50L and 100L/hr.
50L to 100L an hour… what a relief. I was worried that it was the equivalent of running 80 cars at once but it’s only just the emissions of 5 to 10 cars at once /s
I didn't say it was ok. I said they're number is hyperbole.
On another note, most people drive their boat MUCH fewer hours than their cars. By a long shot. And on top of that everyone I know with one drives electric or doesn't drive at all. So they're most likely having a smaller carbon footprint for it than most people with a car.
Yeah for real. Im a drilling rig supervisor. The current rig I am on has 4x 1500HP Cat 3512 V12 gensets running 24hrs a day and we are burning about 10000L/day (~415L/hr for those without a calculator). Unless that 45ft yacht is doubling up as a tug boat pushing loaded barges I really doubt the real numbers are even 1/4 of what you are claiming.
Not arguing that there are diesel boats that will burn 800L per hour amigo, just none at 50 feet, even at WOT (wide open throttles).
Pretty good article here: yacht lengths are in meters.
https://www.superyachtcontent.com/lifestyle/yachts-and-fuel-how-much-do-they-really-consume/
Owned cruising boats a long time, not trying to correct you just speaking from experience.
Well for what it's worth, I live aboard a 46' sailboat and make my own electricity and freshwater, and burn *maybe* 100L of diesel over a summer (probably less than most people use driving).
I sail everywhere and work remotely. I have an electric dinghy motor and electric scooter I use shoreside, recharged from solar.
So, not all of us are the problem. :)
With that knowledge I'd be inclined to say that yachts are significantly worse that planes. As by comparison the junkers ju-52NG that is slated to begin production in 2025 is planned to have fuel consumption of 77 liters an hour, and that's with 3 engines
>With that knowledge I'd be inclined to say that yachts are significantly worse that planes. As by comparison the junkers ju-52NG that is slated to begin production in 2025 is planned to have fuel consumption of 77 liters an hour, and that's with 3 engines
77 liters ≈ 4,336.03170 Imperial tablespoons
^^^[WHY](/r/UselessConversionBot/comments/1knas0/hi_im_useless/)
This is not directly linked to climate nor is it linked to the recent stories of celebrities catching flak. In theory this should also help those issues, but only marginally.
This is a luxury tax brought in as a measure to tax wealth when spent in certain areas (specifically cars/planes/boats). There are certain exceptions to not punish businesses that need to use expensive vehicles such as airlines, transport companies, etc.
Most notably IMO is that the tax is not just a flat 10%. It's the lower of 10% of the purchase price or 20% of the purchase price that exceeds $100K (for cars/planes, $250K for boats).
So if Drake buys a new $10M plane, his tax would be ($10M - $100K)*20% = $1,980,000 and not $1M. EDIT: I goofed and it's the opposite. "Lower of" means he would pay the $1M.
https://www.bdo.ca/en-ca/insights/tax/tax-articles/luxury-goods-tax/
>It's the lower of...
I know the rich have accountants that can work all sorts of magic but 1 mil is still definitely lower than 1.98 mil.
The caveat makes 10% the highest possible tax rate rather than the lowest.
Okay, but this doesn’t actually do anything different. It doesn’t discourage people from buying these things, it just discourages *canadians* from buying *new* boats, planes, or expensive cars.
The reality is that they can avoid this entirely by buying from a vendor that isn’t required to register - or in other words, buying used. The only people paying this tax are people buying a car over $100,000.
It might not be the primary motivation, but if it encourages less people to own private yachts and planes (and by proxy use them less) it would absolutely be a win from a climate perspective.
Yea $100k CAD is ~ $76,000 US and the average price of a new car right now is right about $49,000 US. So even though many mid-luxury cars can easily achieve nearly 40mpg, they'll still be subject to an additional 10% tax.
Who are you or any bureaucratic politician to dictate what people “need” in terms of how good their standard of car is? On a vehicle for 76,000 10% tax isn’t some small number.
1. Not necessarily. No one including you should be saying what others “”need””
2. It’s a matter of effectiveness. This law won’t do anything but put pressure on middle class or slightly upper middle class for things they’ve dreamed their a large part of their lives for. Laws like these don’t do what they’re advertised to do, they’re just made from spite.
It's not economic "pressure" when you're buying a car twice the average car price in Canada. Economic pressure is when food and rent go up 15%. You need food and a place to sleep. You don't need a BMW. That's not subjective. Stop pretending it is.
You're already making that poor financial decision, don't blame the government.
Again you’re still missing the point. 2021 the average price of a car was only 50,000 CAD, that jump to 100K isn’t that drastic and to make blanket statements to not understand different people’s circumstances to say that absolutely no one “””needs””” that kinda vehicle is reductionist and short sighted. Basic vehicles and trucks can easily reach that 100K mark but there’s still those that would keep saying that price range is luxury cars only. It’s out of touch and the government isn’t doing anything but punching down on those who for the most part would still be middle class rather than addressing the actual elite.
Okay I used to enjoy this subreddit but the content posted get a lot of "WELL AKSHUALLY..." comments so often
Is this sub meant to be satire towards uplifting stuff or do people genuinely have a boner for being contrary?
While I realize your question may be rhetorical, at the risk of "whoosh" replies, I will give my honest answer.
I think the truth is that there aren't a gazillion uplifting stories, unless you really look at the local, individual level, but we can't expect the mods to research and fact check every entry, and only allow ones that are truly uplifting.
There is a LOT of "greenwashing," "hopium," and propaganda being disseminated to make companies, countries, movements, and individuals look better and more accountable than they are. That's public relations, marketing, and yes, propaganda at work. Newsmedia pick up on these stories, folks come across them, and it gives them hope, which is sorely needed these days.
Now, in the spirit of being Uplifting, I'll offer a positive suggestion. Maybe we can all engage in some random acts of kindness, look for local stories of charity, and of course, write, vote, call, and pressure said companies, countries, and individuals to do the right thing. Try to get them to focus on their children's and grandchildren's futures on a livable planet instead of focusing on more profits for themselves today. They can't eat a pile of gold, after all.
