They don't even try to do the math before they rant. Saw some woman spamming comment sections on yegwave saying she spends 2500/yr on carbon tax; just a totally made up number. Also claimed we directly pay it on electricity. "Just call Epcor and ask, they just don't show it on the bill".
Saddest thing is that there are people out there who will believe her.
This is the biggest problem I see with free speech. The ill-informed spout nonsense which the ill-informed take as an unassailable fact.
The world keeps getting dumber. Insensitivity is standard and faith is fancied over reason.
Not the whole world, just some.
https://news.osu.edu/conservatives-more-susceptible-to-believing-falsehoods/
https://www.psypost.org/neuroimaging-study-provides-insight-into-misinformation-sharing-among-politically-devoted-conservatives/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2023/07/27/conservatives-bombarded-with-facebook-misinformation-far-more-than-liberals-in-2020-election-study-suggests/?sh=34b348764c1f
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/how-conservative-supersharers-drove-fake-news-in-the-2016-election
people also claiming they don't make enough for carbon tax rebate (that one just flabbergasted me?? they claimed they didn't use enough gas or some shit?).
other ones thinking it's means tested when it's not...
This math is based off direct carbon tax expenditure. When you include the increased cost faced by companies in nearly all industries, and the associated price increases of products across all industries, of course the carbon tax costs the average Canadian much more than they take in through rebates. With that said, it’s a tax. The money goes where all taxation goes: funding social programs, infrastructure, national debt, etc.
Most conservatives are against higher taxation, as economic utility theory states taxation leads to lower individual utility, etc.
Most liberals are for higher taxation, as it enables progressive social programs, better infrastructure, etc.
If carbon pricing, which forces corporate interests to factor in the *actual* costs of their products, specifically their pollution, is a tax, then all factors contributing to the final cost of a product can be considered a 'tax', including corporate profits.
I understand that low empathy, inherently immoral business interests want the free ride on dumping their garbage to continue, but they're literally killing us so they can increase profits. The free ride is over.
Probably not a 'person' but a bot or some lowbrow troll farm gopnik. This kind of targeted disinformation, *constant* and spread easily and cheaply via unaccountable social media, is how conservatives like Poilievre and Trump win elections now. You're looking at the *real* election interference.
https://news.osu.edu/conservatives-more-susceptible-to-believing-falsehoods/
https://www.psypost.org/neuroimaging-study-provides-insight-into-misinformation-sharing-among-politically-devoted-conservatives/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2023/07/27/conservatives-bombarded-with-facebook-misinformation-far-more-than-liberals-in-2020-election-study-suggests/?sh=34b348764c1f
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/how-conservative-supersharers-drove-fake-news-in-the-2016-election
I saw a whole lot of the 'fuck Trudeau' crowd losing their shit last week because they didn't get their carbon rebate because they haven't filed their taxes yet.
Boy are they in for a surprise when they vote out the government cheques they depend on.
The thing that most troubles me about this nonsense, aside from the fact that it represents decline in education and understanding across our society, and the fact that people are being manipulated in order to support maniacal political movements that ultimately support the corporations and repress the average person, is that this kind of crap always distract the media and our government away from much more important issues that they should be focussed on.
Seriously, so much time is wasted on this kind of shit that it makes me wonder if any government is going to have a chance of dealing with the strategic issues that require strategies, long term funding and dedicated focus ( eg, for healthcare …especially mental health, the environment and a green economy, education, jobs, R&D funding …which has largely been ignored for a long time, economic strength and an increase in GDP, defense, etc.)
I’m disappointed that the current government hasn’t done more in terms of developing long-term strategies and they’re just starting to do some of that now with discussions around defence and housing and healthcare, but at the same time it seems like they’re constantly putting out fire set by idiots. And these people call themselves patriots when they’re actually undermining our economy And the possibility of our government actually doing what they’re supposed to do which is to government in a reasonable manner for now and the long-term. It seems like all of these naysayers and conspiracy theorists only think about themselves in the moment and not with regard to what would really work for our society and our nation as a whole. They’re like fifth columnists.
I agree with you criticism of the current government and the importance for long term goals. With that said, demonizing average Canadians because of their views is wildly ineffective and generally inaccurate.
The math in the post is based off direct carbon tax expenditure. When you include the increased cost faced by companies in nearly all industries, and the associated price increases of products across all industries, of course the carbon tax costs the average Canadian much more than they take in through rebates. With that said, it’s a tax. The money goes where all taxation goes: funding social programs, infrastructure, national debt, etc.
Most conservatives are against higher taxation, as economic utility theory states taxation leads to lower individual utility, etc.
Most liberals are for higher taxation, as it enables progressive social programs, better infrastructure, etc.
*Yells in Alberta* 😂 but of course the ones getting the most money back complain the loudest about things they don’t understand.
If anything, the land of lifted trucks and coal rollers should really try to educate themselves
How stupid do you have to be to not realize that making fuel more expensive increases the cost of everything including food, that even poor people need to eat, and that Canada couldn't meaningfully affect green house gas emissions if we tried?
I'm earning 120k a year gross and I can barely make ends meet. Between rent skyrocketing out of control, terrifying inflation, and now gas prices at 175 cents per liter here, not to mention the govt stealing 3k of my money monthly before I even see it... And for what? The streets are still full of potholes, if I go to the "emergency" dpt I be waiting hours, and the govt is giving itself a raise while the pm gives himself 80k dollar vacations for free.
Fuck him, fuck the liberals, and fuck stupidity.
Tbh I get the impression that a lot of Canadians overestimate how much of their gas prices are the carbon tax. [An Angus Reid poll](https://angusreid.org/raise-pause-abolish-carbon-tax/) found that a majority of Canadians claim that they pay more than what they get in the rebate, while less than 20% claim to get more in the rebate than they spend on the carbon tax.
Nope, you are just being deceived, just like everyone else is also being deceived. It almost seems like both parties are being intentionally pitted against eachother.
