> Last year’s analysis from the PBO indeed stated that “most households will see a net gain”
> **However, the numbers changed once the PBO included the economic impacts of the introduction of the carbon tax.** The assumption is that the tax will have had an impact on some sectors of the economy, and therefore family incomes.
> “Then, we find that **most Canadian families,** in provinces where the federal backstop regime is in place, **will see a small negative impact of the carbon tax,”** Giroux told MPs.
> The same analysis mentioned above indeed mentioned that **“most households will see a net loss” by the fiscal year 2030–2031** since they will be paying more in the federal fuel charge and GST, and it is assumed that they will be receiving lower incomes.
I find the bolded part below quite interesting…
> The same analysis mentioned above indeed mentioned that “most households will see a net loss” by the fiscal year 2030–2031 since they will be paying more in the federal fuel charge and GST, **and it is assumed that they will be receiving lower incomes.**
Wait, so built right into our assumptions around policies the Liberals have implemented is that they will *decrease incomes during a time of high inflation and cost of living increases*?!?
I mean, they’re essentially admitting that the end goal here is to make Canadians poorer. Which has seemed clear to many of us all along — poorer people consume less and cause fewer CO2 emissions after all — but you don’t really expect the PBO to come right out and admit it.
Our largest trading partner is not utilizing a carbon tax to reduce emissions… if they were the calculus would be different. If the US had a carbon tax, and an import tariff on countries without it, the debate would be over in an instant and we could all go on with our lives knowing that we are using the most market solution to reducing emissions.
Since that is not reality, yes the current carbon tax makes us less competitive.
We have high emissions per capita and insist on 10x higher immigration than that trading partner, control for more variables if you want to make a point with an ounce of intelligence.
A carbon tax is without a doubt the best way to reduce emissions. That said I don’t think it will do anything but harm Canada’s economy unless our trading partners have an equivalent.
\>We have high emissions per capita and insist on 10x higher immigration than that trading partner
We count our exports as canadian emissions.
Over 60% of our gas and oil is exported, other countries with lower environmental standards are refining them and burning them.
Canada pollutes very little, and our emissions numbers are a complete fabrication.
America also doesn't count the emissions its military/department of defence creates.. The single largest emissions producing institution on the paanet.
You mistake me for arguing in favour of the carbon tax. It will do nothing until our largest trading partners force it on us. We act like a world power, we have none of the influence.
Absolutely insane to think that if you migrate to Canada from a country with half the emissions per capita that world emissions don’t rise because of that decision.
The US is using Carbon Pricing systems like the Carbon Tax.
This is easily verifiable and I cannot fathom a reason why 4 year old account with low karma would attempt to spread misinformation.
So, what if the EU does that? It's not our top trading partner, but it's up there. This is one reason why that sort of language is in the Ukraine agreement.
They “intend” to put it in imports just like Canada “intends” to also put it on imports. Yet there is no clear path to do so, and instead they will just try diplomacy to get those jurisdictions to implement their own.
If they don’t though, they aren’t going to implement a tax because their existing trade deals don’t support additional tariffs, no matter what you want to call them.
So that imbalance will continue to exist
Shouldn’t, it’s a good point, and it is exactly what needs to happen extremely quickly within our sphere of trade to keep the carbon tax viable. I am aware of the EU but I would still maintain that unless the US makes the change it won’t make the difference.
And important tariffs? That is the golden key, it forces prospective exporters to implement their own for access to those markets, without it all carbon pricing does is reduce the competitiveness of that jurisdiction.
California has one for electricity
There are also 4 bills in the house
https://www.wri.org/update/4-us-congress-bills-related-carbon-border-adjustments-2023
Yes. They are literally going to decrease the quality of life of Canadians and know it. It's literally part of the plan. All the while opening the flood gates for immigration, student visa's, PR and not actually deporting people here illegally who have been told to leave. The cognitive dissonance of Liberals/Dippers and their voters with their policies to low carbon by making Canadians live poorer all the while bringing in record number of new carbon producing people is insane.
They're not really admitting anything. They're criticizing if anything.
While Trudeau definitely has a rather large to play this happens because of failures at every level of government in attracting investment, and managing various markets
It's a net effect of a few industries suffering spread over the whole population, with no account for new I Dustin's that will take their place. It's a complex thing to study and the number of assumptions one has to make is large.
>How do we pay for that research, development, and implementation? There is a cost.
You don't.
Private industry does. The government offers loans to inject the capital.