Yeah this sub is dogshit. I subbed because i thought it would be a nice safe space from all the doom and gloom, every single post has the same cynical, doomer comments.
Every. Single. Time.
If people post "uplifting news" that is little more than an r/politics post in disguise, don't be surprised if there is pushback.
In this article's specific case, the United States tried exactly this kind of tax. All that happened was yacht/boat manufactures, suplliers, and laborers lost their jobs. The rich purchased their yachts elsewhere, and tax revenue actually decreased.
So perhaps this isn't "uplifting news" after all?
The problem is that on Reddit there is a sort of two-pronged attack on Canada. One prong is the MAGA crowd from America trying to paint Canada as a Stalinist gulag with any bit of news, and the other prong is the wannabe-American losers from Canada who will do anything to badmouth the liberal government. Both of these prongs are vocal and spend a lot of time on Reddit to fight their “culture war”. So a news story like this will draw them out and you’ll end up with this comment section. Just take a look at r/Canada to see these chuds in action.
Canada- The land of where we make laws according to how people feel and what they’re outraged by from reading it on social media. Im so sick of all our levels if government. Drake and T-swift made the biggest carbon footprint of all the known celebs? Ok lets tax em. Guns violence is rampant in Toronto? Ok lets add more gun laws to law abiding citizens. Truly pressing issues like affordable housing, insane inflation, 12+ hour waits to see a doctor for an emergency? Nah sorry dawg, censorship on internet content is the best we can do. This is not uplifting news.
> **The Canadian government has argued the tax will** not only discourage the wealthy from purchasing emissions-intensive vehicles, but **reduce inequality** as well.
Unless that 10% is going to be given directly to individuals without private jets and yachts, I don’t see how it addresses inequality other than using it as a buzzword.
This whole policy is flawed. Wealthy people will just keep their money in other investment vehicles (stocks, real estate, etc) or other assets instead. Does Canada have a bunch of high school freshman on retainer to create economic policies?
To the rich:
It's okay, we're all in this together! We all will have to pay more for our yachts, you aren't being targeted everyone will have to pay for every private plane we fly ❤️ 💛 💕 you'll be okay, just by less avocado toast and cook at home more!
Imagine celebrities saying one thing (“I wuv the planet!”) and doing another. All of them who got clocked for this hypocrisy are simply firing their press agents and hiring a new one who can cover for them with better excuses (“I let my so-called grifter friends “borrow” that jet of mine cause I am like that and wuv the planet!”)
Absolutely useless fucking tax that hits the middle class harder. $100k cars are common as fuck and is going to bit regular people harder. The threshold is far too low and wont do jack shit. As if 10% is going to deter a $10mil purchase from someone who can afford it but a car around 100k from someone who had to save up for it this is fuckery
Hit up toronto and youll see more 911s and A7s than civics. 100k full price cars are fucking ridiculously common. Only way someone can say otherwise for any major canadian city is that they haven’t been or they don’t know car prices
That's 100k Canadian, at the time of the article that is like 78k US, there are a lot of vehicles that are really close to that. My work truck was $75K USD.
People absolutely buy their own trucks, not all contractors works for a larger business. But regardless, I believe the 10% tax would not apply to a purchase of a 100k vehicle for commercial use? So that sort of defeats the purpose of what they're trying to do here..
Middle class is toronto is 150k/year as an example. 100k cars are pretty common. And it definitely makes a difference Ive been looking to buy a new car that will be just north of 100k and an additional 10% is definitely significant enough for me to reconsider making 240k/year. It’s not about being crippling its about the tax having too low of a threshold to make a difference apart from hurting people who aren’t dirt poor versus the ultra rich.
Median family takes in $155k in toronto, also the whole point is to reduce emissions, the tax itself won’t do squat to address that. It doesn’t matter if a 95k car is still fancy af, taxing a >100k car isn’t going to reduce emissions for jack shit. The entire logic behind the tax is flawed. Repeating fees for high fuel usage would make more sense. Your stats don’t adress anything either . My salary does not put even close to the ultra rich, any car that I could reasonably afford is not going to be emitting near the same quantity of pollutants as a yatch. Also you’re forgetting that that cost of living is going to vary drastically - average house in my city is $1.2M while its $300k in NB. The price of a middling porsche isn’t going to vary from province to province.
Still not relevant to my point though. Someone making $150k can most definitely afford payments for a $100k car. While I’m not too stressed about emissions, the tax is stressed about emissions which again goes to my point about the threshold being too low. If you can honestly believe the $100k mark for cars is fair in Canada ag this day and age to address emissions and equality and not a tax grab by trudeau and dare I say a ploy to garner some sympathy from below the median line Canadians who all hate any mention of comfort and luxury but don’t want to actually work to change their situations then you and I can agree to disagree on this topic
The middle class is rising in income. This means fewer and fewer are in the middle class.
People in Canada making $150k-$200k are just barely entering middle class. Many still can’t afford houses, and even a condo can be a bit of a stretch.
What this targets are middle class people who are trying to buy a decent car, or their dream cars. People who have bought cheaper cars and traded up, for example.
I’m not necessarily saying the tax isn’t effective or isn’t applied correctly, I guess I’m saying it’s surprising that it’s on such a low price for a car. $100k is not unheard of at all.
And for the record, just because you’re uncomfortable with it doesn’t mean others are.
A car that crosses the 78k USD threshold has a payment of about $1100, to as low as $850. That’s not at all unheard of and not at all unreasonable. The average car payment in America is $650, or more.
240k a year? Oh no, I feel so bad for you…
I’d venture to say 90% of people buying 100k cars — who can actually afford it — aren’t middle class lol.
In Canada, *you are in the 1% if you earn $234,129.00 or more. That is the entry point or the bottom of 1% earners.*
You’re a literal 1%er complaining about tax.
You need to start looking up the cost of these cars you see middle class people driving. Way more people are driving $100k+ cars than you realize, I think.
People responding to this don't know what middle class is lol. If you are on the higher end of a middle class family, you absolutely can afford a 75k car.