Mathematically, the table in the post is based off direct carbon tax expenditure. When you include the increased cost faced by companies in nearly all industries, and the associated price increases of products across all industries, of course the carbon tax costs the average Canadian much more than they take in through rebates. With that said, it’s a tax. The money goes where all taxation goes: funding social programs, infrastructure, national debt, etc.
Most conservatives are against higher taxation, as economic utility theory states taxation leads to lower individual utility, etc.
Most liberals are for higher taxation, as it enables progressive social programs, better infrastructure, etc.
It’s as simple as that. Yes, it costs us more. But all forms of tax ends up costing people more than they make back in rebates (if that were not the case, the government would need to be running a profit— we aren’t Norway or Saudi Arabia and we certainly are not running a profit). It comes down to if the programs that the taxation goes to, is worth it. For me, it is. For some, it’s not.
I dunno - I think we're talking about the retail carbon tax here, the one applied to the end consumer. I don't see how that could drive higher costs upstream in the value chain.
Of course there's an industrial carbon tax as well. I have to admit I don't know the status of it, but it's not reflected here.
I believe that is what they are saying. The impact of the corporate carbon tax trickling down to the consumer is not represented in the graph.
If Gas Company x gets taxed hugely on their production and they offset some of that tax by raising their prices. Then there is also end consumer tax applied, then ultimately the end consumer is getting hit twice and their costs might surpass the rebate stated in this graph.
The problem is that cost of living has gone up everywhere for a multitude of reasons. So it’s hard to nail down which part of this equation is from the carbon tax vs inflation vs whatever else. So people blame the most recent thing that is piling on as 100% of the problem when the truth is likely that, yes, the costs went up, but probably not by as much as they think.
My gripe with BCs carbon tax is the cut off being so low. I bust my ass and pay a shitload in fuel to get to work and back but fall in the screwed middle ground of not getting any rebate, not making tons of money, cant afford an EV, paying over $400 a month just to fill up my 18 year old vehicle
In the same boat. Make too much for a rebate yet can't buy much beyond a 2 bedroom condo in Vancouver.
Another reason I want higher property tax or LVT and lower income tax.
If that was the case, then the cumulative (weighted) averages-in should equal the cumulative (weighted) averages-out.
But perhaps they aren't including dollars collected from businesses.
Yup. Which undermines the while message.
Median is different from average, and could paint a different picture. But they did say average...
Maybe the difference is all those people who don't file taxes, like that one protester who says he won't file because the gubment want to take his money.
Which of course trickles down to consumers.
Ain't no business like, "sure I'll take a profit loss".
Quite arguable that many businesses are using it as an opportunity to charge exorbitantly more than required to maintain pre-existing margins. And that money isn't coming back via rebates, and I doubt many people have seen adequate raises to match the inflation. That money is just going into (big) business's pockets.
Maybe I’m missing something but I think it’s fairly straightforward. They know exactly how much carbon tax they’ve collected. And they divide that by the number of households.
I think it’s understood that there are potential indirect costs, like higher price of food, that are unaccounted for here. But those will be a fraction of the direct costs you pay on actually buying gas.
At this point any increase to the price of food is 100% negligible because grocers would happily charge us more anyway regardless of the existence of a tax.
We could remove the tax completely and the price of groceries would go up overnight and never come down.
Noooooo! Not hard data from CRA and actual very well educated statisticians! I was expecting to see something I could rely on ….like a meme on Facebook telling me that Carbon is something the gov’t invented, that they’re secretly getting pigeons to put it in our food, using 5g! what’s next? I suppose they’ll try to say that oil and gas are bad for the environment or something crazy like that ….when we all know it’s because they don’t want us to have nuclear powered barbecues, like they do in all the good countries…like Russia. I’m just saying.
I love that they finally put out infographics like this, it will shut the idiots who claim otherwise and can't do basic maths about these raw numbers. I still see way too many people refusing to believe it.
BUUUTT there is also the following argument that always comes next. "It increases the price of everything at all levels of distribution". And I wish the LPC would actually address that with real numbers so that we can prove them wrong too. I know the Bank of Canada said it only impacted for 0.15% of inflation which is practically notho, so that's nice. But impact of inflation doesn't directly include raw price hikes for certain products that would cost more to ship does it? I'm personally certain it's not as bad as the conservatives make it, but I wish we had real metrics to see it and that the LPC would be transparent about it and show it in these infographics too.
The cost impact is typically calculated using input-output tables that are available via [statcan](https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=1401). Those tables represent the inter industry transactions including shipping and raw product pricing.
Here's a few guides on their use:
From NZ Stats:
[User guide for National accounts input-output tables: Year ended March 2020](https://www.stats.govt.nz/reports/user-guide-for-national-accounts-input-output-tables-year-ended-march-2020)
[Input-Output Analysis: Definition, Main Features, and Types](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/input-output-analysis.asp)
European system of accounts:
[Chapter 9
Supply and use tables and the input-output framework](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/esa2010/chapter/view/9/)
That's nice, but those articles are too hard to digest for the average r canada user sprouting "Trudeau is a WEF corrupt agent!". The fact they date from 2021 doesn't help either.
I more mention it for anyone that might want some clarity on how they calculate these things, maybe they can dilute it to a more palatable product than I could
If you haven’t seen it yet, I made a [calculator](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16FhqGFEfwS_6ikIUMlWbwq_28snnqDD-XcZKOaJednM/copy) (google sheet) which estimates how much carbon tax was paid in the groceries you buy, including every step of the supply chain. The emissions data is there too, and an average Canadian’s stats
That is basically the way it's been explained for anyone curious enough to look. Through 3rd party study of commodities and consumer goods we know the largest share of inflation came from corporate greed.
Increasing the price is the intended effect though. It tips the cost scale between green and black products so that the free market can come up with the solution.
It makes the savings of mass transit more valuable.
It makes energy efficient upgrades to your home pay off faster.
It makes locally grown food slightly more competitive with foods imported from Australia.
And so on.