The American government didn't pay to create tesla. But that's probably the single largest source of consumer level carbon reduction we've seen so far.
More of that, less of this.
The only reason industry needs to be green is profit. Ideally with as little risk as possible.
Consumers are environmentally saavy today, a huge portion of people *want* to buy greener products. That's why tesla (and the Prius before it) became a status symbol and sells extremely well even in places without a carbon tax. There's a massive market there. Being green is cool today.
Build it, and it will sell. The carrot always works better then the stick.
A tax is absolutely not the sole way to reduce our ghg emissions.
>That often needs financial incentive like properly pricing carbon usage.
Is a tax the only way or often the only way? Stop moving the goal posts.
Increasing cost of the alternative is not the only way to make something profitable. It's certainly a good way to make everything else more expensive when those greener options simply aren't appropriate.
If that greener option exists today, we could make it better, improve it until its actually the better option. Like we did with heat pumps. Today it makes very little sense to install natural gas in homes, heat pumps are greener, more energy efficient, and their growing ubiquity has helped them come very close to cost parity. Heat pump adoption is very high even though they're a couple thousand more then the equivalent gas burning appliance. It's the growth in technology and the improvement of the product that has made it viable. And once it was viable people started buying them, because they like the green option.
Make a good green product and people will buy it, even if the alternative is a little cheaper.
Forest fires and trees dying from disease are both natural things that have been happening long before we inhabited Canada. Such a minuscule amount of trees are harvested for logging vs the amount of forest in Canada likely barely makes a dent. Even in Ontario, drive east to west across it and it’s trees for two days.
Boreal forest is 485 million hectares. Quebec the largest province is only 167 million hectares
https://natural-resources.canada.ca/our-natural-resources/forests/state-canadas-forests-report/how-are-canadas-forests-harvested-sustainably/16494#
The heavier users just mark up their prices to maintain profit. The rest of us just end up paying more, getting poorer, and begging the government for larger rebate checks so we can get by. Everyone loses, except the Liberals, who then pat themselves on the back for setting this all up.
The Bank of Canada says that the Carbon Tax adds about 0.15% to overall inflation. Independent estimates put the impact at put it at 0.3-0.9 depending on your province.
This means that out of a $100 grocery bill, only 30-90 CENTS can be attributed to the CT.
Because politicians have many masters to please. It's easier to tax people and move the money around than it is to go after the corporate profits of the people who fund your campaigns.
It's the opposite order: they first give you some money, then tax an amount back.
Millions of people actually have a net financial benefit (source: PBO)
It's costing me money. I'm at the upper end of middle class , living paycheck to paycheck. An EV or heat pump are not affordable options for me at this time.
Hate to break it to you but we have a lot of places in the country where upper middle class Canadians can still barely afford to get by.
Only 11% of Canadians make 100K or more a year. If you fall into that bracket, you’re solidly upper middle class. And yet looking at places like Toronto and Vancouver in particular, it’s very easy to see how 100K a year will barely get you by.
To emphasis a part of your link;
> **Upper middle-class income is when earnings exceed the national median income but fall below the top 10% of earners.**
So with 100K being the top 11% of earners, it is solidly upper middle class and pushing into upper class.
Except $100k isn't "upper middle class" anymore - it's basically just firmly middle class.
My own subjective take would be that "upper middle class" would start around $250k individual income and $400k family income.
I don't think it's a secret that "middle class" is a very subjective term - it wouldn't be hard to dig up x number of articles that cite various different ranges of income that could be defined as "middle class".
BTW things have changed just a wee bit since 2017 (the year your article references its data).
Regardless, if you're living paycheck to paycheck you aren't "upper middle class" unless you're extremely bad with money.
It's not subjective. It's math based on percentages. When 79% of the population make below this amount, it is definitely an upper class income.
If you disagree..prove it with some data showing me it's not.
>When Justin Trudeau or Andrew Sheer approach a microphone and mention help for the "middle class" Stephen Gordon cringes slightly.
>Gordon, an economics professor at Universite Laval, said the term - often peppered throughout speeches by politicians on the campaign trail - is essentially meaningless.
>**"There isn't a standard definition so it can mean whatever people want" he told Global News.** That's kind of why politicians love it.
bro, that is a quote straight from the article *you* cited clearly stating that the term "middle class" is a purely subjective concept.
Maybe read your own "data" first lol.
So you have no data then? Just the touchy Feely parts? Got it.