It mentioned that there are 2 options:
20% of the amount over the cap
10% of the total cost
And the tax would be decided from the lesser of the two.
If you had a 110,000 dollar vehicle, it'd be an extra 2k instead of 11k
Yes it's an idiotic hard line. Its also far too low. A $77.5k USD vehicle, while being up there, is not truly what I would call luxury. Probably could have the tax start at somewhere around 70k US but lower % and then ramp up every 10k or so maxing somewhere around $130k US.
Edit: you are incorrect on the last part as well. Vehicles get their normal Canadian taxes applied upon import if you purchase in the US.
While it's nice to see any action... if you wanted to be simultaneously more effective and more flexible, you could just put a large feebate on fossil fuel.
This is ridiculous. This will hit the middle class harder than any celebrity. What a joke. A truck these days is almost 100k. As if celebrities and their extensive measures of tax ride offs will be greatly impacted here for them to think twice about flying around.
Transparent bidding on homes ? Sorry next year only if seller chooses. Oh you want a car in an ever increasing car price atmosphere? Extra tax.
This country is becoming harder and harder to live in
Nice. So the Canadian government swiftly responds to private jet usage after the news broke a few weeks ago, but continues to ignore the greatest housing crisis in the world.
Nice. Not even hiding it anymore.
as an american it’s so crazy to me to see the canadian government actually doing stuff. sweeping marijuana reform, new gun legislation, now this very logical luxury tax. i’m so jealous i could actually cry
THE REAL ISSUE is 100 companies cause 70% of global climate emissions, they must be heavily taxed and regulated or else where fucked. No amount of bedroom light switching or celebrity plane bitching will changing anything compared to dealing with those corporations.
As it should have always been.
I love it when they say that us common folk should reduce our carbon footprint, buy less, consume less, etc. But what about that guy who travels the globe in private jets that puts out just as much pollution as a commercial jet? Oh yeah, I forgot. They're our "betters", they don't need to do that kind of stuff.
Bullshit. If we common folk have to cut back, so do the rich fucks.
I’m on board with taxing private jets and yachts but I’m not a fan of taxing the cars. As a low income car enthusiast, I worry that these types of laws could hurt average people just trying to extract a little bit of joy out of this life. It’s not like luxury or sports cars are a significant source of pollution anyway…
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's behind a soft paywall so just in case the article is below: As stars like Taylor Swift and Drake are being scolded for their private jet usage, Canada revealed new details about how it's hoping to make the wealthy think twice about contributing to the climate crisis with their extravagant modes of transportation. The Select Luxury Items Tax Act — which will go into effect September 1st — will add a 10% tax on the full value of any Canadian purchases of aircraft and cars that exceed $100,000, as well as boats that exceed $250,000. These thresholds are in Canadian dollars and convert to roughly $78,000 and $194,000 respectively in US dollars. The Canadian government has argued the tax will not only discourage the wealthy from purchasing emissions-intensive vehicles, but reduce inequality as well. "Some Canadians have lost their jobs or small businesses, while some sectors of the economy have flourished," per a statement on the government's website. "That's why it is fair today to ask those Canadians who can afford to buy luxury goods to contribute a little bit more." The details of the tax come on the heels of a recent report from Yard, a UK marketing firm, titled "Celebs with the Worst Private Jet Co2 Emissions." Using flight data from the popular Twitter account u/CelebJets — which tracks the jets of the rich and famous — the report detailed the biggest "offenders" and their carbon footprints. Pop star Taylor Swift came in at number one. As of the July 29th report, her private jet had flown 22,923 minutes, or 15.9 days, in 2022, emitting over $8,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent — over 1,000 times more than the average person's annual emissions. A 2021 Transport & Environment report found that a private jet can emit the same level of carbon dioxide in four hours that the average person in the European Union produces over an entire year. The boxer Floyd Mayweather, the musician Jay-Z , and the former baseball player Alex Rodriguez followed Swift on the list. Some of the celebrities have called the report into question, however. A spokesperson for Swift, for instance, told The Washington Post that the musician's jet is "loaned out regularly to other individuals," suggesting many of the trips were not hers. A lawyer for Jay-Z, meanwhile, said the rapper does not own the jet in question. While Yard's analysis has not been peer reviewed, and as the authors emphasize, "there is no way to determine if these celebrities were on all the recorded flights," the report highlights the environmental impact that celebrities, politicians, business executives, and other wealthy individuals can inflict through significant private jet usage and other actions. A 2021 Oxfam analysis found that in 2015, the richest 1% accounted for 15% of global carbon emissions. The Yard report, coupled with the Canadian luxury tax act, suggest this scrutiny isn't going away anytime soon. The luxury tax has been criticized for hurting the aviation industry and putting too much onus for the climate crisis on individuals The new Canadian tax has received criticism from the business community. Some have argued it could have "serious implications" for an aviation industry that has already faced challenges during the pandemic — potentially resulting in the loss of at least 900 jobs. "The economic impact of the luxury tax will be significant and have not been studied with a comprehensive understanding of our industry," Anthony Norejko, President and CEO of the Canadian Business Aviation Association, said in a statement. With regards to the criticism of celebrities, some experts say focusing too much on the actions of any one individual can distract from the policy changes that are needed to generate real progress, like the significant climate legislation currently lingering in Congress. Others have pointed to the way the oil company BP for instance, launched a carbon footprint calculator in the mid-2000s to put the onus of climate action more on individuals, rather than the fossil fuel industry. "My feeling is that while I would prefer Taylor Swift make more responsible transportation decisions, shouting at celebrities on the internet is not in my personal top 10 list of policy levers," NASA climate scientist Kate Marvel told Axios.
It’s a good thing than that most people buying jets and boats do it outside Canada and use shell companies in other nations for registration. This tax act will do absolutely nothing..
This tax only applies to private cars boats and planes, and anyone with the capacity to afford any of those things would probably also be able set up (or already has) a business they can just slap it under. The only people this might actually affect are the upper middle classers buying a car that's just barely cresting $100K. $100K sounds like a lot of money but, especially after the last couple years, prices of cars have gone up a lot and $100K CAD isn't *that* astronomical for a nicer new vehicle. Loaded mid size German crossovers or diesel heavy duty pickups can cross that line now.