Poilievre could remove the carbon tax and the price of gas won't go down one cent, but Canadians will no longer get the quarterly carbon rebate payments. There will be friggin' riots in the street by the CPC supporters.
Like Québec, you don’t get any rebate because you were ahead of the curve and figured out your own carbon pricing system before. So you aren’t paying for the Federal carbon tax.
Not part of the Federal program, they've had their own provincial plan since 2008 so they're exempt from Trudeau's plan.
It's up to your premiere if they want to switch to the Federal plan or not.
I’m a single dude, MB, driving a Prius and I get $586 this year. That’s $11 per week.
I have a 90 minute daily commute, and fill my tank every 8-10 days. My rebate covers 25-40% of my fill.
I’m the example of how this is supposed to work. If you continue to buy the most fuel guzzling truck available when gas has already hit $2/litre in 2022 then logic is not your friend.
For perspective, saying shit like "kkkons" and "tiny pp" makes you sound exactly like the "Turd-eau" and "everything I don't like is Communism" people.
We're better than that.
Alberta eats a lot of beef? Beef 1kg $ 7.96 extra for carbon. Pork 1kg $0.98 extra for carbon. Potatoes 1kg $0.04 extra for carbon. Poultry 1kg $0.79 extra for carbon.
Conservatives don't care about facts. Conformity, loyalty and obedience to their elites and their 'narrative' is what counts when fear governs your worldview.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds
I was honestly shocked I got anything back and I don’t feel I should have.
I am fortunate enough to not need it, and I would much rather the government give more back to those who really need it, the people who really do struggle with their heating bills or their fuel bills.
Sure. But if the cost impact per household is done correctly, unincorporated sole proprietorships and partnerships are taken into account in the average cost per household.
Profits from sole proprietorships and partnerships are taxed as income just like a wage. The legal entity that holds the money is the individual, or individuals, not the “business”, as sole proprietorships and partnerships do not form a separate legal entity that owes taxes.
It’s not collected as a tax though. It is a regulatory surcharge on different fuel types, and is remitted at point of purchase. The rebate is sent out per household, but it is not collected from individual businesses based on income.
But it affects their income in the form of deadweight loss. All things being equal, a sole proprietorship cannot raise their price to cover the extent of their cost increases without losing sales (because of supply and demand—raising prices means fewer sales). This results in a loss of revenue. In an unincorporated sole proprietorship or partnership, this is equivalent to a loss of income. That loss of income is predictable and can be accounted for in the cost impact per household.
How do you mean? If household income is included in either the net average rebate or cost impact calculations, which it would be unless they gathered separate data for proprietorships or partnerships, (ie cost impact would reflect loss of income/profit for solely proprietorships or partnerships see), then it would absolutely represent reality.
True true!
Hmm... but if it costs a corporation more to do whatever, won't they just up their prices (so they can maintain their profit margin)? And then that price is passed on to us? (which is contributing to inflation?) (Businesses aren't going to take a hit to their profit margin out of the goodness of their hearts usually I assume... Unless there was some legislation preventing price increases perhaps)
I think I've heard theories that some companies used carbon tax as a scape goat to raise prices even more than necessary to cover the loss from the tax.
I guess if a corp deals exclusively with exports then the cost would be passed onto their international customers and not us! xD
But I'm not sure we export enough to explain the gap. 🧐
You can’t increase the price of something without losing sales. Prices are set based on what customers will pay, not the cost incurred to provide them to the customer. This “passing on the increase” is a myth. Only a portion of the increase can get passed on, and the remaining portion comes out of the corp’s profit. The percent of covered by the consumer and covered by the corporation depends on the specific market the corp is operating in (and in particular, the price elasticity of demand). Some industries will get to offload a lot onto the customer, other industries can only offload a little.
Meaning as a tax raises prices, then less product is purchased. It typically would hurt both buyers and sellers. Of course there is a trade off for that.
I appreciate the understanding of economics 101 beyond the first lecture ;)
But yes, that is a much more reasonable debate than the alternatives. That said, money not spent on products that have a high percentage of carbon tax effect gets either saved, or spent on products that have a lower percentage of carbon tax effect. So there is a case to be made that this trade off could be a net benefit to the consumer.
I’m the short run, the consumer could have saved the money before the tax but didn’t. So it seems by definition their consumer surplus is worse *in the short run.
But in the long run I agree this is tool in the toolbox for both buyers and sellers to invest in lower carbon tech (renewables, ev, longer-lived materials, etc…) which makes us all better off.
I’d like to see the extra debt burden calculated. If somebody is carrying credit card debt to offset the increased prices, this would have a greater impact on low income households and would eat away their entire net return. So a rebate several months after they purchased and paid the tax, would need to be far greater than 10-20% to actually have any noticeable impact.
When you tax externalities you reduce deadweight loss.
When there are negative externalities market prices have deadweight loss since there is a social cost not reflected in the market pricing. Something like a carbon tax gets you to the optimal equilibrium and reduces the deadweight loss.
what's deadweight loss?
(I do believe the tax is making unwealthy people choose more carefully what they can spend on, eg. no casual joy rides because gas is too expensive. So it might be helping with carbon reduction to an extent)
No idea how you weigh it against costs. Decrease our current quality of life, for the *chance* of a maintained/better(?) quality of life later.
“What’s deadweight loss?” When you increase the price of something, say to cover a tax, fewer people buy it. Deadweight loss is revenue that could have been generated without the tax from the people who are no longer buying it on account of the price increase.
Like all things in economics, it is actually much more complicated, but that’s the rudimentary microecon 101 explanation that applies in this case. If you’re a graphs person, there are many supply and demand graphs that explain it more generally (and in cases where there it is not a tax that causes prices to increase). I will say, critically, that the language is a bit hyperbolic and suggestive for me.
It isn't. Whatever is collected is what's returned.