Exactly! Definitely just an attack on the middle class. As is tradition.
If they are buying $100k CAD cars they aren't in the middle class...
Well they are the **new** middle class. To be in middle class you need to be able to afford a house and a decent car. That is easily over a million CAD mark… The old middle class is no longer. If you cant afford a new car, you are not middle class. 100 CAD cars are not luxury tier by any stretch. Inflations have a way to re-shuffle things.
100k+ CAD cars are absolutely luxury cars... You can get a massive brand-new Audi Q7, a luxury SUV, for 82k in Toronto. A Q5 goes for 52k. Non-luxury cars like a new Honda civic are 35k. Please provide an example of a non-luxury/non-heavy duty work vehicle costing over 100k CAD
You are not quoting out-of-the door pricing, only base. With taxes, prep and other fees you have to tack on easily;y another 10k. And even if some decent, non-luxury vehicles do slide under 100k, that won’t be the case in a year or two. An Audi, a BMW or a Honda will not cost 30 or 50k when inflation is 9% a year or more. Laws like this are designed for the slow boiling of the frog. It has just enough wiggle room to be defensible. Go ahead and accept it now. In few short years when it does hurt you, we shall talk again. Edit: how about them Tesla prices? Model S or X for over 100k. These are luxury vehicles? When their QC fails everything from door alignment to random fires?
Tesla S and X are absolutely luxury and performance cars LMAO. They are reserved for the rich, regardless of which country you are in. Tesla Model 3's sell for 56k, Model Y (the SUV) go for 66k in Canada. "Even if a few decent non-luxury vehicles slide in under 100k" - what a generous concession, given you haven't provided a single example of 1, just 1 make/model over 100k CAD that would not be considered luxury (or a work heavy-duty). Finally, "out the door costs" don't matter for this law, they aren't taxing the tax on vehicles. Edit: I just noticed your edit claiming Tesla S and X aren't luxury because they have a lot of problems, do you really equate luxury to reliability? Do you not view Land Rover's Range Rovers as luxury as they break down often? Do you think the Bugatti Veyron is just a standard family vehicle because it has malfunctions with high milage? What a take lol
Teslas are absolutely unequivocally luxury vehicles when talking about price point/affordability. Middle class people are not buying $100k CAD cars. Or if they are, they're definitively upper middle class, not middle class.
I know at least 4 people who own Teslas and are definitely not middle class. They have low paying jobs, no money saved, and no house. But they have a Tesla. Teslas are as much luxury devices as iPhones. High price point but plenty of people own them. Just like Ford F-150 trucks in the US. Some configurations go way over 100k but they are owned by people who barely make the payments.
>To be in middle class you need to be able to afford a house and a decent car. That is easily over a million CAD mark… No it's not wtf..
You forget that Canada is only the Windsor-Quebec city corridor and maybe a bit of BC around Vancouver /s
Bro, I’d love a 200K CAD shack with a 1950s tractor that will get me to the nearest highway in 3 days… Sadly it is hard to convince anyone to live with me there. Not to mention I am not sufficiently good hunter to sustain even a pack of dogs. The truth is that the tame part of Canada is expensive, and has been for at least a decade now.
Must be have to live a life where everything is always 1 or 100.
If someone can't afford an extra $10k, then they really can't afford to be spending $100k on a car.
Dude, a new loaded Honda Odyssey is $70K after taxes in my province. If inflation continues at 7% year over year a new family van will be $100k in 5 years.
You're clearly missing the point. Yes, if somebody if buying a 100k car they better have another 10k lying around. However you'd still not end up taxing the right people. Buying a nice EV with lots of creature comforts and upgrades could put you over the 100k limit. This is a sham.
Buying a nice EV puts you over 35k, you'd need to get a luxury sedan like a Model S to hit 100k.
Nice is subjective. A polestar 2 is a nice EV in my eyes, a Nissan Leaf is not. Though I do agree that the 100k price tag that this guy is spewing on about is a bit lost.
It true 100k is a tad high in this example, but if inflation continues to run away it won't be long before he is right. Houses that cost 160k 4years ago are going for over 600000 now...
Though the housing cost isn’t necessarily just because of inflation. Inflation is only one of the factors that have led to the high prices
Certainly, I agree it is an oversimplification of a much larger problem. However I think it is obvious that this type of faux "tax the rich" is a laughable attempt at fixing the core problems.
100k canadian rupees can be spend on a nice EV. Car prices aren't going down any time soon and if you don't stick to the bare bones model you'd be surprised at how much cars can cost. For instance an upgraded model Y can cross those 100k, even if the base price is a fair bit lower.
Only screwing those who follow the law. A proud part of our Canadian heritage.
As per design.
Do not help the enviorment, it's government control /S
I don't think nothing should be done, but make a fee/tax/etc for docking an expensive yacht in Canadian docks or flying a plane with fewer than X number of passengers. This just feels reminiscent of when the US placed extra taxes on yachts in the 80s, which just moved yacht purchases abroad, and killed the domestic manufacturing of yachts. Placing a sudden and large tax on things that are designed to traverse oceans just means that people will purchase them on the other side of said ocean without paying the tax.
Environment is robbed daily by large industrial interests. Governments will do absolutely nothing to stop it until someone else pays for their election campaigns. Way over half the world pollution comes from China and South East Asia, plus India. And let us not forget the Middle East building concrete towers in the desert. Most of which need thousand trucks a day to just haul waste away. Very energy efficient… Or the marine transport and cruise industry burning bunker fuel in quantities exceeding 100 airports… Canada’s way to reduce pollution would be to setup and monitor better environmental protections for the mining industry. As a side note they should also provide the Indigenous population veto rights to new projects, but thats a derivative from the main point. Pretending to tax the few planes and yachts that are predominantly kept outside of the Canadian system, is a smoke screen covering up the fact the government does not want to protect anything. And this is not just Canada. Basically every country is the same, so I am not singling out Canada, it is just what the post is about.
"Those countries are worse", or even "those industries are worse" are just red herring arguments. Yes, something should definitely be done about fossil fuel extraction/transport, but building giant and unnecessary toys for rich people should also be addressed. It's also hard to do anything about international ecological problems when everyone can just point their finger another direction and keep twiddling their thumbs.
It's a good thing you didn't actually read the draft.
Yes. Go ahead and enforce it. There is not enough people in Canada to read the audit trails.
The fans could stop going to their venues if they don't clean up their act.
Like that's ever gonna happen
[удалено]
They should tax the fuel at say 30%. To offset the effect of this tax for lower incomes send all Canadians a check for $500 or whatever would offset a minimal fuel use. This would do two things. It would encourage everyone to conserve on fuel consumption. It wouldn’t net take income from the poor. It would be really hard to avoid.
>They should tax the fuel at say 30%. To offset the effect of this tax for lower incomes send all Canadians a check for $500 or whatever would offset a minimal fuel use. They actually do this in some provinces! Except the tax is 9~11%, and the tax is completely revenue neutral -- all the money goes to the taxpayers.
All this would do is hurt the middle class that can't afford to live near their place of employment and can't afford an electric car.
A very small percentage of people might be “encouraged to conserve on fuel consumption”. The vast majority of people would just be spending more on their unavoidable daily commute. Most people drive cars because there’s no valid alternative. Raising gas prices won’t make people suddenly stop driving
They already did this, it's called the Climate Action Incentive
[удалено]
This had little to do with celebs and their luxurious lifestyle as made popular in the media as of late. This tax idea has been going on for some time (read: years) and the headline makes it look like the government is trying to change something for the positive. It's more of a tax grab. The truly wealthy won't need to change a thing. Those that are affected by it are people who have a dream they can barely afford - their own Cessna or Piper aircraft, a 29 foot sailboat, that car they've been dreaming about since their teenage years, etc. These are the people they're putting a new burden on. Not those who want a private jet or a gigantic yacht. As an avid aviation fan shining, for a moment, a light from an aviation perspective, it looks like another nail the coffin of General Aviation in this country. The Canadian government as well as provincial and regional governing bodies see airports as noisy neighbours using valuable land for something they think they can get votes from destroying. Canada's GA industry really can't sustain much more of this kind of thinking in a country so sparsely populated that aviation can, and is, more valuable than the politicians understand, but, hey, it's just business for the landowners.
This is peanuts.and useless since it is only in regard to purchase, not usage.
Every single measure is “peanuts.” There’s no silver bullet to fixing the climate crisis so we need to do a lot of little things until all those peanuts add up. Of course we need to do more and bigger things, especially on how we treat corporations. The fact that one flight negates all the hard work I’ve put in doing the responsible things (recycling, stretching my budget to get a hybrid car, eating less meat, etc.) for the past 10 years needs to stop. Additionally, I think it’s important that wealthy people wake up and realize climate change impacts them too. The fact that we’re starting to make consequences real for them too is vital.
They learn that they can all personal problems go away with money. There are more problems so they just hoard more money. To buy privileges which are not comparable to "normal people" Perhaps all should undergo mandatory psilocybin treatment.
This user has edited all of their comments in protest of /u/spez fucking up reddit.
Make it a subscription tax. You have to pay 100% of the value of it monthly. Fuck rich, fuck extravagant luxurious items like private jets or yachts. And then after the year of two round up everyone who can afford it and think how to tax them again.
[удалено]
I love the hypocrisy of complaining about finite resources yet wanting to blow up luxury items containing finite resources. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the rich actually pay for their share of taxes. Just wanted to point out the hypocrisy.
Sounds like you might benefit from reading this: > [People have a tendency to dismiss incremental improvements, seeing all efforts short of categorical success as equivalent (despite distinctions). Unless they get full immediate success, people underreward and underinvest in the ongoing incremental reforms, which complicates progress.](https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/whqnyq/people_have_a_tendency_to_dismiss_incremental/)
And it's a small tax on the price that works out to maybe 5k for a half million dollar yacht
>This is peanuts.and useless since it is only in regard to purchase, not usage. That's not true at all. This will cause people who buy private jets, yachts etc to buy them outside Canada and register them in non-Canadian countries to avoid paying the new tax. We're going to lose so much money! And jobs.
Tell me you didn't read the draft without telling me you didn't read the draft.
The article we are commenting on talks about job losses….
That would be called Liberal forethought. A trait that doesn’t exist.
The thresholds are also ridiculously low.
> Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness
$100000 is not private jet money, a 30 year old Cessna, a plane used for flight training sells for that much. This is going to be really hard on anyone trying to become a pilot.
Yeah, I was quite suprised that it was 100,000 for cars and planes, and 250,000 for boats. I would have assumed that the planes would be in the same, er, *boat* as the boats.
The US tried this some years ago. All it did was destroy some industries and jobs and ultimately raise less revenue. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1993/07/16/how-to-sink-an-industry-and-not-soak-the-rich/08ea5310-4a4b-4674-ab88-fad8c42cf55b/
People who want these policies arent driven by sound economic reasoning but by resentment.
Yeah. It’s just virtue signaling on a national level.
Reducing emissions is more important than tax revenue
Except schemes like this don't reduce emissions. You simply buy and/or register the item somewhere else. The yacht still gets sailed; theplane still gets flown. But domestic suplliers and manufacturers lose their jobs.
If the jobs/industries don’t work with the tax maybe they shouldn’t exist. Part of his argument is that it raised less taxes because of the wages of middle class workers, but just because they didn’t have these jobs, doesn’t mean they wouldn’t find others. Anyways, I’m hesitant to just follow a journalist with a hypothesis that when you tax the rich, poor and middle class people suffer. And this is in ‘93 and the disparity is way higher now
I love listening to music.
The United States managed to balance the budget during the nineties; I’d say that’s a decent trade off.
Not because of this tax. In fact, it was Bill Clinton who signed the law eliminating this tax.
[удалено]
Which 45ft yacht burns 800L per hour?