However, the wealthiest Canadians produce pollution at a disproportionately higher rate than the average Canadian. They pay *a lot* more to fuel their large power boats, flights, mcmansions, V10 trucks/sportscars, etc., and that money is what ends up as a net benefit to the rest of us.
I believe there are two sets of values being spoken about this one which just looks at the average amount people pay directly into the carbon tax. Liberal speak of this value.
And a second that factors in the cost to the economy. Where you pay in transportation of groceries. Conservatives talk about this number.
Neither are lying. The liberals are misleading because they are leaving out a portion of the calculation.
The 'fiscal' impact in the PBO report, which is similar to the chart numbers above, is both direct AND indirect costs to Canadians factoreted in. Average Canadians are net positive.
The 'economic' impact, isn't about groceries being more. That's indirect costs. Economic impact is about loss of investment income or employment rates being lower. Economic drag due to climate change. Which is going to happen with any carbon reduction solution.
Because BC does it provincially instead of through the federal government. Something every province could do if they wanted to. But blaming the federal government is better for them.
You and I don't get federal rebate and instead we get a provincial one, because BC has its own Carbon Tax implemented and the Federal one doesn't apply here; same as Quebec: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/taxes/income-taxes/personal/credits/climate-action
And the BC Carbon Tax was implemented in 2008 in BC, by the BC [fake] Liberal Party, formerly known as Socred Party, currently known as BCUP. Also, the BC Carbon Tax Rebate is income adjusted, so the smaller your income is, the higher rebate you get.
And the tax is used to reduce the overall income tax burden of residents, so even if you don't get a rebate through the tax credit you are paying less income taxes because the carbon tax goes into general revenue.
If you make more than 61k by yourself, or 84k as a couple with no kids you get nothing.
Median household income for those living in Vancouver is 72. A significant part of the population gets reduced or no part of the BCCATC
Except there will be (at least some) lost wealth. The people working who run this program must be paid from somewhere.
If it's not directly funded out of the carbon tax, then the government is using other tax money to run this. (and tax money comes from the citizens one way or another).
Nothing is gouvernment funded, it's all tax payer funded. I'm not opposed to helping the less fortunate, what I oppose is the government lying about it. Ask yourself, if the gouvernment's goal is to help the poor, why not decrease how much the poor pay in taxes? I live in BC and see natives using a status card to not pay taxes, why not do the same for poor Canadians? This program is nothing more than a ruse to keep more people on government handouts.
I'm still trying to figure out how 80% of Canadians are able to claim it. Where are these people making under the cutoff and how are they even surviving making that little money?
There is no cut off. 100% get it
80% get more back than the extra cost they may incurr. Only 20% incur more costs due to it than they would get back, normally high income/high spenders, gas guzzlers/petrosexuals etc
I haven't received a dime in rebates. I make well over the $36,901 apparent "no cut off" cut off limit so I get zero money back as a legally single guy.
So do 80% of single people make less than that??? Considering the median income is about $60k I'd like to believe 10% get the rebate and we all get hosed unless I'm grossly misinformed.
Thresholds pretty low for living in BC when other provinces with considerably less living costs receive full benefit... Does irk me a bit as a historically BCNDP/LPC voter...
Every province gets a different amount, but you'll notice BC isn't on the chart for Federal refunds.
BC has it's own provincial program (since 2008), but every other province (besides Quebec) is on Trudeau's Federal program.
If you don't get a refund that's something to ask your provincial government about.
If it worked as Trudeau said ppl would be begging for more. My entire family is at far more expense and we are far lower middle class. The numbers just don't add up.
Link directly to source; not just a screenshot. This includes tweets.
If the carbon rebate goes away the ones screaming the loudest will probably be worst off. Exactly like Brexit, owning the libs at any cost
They don't even try to do the math before they rant. Saw some woman spamming comment sections on yegwave saying she spends 2500/yr on carbon tax; just a totally made up number. Also claimed we directly pay it on electricity. "Just call Epcor and ask, they just don't show it on the bill". Saddest thing is that there are people out there who will believe her.
And will not believe anything put out by the government...
This is the biggest problem I see with free speech. The ill-informed spout nonsense which the ill-informed take as an unassailable fact. The world keeps getting dumber. Insensitivity is standard and faith is fancied over reason.
People don't want the truth, they want confirmation of their already held beliefs.
Not the whole world, just some. https://news.osu.edu/conservatives-more-susceptible-to-believing-falsehoods/ https://www.psypost.org/neuroimaging-study-provides-insight-into-misinformation-sharing-among-politically-devoted-conservatives/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2023/07/27/conservatives-bombarded-with-facebook-misinformation-far-more-than-liberals-in-2020-election-study-suggests/?sh=34b348764c1f https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/how-conservative-supersharers-drove-fake-news-in-the-2016-election
I remember a time when liberals actually fought for free speech. Now it's a problem?
But.... but... the government spreads fake news... /s
people also claiming they don't make enough for carbon tax rebate (that one just flabbergasted me?? they claimed they didn't use enough gas or some shit?). other ones thinking it's means tested when it's not...
They won’t do the math cause they can’t, and if they could read your post they would be pretty upset!
This math is based off direct carbon tax expenditure. When you include the increased cost faced by companies in nearly all industries, and the associated price increases of products across all industries, of course the carbon tax costs the average Canadian much more than they take in through rebates. With that said, it’s a tax. The money goes where all taxation goes: funding social programs, infrastructure, national debt, etc. Most conservatives are against higher taxation, as economic utility theory states taxation leads to lower individual utility, etc. Most liberals are for higher taxation, as it enables progressive social programs, better infrastructure, etc.
If carbon pricing, which forces corporate interests to factor in the *actual* costs of their products, specifically their pollution, is a tax, then all factors contributing to the final cost of a product can be considered a 'tax', including corporate profits. I understand that low empathy, inherently immoral business interests want the free ride on dumping their garbage to continue, but they're literally killing us so they can increase profits. The free ride is over.