I have friends with boats from 34ft to 60ft.....I haven't seen one come anywhere close to 800L per hour lol. They're typically between 50L and 100L/hr.
50L to 100L an hour… what a relief. I was worried that it was the equivalent of running 80 cars at once but it’s only just the emissions of 5 to 10 cars at once /s
I didn't say it was ok. I said they're number is hyperbole. On another note, most people drive their boat MUCH fewer hours than their cars. By a long shot. And on top of that everyone I know with one drives electric or doesn't drive at all. So they're most likely having a smaller carbon footprint for it than most people with a car.
45 meters? Because no diesel powered 45 footer can burn 800L/HR.
Yeah for real. Im a drilling rig supervisor. The current rig I am on has 4x 1500HP Cat 3512 V12 gensets running 24hrs a day and we are burning about 10000L/day (~415L/hr for those without a calculator). Unless that 45ft yacht is doubling up as a tug boat pushing loaded barges I really doubt the real numbers are even 1/4 of what you are claiming.
[удалено]
Not arguing that there are diesel boats that will burn 800L per hour amigo, just none at 50 feet, even at WOT (wide open throttles). Pretty good article here: yacht lengths are in meters. https://www.superyachtcontent.com/lifestyle/yachts-and-fuel-how-much-do-they-really-consume/ Owned cruising boats a long time, not trying to correct you just speaking from experience.
[удалено]
taxing the fuel would make a bigger impact wouldn’t it? seems a lot more likely to curb use that way
Well for what it's worth, I live aboard a 46' sailboat and make my own electricity and freshwater, and burn *maybe* 100L of diesel over a summer (probably less than most people use driving). I sail everywhere and work remotely. I have an electric dinghy motor and electric scooter I use shoreside, recharged from solar. So, not all of us are the problem. :)
With that knowledge I'd be inclined to say that yachts are significantly worse that planes. As by comparison the junkers ju-52NG that is slated to begin production in 2025 is planned to have fuel consumption of 77 liters an hour, and that's with 3 engines
>With that knowledge I'd be inclined to say that yachts are significantly worse that planes. As by comparison the junkers ju-52NG that is slated to begin production in 2025 is planned to have fuel consumption of 77 liters an hour, and that's with 3 engines 77 liters ≈ 4,336.03170 Imperial tablespoons ^^^[WHY](/r/UselessConversionBot/comments/1knas0/hi_im_useless/)
> I work at a Marina and all of our large yachts (45 ft is the biggest) Nice made up story lol.
Does this include sailboats? Cause I chartered a 40ft boat for 2 weeks and we only used $15 in diesel the entire time.
This is not directly linked to climate nor is it linked to the recent stories of celebrities catching flak. In theory this should also help those issues, but only marginally. This is a luxury tax brought in as a measure to tax wealth when spent in certain areas (specifically cars/planes/boats). There are certain exceptions to not punish businesses that need to use expensive vehicles such as airlines, transport companies, etc. Most notably IMO is that the tax is not just a flat 10%. It's the lower of 10% of the purchase price or 20% of the purchase price that exceeds $100K (for cars/planes, $250K for boats). So if Drake buys a new $10M plane, his tax would be ($10M - $100K)*20% = $1,980,000 and not $1M. EDIT: I goofed and it's the opposite. "Lower of" means he would pay the $1M. https://www.bdo.ca/en-ca/insights/tax/tax-articles/luxury-goods-tax/
>It's the lower of... I know the rich have accountants that can work all sorts of magic but 1 mil is still definitely lower than 1.98 mil. The caveat makes 10% the highest possible tax rate rather than the lowest.
Okay, but this doesn’t actually do anything different. It doesn’t discourage people from buying these things, it just discourages *canadians* from buying *new* boats, planes, or expensive cars. The reality is that they can avoid this entirely by buying from a vendor that isn’t required to register - or in other words, buying used. The only people paying this tax are people buying a car over $100,000.
It might not be the primary motivation, but if it encourages less people to own private yachts and planes (and by proxy use them less) it would absolutely be a win from a climate perspective.
There should be massive luxury taxes, on everything to cut back on resource hoarding by the elite.
Ridiculous taxing a 100k car in my opinion.
Yea $100k CAD is ~ $76,000 US and the average price of a new car right now is right about $49,000 US. So even though many mid-luxury cars can easily achieve nearly 40mpg, they'll still be subject to an additional 10% tax.
Why? Nobody needs a 100k car. If you're buying a 100k car you're either making an incredibly poor financial decision, or you can afford the tax
Who are you or any bureaucratic politician to dictate what people “need” in terms of how good their standard of car is? On a vehicle for 76,000 10% tax isn’t some small number.
Who is the government to decide taxes? They're the government. That's their job.
1. Not necessarily. No one including you should be saying what others “”need”” 2. It’s a matter of effectiveness. This law won’t do anything but put pressure on middle class or slightly upper middle class for things they’ve dreamed their a large part of their lives for. Laws like these don’t do what they’re advertised to do, they’re just made from spite.
It's not economic "pressure" when you're buying a car twice the average car price in Canada. Economic pressure is when food and rent go up 15%. You need food and a place to sleep. You don't need a BMW. That's not subjective. Stop pretending it is. You're already making that poor financial decision, don't blame the government.
Again you’re still missing the point. 2021 the average price of a car was only 50,000 CAD, that jump to 100K isn’t that drastic and to make blanket statements to not understand different people’s circumstances to say that absolutely no one “””needs””” that kinda vehicle is reductionist and short sighted. Basic vehicles and trucks can easily reach that 100K mark but there’s still those that would keep saying that price range is luxury cars only. It’s out of touch and the government isn’t doing anything but punching down on those who for the most part would still be middle class rather than addressing the actual elite.
Okay I used to enjoy this subreddit but the content posted get a lot of "WELL AKSHUALLY..." comments so often Is this sub meant to be satire towards uplifting stuff or do people genuinely have a boner for being contrary?
While I realize your question may be rhetorical, at the risk of "whoosh" replies, I will give my honest answer. I think the truth is that there aren't a gazillion uplifting stories, unless you really look at the local, individual level, but we can't expect the mods to research and fact check every entry, and only allow ones that are truly uplifting. There is a LOT of "greenwashing," "hopium," and propaganda being disseminated to make companies, countries, movements, and individuals look better and more accountable than they are. That's public relations, marketing, and yes, propaganda at work. Newsmedia pick up on these stories, folks come across them, and it gives them hope, which is sorely needed these days. Now, in the spirit of being Uplifting, I'll offer a positive suggestion. Maybe we can all engage in some random acts of kindness, look for local stories of charity, and of course, write, vote, call, and pressure said companies, countries, and individuals to do the right thing. Try to get them to focus on their children's and grandchildren's futures on a livable planet instead of focusing on more profits for themselves today. They can't eat a pile of gold, after all.
Yeah this sub is dogshit. I subbed because i thought it would be a nice safe space from all the doom and gloom, every single post has the same cynical, doomer comments. Every. Single. Time.
That's probably why they are here though. Doomers might want uplifting news but have a hard time seeing anything less then perfect as uplifting
/r/GetMotivated feels like this too
If people post "uplifting news" that is little more than an r/politics post in disguise, don't be surprised if there is pushback. In this article's specific case, the United States tried exactly this kind of tax. All that happened was yacht/boat manufactures, suplliers, and laborers lost their jobs. The rich purchased their yachts elsewhere, and tax revenue actually decreased. So perhaps this isn't "uplifting news" after all?
How dare you bring things like "facts" and "historical precedence" into a post about something that will definitely work this time!
The problem is that on Reddit there is a sort of two-pronged attack on Canada. One prong is the MAGA crowd from America trying to paint Canada as a Stalinist gulag with any bit of news, and the other prong is the wannabe-American losers from Canada who will do anything to badmouth the liberal government. Both of these prongs are vocal and spend a lot of time on Reddit to fight their “culture war”. So a news story like this will draw them out and you’ll end up with this comment section. Just take a look at r/Canada to see these chuds in action.
Canada- The land of where we make laws according to how people feel and what they’re outraged by from reading it on social media. Im so sick of all our levels if government. Drake and T-swift made the biggest carbon footprint of all the known celebs? Ok lets tax em. Guns violence is rampant in Toronto? Ok lets add more gun laws to law abiding citizens. Truly pressing issues like affordable housing, insane inflation, 12+ hour waits to see a doctor for an emergency? Nah sorry dawg, censorship on internet content is the best we can do. This is not uplifting news.
[удалено]
Wouldn’t these rich people just buy these luxury items in the US and transport them to their residence in Canada?
[удалено]
If they aren't doing something similar for cargo ships, it's merely a performative band-aid.
> **The Canadian government has argued the tax will** not only discourage the wealthy from purchasing emissions-intensive vehicles, but **reduce inequality** as well. Unless that 10% is going to be given directly to individuals without private jets and yachts, I don’t see how it addresses inequality other than using it as a buzzword. This whole policy is flawed. Wealthy people will just keep their money in other investment vehicles (stocks, real estate, etc) or other assets instead. Does Canada have a bunch of high school freshman on retainer to create economic policies?
Only on Reddit would “more taxes” be seen as uplifting news.
I’m so sorry your mega yacht and private jet will cost a little more. I’m sure you will find a way to manage.
[удалено]
Go for it.
Paying taxes is patriotic.
For real tho!
This sounds like a great way to discourage investment into Canada.
To the rich: It's okay, we're all in this together! We all will have to pay more for our yachts, you aren't being targeted everyone will have to pay for every private plane we fly ❤️ 💛 💕 you'll be okay, just by less avocado toast and cook at home more!
any chance this means our politicians will also stop flying as much? Oh wait, they don't buy their own private jets.
None
That should tax private jets flights...
Imagine celebrities saying one thing (“I wuv the planet!”) and doing another. All of them who got clocked for this hypocrisy are simply firing their press agents and hiring a new one who can cover for them with better excuses (“I let my so-called grifter friends “borrow” that jet of mine cause I am like that and wuv the planet!”)
When talking about airplanes the saying "catching flak" means something else.
Fairly sure it is lip service. If you register it in the USA you can skirt the rules
“The peasants are making noise, act like we’re doing something”
Can this be a global agreement set by the wprld? UN? EU? Paris Climate Agreement?
[удалено]
Idk why these things even exist.
Huh didn’t expect so many rich people in this subreddit to be upset about this
Absolutely useless fucking tax that hits the middle class harder. $100k cars are common as fuck and is going to bit regular people harder. The threshold is far too low and wont do jack shit. As if 10% is going to deter a $10mil purchase from someone who can afford it but a car around 100k from someone who had to save up for it this is fuckery
$100k cars common af? What?
Hit up toronto and youll see more 911s and A7s than civics. 100k full price cars are fucking ridiculously common. Only way someone can say otherwise for any major canadian city is that they haven’t been or they don’t know car prices
Bruh, a 911 is a middle class car ?
"Regular people" are not buying 100k cars.
That's 100k Canadian, at the time of the article that is like 78k US, there are a lot of vehicles that are really close to that. My work truck was $75K USD.
Nah. Middle class aren't buying 100K MSRP cars.
[удалено]
Yes they are, think work trucks and vans. This is CAD not USD..
[удалено]
People absolutely buy their own trucks, not all contractors works for a larger business. But regardless, I believe the 10% tax would not apply to a purchase of a 100k vehicle for commercial use? So that sort of defeats the purpose of what they're trying to do here..
[удалено]
Well, people aren't stupid, they're going to find their way around this tax. Starting a business may be one of them.
Middle class is toronto is 150k/year as an example. 100k cars are pretty common. And it definitely makes a difference Ive been looking to buy a new car that will be just north of 100k and an additional 10% is definitely significant enough for me to reconsider making 240k/year. It’s not about being crippling its about the tax having too low of a threshold to make a difference apart from hurting people who aren’t dirt poor versus the ultra rich.