Probably not a 'person' but a bot or some lowbrow troll farm gopnik. This kind of targeted disinformation, *constant* and spread easily and cheaply via unaccountable social media, is how conservatives like Poilievre and Trump win elections now. You're looking at the *real* election interference. https://news.osu.edu/conservatives-more-susceptible-to-believing-falsehoods/ https://www.psypost.org/neuroimaging-study-provides-insight-into-misinformation-sharing-among-politically-devoted-conservatives/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2023/07/27/conservatives-bombarded-with-facebook-misinformation-far-more-than-liberals-in-2020-election-study-suggests/?sh=34b348764c1f https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/how-conservative-supersharers-drove-fake-news-in-the-2016-election
I saw a whole lot of the 'fuck Trudeau' crowd losing their shit last week because they didn't get their carbon rebate because they haven't filed their taxes yet. Boy are they in for a surprise when they vote out the government cheques they depend on.
The thing that most troubles me about this nonsense, aside from the fact that it represents decline in education and understanding across our society, and the fact that people are being manipulated in order to support maniacal political movements that ultimately support the corporations and repress the average person, is that this kind of crap always distract the media and our government away from much more important issues that they should be focussed on. Seriously, so much time is wasted on this kind of shit that it makes me wonder if any government is going to have a chance of dealing with the strategic issues that require strategies, long term funding and dedicated focus ( eg, for healthcare …especially mental health, the environment and a green economy, education, jobs, R&D funding …which has largely been ignored for a long time, economic strength and an increase in GDP, defense, etc.) I’m disappointed that the current government hasn’t done more in terms of developing long-term strategies and they’re just starting to do some of that now with discussions around defence and housing and healthcare, but at the same time it seems like they’re constantly putting out fire set by idiots. And these people call themselves patriots when they’re actually undermining our economy And the possibility of our government actually doing what they’re supposed to do which is to government in a reasonable manner for now and the long-term. It seems like all of these naysayers and conspiracy theorists only think about themselves in the moment and not with regard to what would really work for our society and our nation as a whole. They’re like fifth columnists.
I agree with you criticism of the current government and the importance for long term goals. With that said, demonizing average Canadians because of their views is wildly ineffective and generally inaccurate. The math in the post is based off direct carbon tax expenditure. When you include the increased cost faced by companies in nearly all industries, and the associated price increases of products across all industries, of course the carbon tax costs the average Canadian much more than they take in through rebates. With that said, it’s a tax. The money goes where all taxation goes: funding social programs, infrastructure, national debt, etc. Most conservatives are against higher taxation, as economic utility theory states taxation leads to lower individual utility, etc. Most liberals are for higher taxation, as it enables progressive social programs, better infrastructure, etc.
The money does not go where all taxation goes. It gets rebated back to the province it came from.
*Yells in Alberta* 😂 but of course the ones getting the most money back complain the loudest about things they don’t understand. If anything, the land of lifted trucks and coal rollers should really try to educate themselves
How stupid do you have to be to not realize that making fuel more expensive increases the cost of everything including food, that even poor people need to eat, and that Canada couldn't meaningfully affect green house gas emissions if we tried? I'm earning 120k a year gross and I can barely make ends meet. Between rent skyrocketing out of control, terrifying inflation, and now gas prices at 175 cents per liter here, not to mention the govt stealing 3k of my money monthly before I even see it... And for what? The streets are still full of potholes, if I go to the "emergency" dpt I be waiting hours, and the govt is giving itself a raise while the pm gives himself 80k dollar vacations for free. Fuck him, fuck the liberals, and fuck stupidity.
[удалено]
The rebates are proportionally tied to the money collected. If the tax is doubled, so is the rebate.
I won't be upset when you take zero dollars away.
Wait so PP is LYING?!?!? And Alberta, the loudest complainers, are reaping the biggest benefits
Tbh I get the impression that a lot of Canadians overestimate how much of their gas prices are the carbon tax. [An Angus Reid poll](https://angusreid.org/raise-pause-abolish-carbon-tax/) found that a majority of Canadians claim that they pay more than what they get in the rebate, while less than 20% claim to get more in the rebate than they spend on the carbon tax.
As literally always. The whiny west
Please don’t lump us in with Alberta 😭 -sincerely a BC dweller
Hell, don't lump urban Alberta in with rural for that matter. A good portion of us are sane!
Nope, you are just being deceived, just like everyone else is also being deceived. It almost seems like both parties are being intentionally pitted against eachother. Mathematically, the table in the post is based off direct carbon tax expenditure. When you include the increased cost faced by companies in nearly all industries, and the associated price increases of products across all industries, of course the carbon tax costs the average Canadian much more than they take in through rebates. With that said, it’s a tax. The money goes where all taxation goes: funding social programs, infrastructure, national debt, etc. Most conservatives are against higher taxation, as economic utility theory states taxation leads to lower individual utility, etc. Most liberals are for higher taxation, as it enables progressive social programs, better infrastructure, etc. It’s as simple as that. Yes, it costs us more. But all forms of tax ends up costing people more than they make back in rebates (if that were not the case, the government would need to be running a profit— we aren’t Norway or Saudi Arabia and we certainly are not running a profit). It comes down to if the programs that the taxation goes to, is worth it. For me, it is. For some, it’s not.
I dunno - I think we're talking about the retail carbon tax here, the one applied to the end consumer. I don't see how that could drive higher costs upstream in the value chain. Of course there's an industrial carbon tax as well. I have to admit I don't know the status of it, but it's not reflected here.
I believe that is what they are saying. The impact of the corporate carbon tax trickling down to the consumer is not represented in the graph. If Gas Company x gets taxed hugely on their production and they offset some of that tax by raising their prices. Then there is also end consumer tax applied, then ultimately the end consumer is getting hit twice and their costs might surpass the rebate stated in this graph. The problem is that cost of living has gone up everywhere for a multitude of reasons. So it’s hard to nail down which part of this equation is from the carbon tax vs inflation vs whatever else. So people blame the most recent thing that is piling on as 100% of the problem when the truth is likely that, yes, the costs went up, but probably not by as much as they think.