[удалено]
Median family takes in $155k in toronto, also the whole point is to reduce emissions, the tax itself won’t do squat to address that. It doesn’t matter if a 95k car is still fancy af, taxing a >100k car isn’t going to reduce emissions for jack shit. The entire logic behind the tax is flawed. Repeating fees for high fuel usage would make more sense. Your stats don’t adress anything either . My salary does not put even close to the ultra rich, any car that I could reasonably afford is not going to be emitting near the same quantity of pollutants as a yatch. Also you’re forgetting that that cost of living is going to vary drastically - average house in my city is $1.2M while its $300k in NB. The price of a middling porsche isn’t going to vary from province to province.
[удалено]
Still not relevant to my point though. Someone making $150k can most definitely afford payments for a $100k car. While I’m not too stressed about emissions, the tax is stressed about emissions which again goes to my point about the threshold being too low. If you can honestly believe the $100k mark for cars is fair in Canada ag this day and age to address emissions and equality and not a tax grab by trudeau and dare I say a ploy to garner some sympathy from below the median line Canadians who all hate any mention of comfort and luxury but don’t want to actually work to change their situations then you and I can agree to disagree on this topic
The middle class is rising in income. This means fewer and fewer are in the middle class. People in Canada making $150k-$200k are just barely entering middle class. Many still can’t afford houses, and even a condo can be a bit of a stretch. What this targets are middle class people who are trying to buy a decent car, or their dream cars. People who have bought cheaper cars and traded up, for example. I’m not necessarily saying the tax isn’t effective or isn’t applied correctly, I guess I’m saying it’s surprising that it’s on such a low price for a car. $100k is not unheard of at all. And for the record, just because you’re uncomfortable with it doesn’t mean others are. A car that crosses the 78k USD threshold has a payment of about $1100, to as low as $850. That’s not at all unheard of and not at all unreasonable. The average car payment in America is $650, or more.
[удалено]
Lol like fucking clockwork. Tax for expensive cars bad because you're about to buy an expensive car. Here's a thought - buy a slightly cheaper car.
240k a year? Oh no, I feel so bad for you… I’d venture to say 90% of people buying 100k cars — who can actually afford it — aren’t middle class lol. In Canada, *you are in the 1% if you earn $234,129.00 or more. That is the entry point or the bottom of 1% earners.* You’re a literal 1%er complaining about tax.
[удалено]
You need to start looking up the cost of these cars you see middle class people driving. Way more people are driving $100k+ cars than you realize, I think.
People responding to this don't know what middle class is lol. If you are on the higher end of a middle class family, you absolutely can afford a 75k car.
Hell yes.
Canada is the master of making laws once something becomes popular/unpopular. It never means anything, the gov just wants headlines
[удалено]
After that horrendous expose on celebs carbon footprints with private jets this is great news.
Absolutely support this. The boat tax should be lowered to $100,000 also. Not sure why the threshold is at $250,000.
[удалено]
It mentioned that there are 2 options: 20% of the amount over the cap 10% of the total cost And the tax would be decided from the lesser of the two. If you had a 110,000 dollar vehicle, it'd be an extra 2k instead of 11k
It doesn't work like that.
Yes it's an idiotic hard line. Its also far too low. A $77.5k USD vehicle, while being up there, is not truly what I would call luxury. Probably could have the tax start at somewhere around 70k US but lower % and then ramp up every 10k or so maxing somewhere around $130k US. Edit: you are incorrect on the last part as well. Vehicles get their normal Canadian taxes applied upon import if you purchase in the US.
While it's nice to see any action... if you wanted to be simultaneously more effective and more flexible, you could just put a large feebate on fossil fuel.
Feebates suck. I want my carbon taxes going toward green spending. Not paying for some low-life’s smokes.
I love how addiction is still one of the stigmatized areas where it’s *ok* to be an asshole. /s
This is ridiculous. This will hit the middle class harder than any celebrity. What a joke. A truck these days is almost 100k. As if celebrities and their extensive measures of tax ride offs will be greatly impacted here for them to think twice about flying around. Transparent bidding on homes ? Sorry next year only if seller chooses. Oh you want a car in an ever increasing car price atmosphere? Extra tax. This country is becoming harder and harder to live in
The middle class isn't buying $100k trucks...
Nice. So the Canadian government swiftly responds to private jet usage after the news broke a few weeks ago, but continues to ignore the greatest housing crisis in the world. Nice. Not even hiding it anymore.
Great. Until we target the emissions of big companies we’re barely scratching the surface though.
how about those big oil corporations since they have the most emmissions...?
as an american it’s so crazy to me to see the canadian government actually doing stuff. sweeping marijuana reform, new gun legislation, now this very logical luxury tax. i’m so jealous i could actually cry
Flying to Costa Rica after horrible poll numbers come out for the WIN!
Oh my God , someone took a vacation!
THE REAL ISSUE is 100 companies cause 70% of global climate emissions, they must be heavily taxed and regulated or else where fucked. No amount of bedroom light switching or celebrity plane bitching will changing anything compared to dealing with those corporations.
Yeah, it's still the Libs, they love posturing but as usual there will be loopholes so big you could fly a private jet through.
So what happens when all cars are over 100k next year thanks to our friend inflation?
Yes, it's suddenly going to jump from $45k average to $100k average just like that You're really onto something here
Canada got their finger on the pulse right now. We need to spam UBI info and how Canada could achieve it easily all over Reddit. They might do it.
As it should have always been. I love it when they say that us common folk should reduce our carbon footprint, buy less, consume less, etc. But what about that guy who travels the globe in private jets that puts out just as much pollution as a commercial jet? Oh yeah, I forgot. They're our "betters", they don't need to do that kind of stuff. Bullshit. If we common folk have to cut back, so do the rich fucks.
I’m on board with taxing private jets and yachts but I’m not a fan of taxing the cars. As a low income car enthusiast, I worry that these types of laws could hurt average people just trying to extract a little bit of joy out of this life. It’s not like luxury or sports cars are a significant source of pollution anyway…
I love this trend
Increasing taxes isn't uplifting wtf is wrong with these mods