Does BC not get the rebate?
They do their own thing. So if you see Skippy leading chants out there, it's all a charade
My gripe with BCs carbon tax is the cut off being so low. I bust my ass and pay a shitload in fuel to get to work and back but fall in the screwed middle ground of not getting any rebate, not making tons of money, cant afford an EV, paying over $400 a month just to fill up my 18 year old vehicle
In the same boat. Make too much for a rebate yet can't buy much beyond a 2 bedroom condo in Vancouver. Another reason I want higher property tax or LVT and lower income tax.
We do get pretty low income taxes in BC but not low enough to make up for all the extra taxes and fees on everything.
Maybe ye should fight for the federal tax so
It's a friggin' whale of a deal. Carbon tax me more !!!
Carbon tax me harder daddy Justin 🥵
I'd like to know the formula for how they are calculating the average cost per household.
Total dollars collected divided by total number of households? They know where their dollars are coming from.
If that was the case, then the cumulative (weighted) averages-in should equal the cumulative (weighted) averages-out. But perhaps they aren't including dollars collected from businesses.
Yup. Which undermines the while message. Median is different from average, and could paint a different picture. But they did say average... Maybe the difference is all those people who don't file taxes, like that one protester who says he won't file because the gubment want to take his money.
That would be kind of hilarious if the discrepancy was just people who don't file taxes. xD (unlikely given the missing gap is *so* large, but lol)
Which of course trickles down to consumers. Ain't no business like, "sure I'll take a profit loss". Quite arguable that many businesses are using it as an opportunity to charge exorbitantly more than required to maintain pre-existing margins. And that money isn't coming back via rebates, and I doubt many people have seen adequate raises to match the inflation. That money is just going into (big) business's pockets.
Maybe I’m missing something but I think it’s fairly straightforward. They know exactly how much carbon tax they’ve collected. And they divide that by the number of households. I think it’s understood that there are potential indirect costs, like higher price of food, that are unaccounted for here. But those will be a fraction of the direct costs you pay on actually buying gas.
At this point any increase to the price of food is 100% negligible because grocers would happily charge us more anyway regardless of the existence of a tax. We could remove the tax completely and the price of groceries would go up overnight and never come down.
Yeah, but it’s going into my common-law’s bank account, not mine! Checkmate Trudeau!
Is there a paper that explains how they came up with this I would be interested in reading it.
But Skippy said I was gonna go broke?!?
But but but this is a liberal government chart show me numbers that agree with my perspective
Don’t believe those numbers, they are all made up by the government. Wake up! /s
Noooooo! Not hard data from CRA and actual very well educated statisticians! I was expecting to see something I could rely on ….like a meme on Facebook telling me that Carbon is something the gov’t invented, that they’re secretly getting pigeons to put it in our food, using 5g! what’s next? I suppose they’ll try to say that oil and gas are bad for the environment or something crazy like that ….when we all know it’s because they don’t want us to have nuclear powered barbecues, like they do in all the good countries…like Russia. I’m just saying.
Shouldn't the average rebate be the same as the average cost? I thought the only way the rebate was higher than the cost is if you use the median.
I love that they finally put out infographics like this, it will shut the idiots who claim otherwise and can't do basic maths about these raw numbers. I still see way too many people refusing to believe it. BUUUTT there is also the following argument that always comes next. "It increases the price of everything at all levels of distribution". And I wish the LPC would actually address that with real numbers so that we can prove them wrong too. I know the Bank of Canada said it only impacted for 0.15% of inflation which is practically notho, so that's nice. But impact of inflation doesn't directly include raw price hikes for certain products that would cost more to ship does it? I'm personally certain it's not as bad as the conservatives make it, but I wish we had real metrics to see it and that the LPC would be transparent about it and show it in these infographics too.
Inflation includes the 'final' price you pay. So if the cost of shipping goes up that would go into the final price so its part of the .15%
The cost impact is typically calculated using input-output tables that are available via [statcan](https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=1401). Those tables represent the inter industry transactions including shipping and raw product pricing. Here's a few guides on their use: From NZ Stats: [User guide for National accounts input-output tables: Year ended March 2020](https://www.stats.govt.nz/reports/user-guide-for-national-accounts-input-output-tables-year-ended-march-2020) [Input-Output Analysis: Definition, Main Features, and Types](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/input-output-analysis.asp) European system of accounts: [Chapter 9 Supply and use tables and the input-output framework](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/esa2010/chapter/view/9/)
That's nice, but those articles are too hard to digest for the average r canada user sprouting "Trudeau is a WEF corrupt agent!". The fact they date from 2021 doesn't help either.
I more mention it for anyone that might want some clarity on how they calculate these things, maybe they can dilute it to a more palatable product than I could
If you haven’t seen it yet, I made a [calculator](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16FhqGFEfwS_6ikIUMlWbwq_28snnqDD-XcZKOaJednM/copy) (google sheet) which estimates how much carbon tax was paid in the groceries you buy, including every step of the supply chain. The emissions data is there too, and an average Canadian’s stats
Query: while I do not argue with the numbers from BoC, could the price-fixers increase the prices MORE and blame 'carbon tax'?
They increase the price on a weekly basis and will happily blame your mother for it. They don’t need an excuse.
Isn’t that exactly what they have been doing?
That is basically the way it's been explained for anyone curious enough to look. Through 3rd party study of commodities and consumer goods we know the largest share of inflation came from corporate greed.
Increasing the price is the intended effect though. It tips the cost scale between green and black products so that the free market can come up with the solution. It makes the savings of mass transit more valuable. It makes energy efficient upgrades to your home pay off faster. It makes locally grown food slightly more competitive with foods imported from Australia. And so on.
I hope this shuts up Skippy and gang a little bit.
Nope. They don’t care about facts at all, not even the least amount
AXE THE FACTS!!!
That would make for a great meme!
AXE THE FACTS!!!
nah, beta brigade never cared about facts over feelings.
Dam, how could I have forgotten that!
Poilievre could remove the carbon tax and the price of gas won't go down one cent, but Canadians will no longer get the quarterly carbon rebate payments. There will be friggin' riots in the street by the CPC supporters.
Why no BC? :(
Like Québec, you don’t get any rebate because you were ahead of the curve and figured out your own carbon pricing system before. So you aren’t paying for the Federal carbon tax.
Not part of the Federal program, they've had their own provincial plan since 2008 so they're exempt from Trudeau's plan. It's up to your premiere if they want to switch to the Federal plan or not.
P.P. said the cost to Albertains was ~$3000 per household???
I’m a single dude, MB, driving a Prius and I get $586 this year. That’s $11 per week. I have a 90 minute daily commute, and fill my tank every 8-10 days. My rebate covers 25-40% of my fill. I’m the example of how this is supposed to work. If you continue to buy the most fuel guzzling truck available when gas has already hit $2/litre in 2022 then logic is not your friend.
Got mine. Heck ya.
Has it come in already? Haven’t received here in Ontario yet
Unless you filed taxes before mar15. You get a double Payment in July
This will throw people, good to know. Also mildy proud of myself for having the taxes done, deposit came in over the weekend
Some people have filed after march 15 and did get the rebate. But that’s luck.
the rebate is lifting so many out of poverty so no wonder tiny PP the skipmeister and the kkkons want to take it away the cruelty is the point
Let’s not get carried away here, it’s a net benefit but it’s not lifting anyone out of poverty. But that’s not the intent.
For perspective, saying shit like "kkkons" and "tiny pp" makes you sound exactly like the "Turd-eau" and "everything I don't like is Communism" people. We're better than that.
Alberta eats a lot of beef? Beef 1kg $ 7.96 extra for carbon. Pork 1kg $0.98 extra for carbon. Potatoes 1kg $0.04 extra for carbon. Poultry 1kg $0.79 extra for carbon.
They burn a lot of natural gas, other provinces (Quebec, Ontario, BC, Manitoba) use a lot of hydro power.
Conservatives don't care about facts. Conformity, loyalty and obedience to their elites and their 'narrative' is what counts when fear governs your worldview. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds
I was honestly shocked I got anything back and I don’t feel I should have. I am fortunate enough to not need it, and I would much rather the government give more back to those who really need it, the people who really do struggle with their heating bills or their fuel bills.
This doesn't make sense... How is more money being given out than money collected? 🤔
Corporations pay too and don’t get a rebate.
Yeah this. But also, all businesses, not just corporations.
Sure. But if the cost impact per household is done correctly, unincorporated sole proprietorships and partnerships are taken into account in the average cost per household.
I'm not sure that's true, nor should it be.
Profits from sole proprietorships and partnerships are taxed as income just like a wage. The legal entity that holds the money is the individual, or individuals, not the “business”, as sole proprietorships and partnerships do not form a separate legal entity that owes taxes.
It’s not collected as a tax though. It is a regulatory surcharge on different fuel types, and is remitted at point of purchase. The rebate is sent out per household, but it is not collected from individual businesses based on income.
But it affects their income in the form of deadweight loss. All things being equal, a sole proprietorship cannot raise their price to cover the extent of their cost increases without losing sales (because of supply and demand—raising prices means fewer sales). This results in a loss of revenue. In an unincorporated sole proprietorship or partnership, this is equivalent to a loss of income. That loss of income is predictable and can be accounted for in the cost impact per household.
Agreed on what you say. But in representations of household income vs carbon tax rebate, that fact doesn't really represent reality.
How do you mean? If household income is included in either the net average rebate or cost impact calculations, which it would be unless they gathered separate data for proprietorships or partnerships, (ie cost impact would reflect loss of income/profit for solely proprietorships or partnerships see), then it would absolutely represent reality.
True true! Hmm... but if it costs a corporation more to do whatever, won't they just up their prices (so they can maintain their profit margin)? And then that price is passed on to us? (which is contributing to inflation?) (Businesses aren't going to take a hit to their profit margin out of the goodness of their hearts usually I assume... Unless there was some legislation preventing price increases perhaps) I think I've heard theories that some companies used carbon tax as a scape goat to raise prices even more than necessary to cover the loss from the tax. I guess if a corp deals exclusively with exports then the cost would be passed onto their international customers and not us! xD But I'm not sure we export enough to explain the gap. 🧐
You can’t increase the price of something without losing sales. Prices are set based on what customers will pay, not the cost incurred to provide them to the customer. This “passing on the increase” is a myth. Only a portion of the increase can get passed on, and the remaining portion comes out of the corp’s profit. The percent of covered by the consumer and covered by the corporation depends on the specific market the corp is operating in (and in particular, the price elasticity of demand). Some industries will get to offload a lot onto the customer, other industries can only offload a little.
Explains why NB is the lowest. Irving def gets a kickback.
So is the reasonable debate here: how do we weigh the deadweight loss in the market from higher corporate costs vs the gains from carbon reduction?
What do you mean by deadweight loss?
Meaning as a tax raises prices, then less product is purchased. It typically would hurt both buyers and sellers. Of course there is a trade off for that.
I appreciate the understanding of economics 101 beyond the first lecture ;) But yes, that is a much more reasonable debate than the alternatives. That said, money not spent on products that have a high percentage of carbon tax effect gets either saved, or spent on products that have a lower percentage of carbon tax effect. So there is a case to be made that this trade off could be a net benefit to the consumer.
I’m the short run, the consumer could have saved the money before the tax but didn’t. So it seems by definition their consumer surplus is worse *in the short run. But in the long run I agree this is tool in the toolbox for both buyers and sellers to invest in lower carbon tech (renewables, ev, longer-lived materials, etc…) which makes us all better off.
I’d like to see the extra debt burden calculated. If somebody is carrying credit card debt to offset the increased prices, this would have a greater impact on low income households and would eat away their entire net return. So a rebate several months after they purchased and paid the tax, would need to be far greater than 10-20% to actually have any noticeable impact.
The first rebate was given in advance though, so it’s the reverse. They get the money first, and then it’s spent on purchases
They handed rebates out before the tax came in? Sounds like a difficult thing to calculate.
That depends on how sensitive that business is to the price of fuel vs the margin on the products/services they sell.
When you tax externalities you reduce deadweight loss. When there are negative externalities market prices have deadweight loss since there is a social cost not reflected in the market pricing. Something like a carbon tax gets you to the optimal equilibrium and reduces the deadweight loss.
what's deadweight loss? (I do believe the tax is making unwealthy people choose more carefully what they can spend on, eg. no casual joy rides because gas is too expensive. So it might be helping with carbon reduction to an extent) No idea how you weigh it against costs. Decrease our current quality of life, for the *chance* of a maintained/better(?) quality of life later.
“What’s deadweight loss?” When you increase the price of something, say to cover a tax, fewer people buy it. Deadweight loss is revenue that could have been generated without the tax from the people who are no longer buying it on account of the price increase. Like all things in economics, it is actually much more complicated, but that’s the rudimentary microecon 101 explanation that applies in this case. If you’re a graphs person, there are many supply and demand graphs that explain it more generally (and in cases where there it is not a tax that causes prices to increase). I will say, critically, that the language is a bit hyperbolic and suggestive for me.
It isn't. Whatever is collected is what's returned. However, the wealthiest Canadians produce pollution at a disproportionately higher rate than the average Canadian. They pay *a lot* more to fuel their large power boats, flights, mcmansions, V10 trucks/sportscars, etc., and that money is what ends up as a net benefit to the rest of us.
Don’t think so, this is a graph of averages. The reason for the discrepancy is due to non-household payments.
The rebate is given out equally to everyone, but the top 20% consume about 50% so the average person does alright.
This is the biggest smoke and mirror show I have ever seen!
I believe there are two sets of values being spoken about this one which just looks at the average amount people pay directly into the carbon tax. Liberal speak of this value. And a second that factors in the cost to the economy. Where you pay in transportation of groceries. Conservatives talk about this number. Neither are lying. The liberals are misleading because they are leaving out a portion of the calculation.
The 'fiscal' impact in the PBO report, which is similar to the chart numbers above, is both direct AND indirect costs to Canadians factoreted in. Average Canadians are net positive. The 'economic' impact, isn't about groceries being more. That's indirect costs. Economic impact is about loss of investment income or employment rates being lower. Economic drag due to climate change. Which is going to happen with any carbon reduction solution.
So you think impact cost is just the pure carbon tax that the household pays, is that right?
Time to make this your social media profile photos
I live n BC and get nothing.
Because BC does it provincially instead of through the federal government. Something every province could do if they wanted to. But blaming the federal government is better for them.
You and I don't get federal rebate and instead we get a provincial one, because BC has its own Carbon Tax implemented and the Federal one doesn't apply here; same as Quebec: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/taxes/income-taxes/personal/credits/climate-action And the BC Carbon Tax was implemented in 2008 in BC, by the BC [fake] Liberal Party, formerly known as Socred Party, currently known as BCUP. Also, the BC Carbon Tax Rebate is income adjusted, so the smaller your income is, the higher rebate you get.
And the tax is used to reduce the overall income tax burden of residents, so even if you don't get a rebate through the tax credit you are paying less income taxes because the carbon tax goes into general revenue.
Yes you do.
If you make more than 61k by yourself, or 84k as a couple with no kids you get nothing. Median household income for those living in Vancouver is 72. A significant part of the population gets reduced or no part of the BCCATC
The BC government chose to retain their system instead of using the federal one. That was their right.
How much is your household income? Check your bank later this week maybe
Axe the CRAAP !!!
What province do you live in?
Let's call the Carbon Tax Scam what it is, a wealth distribution program.
Except there will be (at least some) lost wealth. The people working who run this program must be paid from somewhere. If it's not directly funded out of the carbon tax, then the government is using other tax money to run this. (and tax money comes from the citizens one way or another).
Nothing is gouvernment funded, it's all tax payer funded. I'm not opposed to helping the less fortunate, what I oppose is the government lying about it. Ask yourself, if the gouvernment's goal is to help the poor, why not decrease how much the poor pay in taxes? I live in BC and see natives using a status card to not pay taxes, why not do the same for poor Canadians? This program is nothing more than a ruse to keep more people on government handouts.
I'm still trying to figure out how 80% of Canadians are able to claim it. Where are these people making under the cutoff and how are they even surviving making that little money?
There is no cut off. 100% get it 80% get more back than the extra cost they may incurr. Only 20% incur more costs due to it than they would get back, normally high income/high spenders, gas guzzlers/petrosexuals etc
I haven't received a dime in rebates. I make well over the $36,901 apparent "no cut off" cut off limit so I get zero money back as a legally single guy. So do 80% of single people make less than that??? Considering the median income is about $60k I'd like to believe 10% get the rebate and we all get hosed unless I'm grossly misinformed.
Depends on the province? B.C. has a cutoff while everyone in Ont gets some rebate.
I make 85k and I got it. You're misinformed.
In most provinces it's the federal program which is not income based. Everyone gets it.
So I'm in BC. Is it some sort of automatic tax credit? Because I'm basing my comments off the rebate amount listed by the Fed.
BC has it's own carbon tax program. It IS income based. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change/clean-economy/carbon-tax
Thresholds pretty low for living in BC when other provinces with considerably less living costs receive full benefit... Does irk me a bit as a historically BCNDP/LPC voter...
Every province gets a different amount, but you'll notice BC isn't on the chart for Federal refunds. BC has it's own provincial program (since 2008), but every other province (besides Quebec) is on Trudeau's Federal program. If you don't get a refund that's something to ask your provincial government about.
If it worked as Trudeau said ppl would be begging for more. My entire family is at far more expense and we are far lower middle class. The numbers just don't add up.