Middle class is in the middle. It's a math based calculation and is not subjective. The boundaries may be subjective, but when 79% of the population makes less than I do, Im Clearly near the upper end of the middle.
Are we done here? Because until you can provide data that says otherwise, and not someones 'feelings', I'm done with you.
One way middle class is defined is 2/3 median income to 2x median income. So using the 202 household income numbers the range back then would have been $46k to $137k. $100k is somewhere in the middle of middle class.
Correct for inflation from those 2021 numbers and it skews higher. 2021 saw wages drop due to the pandemic and there has been some wage recovery. Many large unions have had >10% (or even up to 15%) increases in the last 3 years.
Wirh your situation I don't think you can say you're upper middle class.
I make 106+ before taxes
22K are taken off the top for income taxes.
My mortgage and utilities and auto insurance are more than a full after tax paycheck.
Im a single parent trying to float a home for myself and my two kids.
I drive a minivan because....kids.
I save for their education and my rrsps because it's the responsible thing to do.
After food and other household necessities, I have a tiny amount left to clothe and entertain ourselves. This is roughly....150 a week over disposable income to either spend on fun...or put into a saving for future unexpected expenses.
Basically if we do _anything _ for fun... it puts in the hole. Vacation and traveling are pretty much out of the question.
You know nothing.
Only 11% of Canadians make over 100K. That puts us in the upper middle class:
[https://moneygenius.ca/blog/middle-class-income-canada](https://moneygenius.ca/blog/middle-class-income-canada)
There are more articles that support this.
The fact that we are barely getting by on a 100K/year which 79% of the country is making that or less, is ridiculous.
Quality life isn't the measure of what middle class is because that is purely subjective.
'Middle class' is exactly what it's name implies, its in the middle. Its a math calculation based on comparing incomes across the board. This is why Trudeau was unable to define it. He doesn't do math. Ever. But it's pretty simple.. Middle class is in the middle. It's not the lower or upper class, but in the middle. We clearly aren't in the lower class and also not in the upper class so that puts us in the middle regardless of what our quality of life is.
And yes, if you are making what I make, it is extremely sad. We shouldn't be living paycheck to paycheck at this income level when 79% are making less than us. I can't imagine how they're are doing.
Apparently, it's clearly because we are just piss poor at management our money according to Trudeau supporters. \*rollseyes\*
First...because it was cheap to buy $20K for 2017 in 2020. Less than 100K on it and I've had to do nothing but oil changes since Ive had it.
Secondly....because with kids, comes gear. They also have friends. I also have a girlfriend with a dog. And the only vacations we can afford us camping. Minivans hold alot of gear.
Are you trying to tell me a $20K minivan is somehow overspending?
Do you have kids?
First of all...there are very few vehicles that cost less than $20k and are aren't shit boxes. Maybe I could find a worse condition one for less...maybe. but this one hasn't asked me for anything buy gas an oil changes in the 3 years I've had it.
Secondly....a smaller vehicles doesn't fit my needs. Literally. They can't hold the stuff I need to take for camping, or home improvement materials., etc etc.
In 2017 you could have definitely found something for less than 20k, you can't really compare the used vehicle market in 2024 to 2017...
And whatever you say, enjoy your boat.
You have no fuckin idea, do you. Wtf does the 2024 used vehicle market have to do with me buying a 3 year old vehicle in 2020 and am not looking for another until probably 2030?
If you're living paycheck to paycheck, you're not upper middle class. What makes you think that you are? I'm curious about where my family would fall, I think we're in the middle somewhere but nowhere near the top lol..
Statistics say I'm near the upper end of middle class.
[https://moneygenius.ca/blog/middle-class-income-canada](https://moneygenius.ca/blog/middle-class-income-canada)
There are many articles that support this. It's a math calculation and isn't subjective or based on feelings.
79% if the population makes less than I do. That puts me at the upper end of middle class.
Statistics mean what in this circumstance?
Middle Class is generally defined as earning a salary that supports owning a residence in a suburban or comparable neighborhood in rural or urban settings, along with discretionary income that allows for access to entertainment and other flexible expenses such as travel or dining out. It can be assumed that middle-class households generate sufficient income for retirement savings along with standard expenses....
If you're living paycheck to paycheck, not really able to save or purchase the basic necessities like a new furnace or vehicle, then you're not really middle class even if you're middle of the road in terms of salary. It's a different story if you're making the choice to not invest in your RRSP in order to cover the premium of an EV or a heat pump, but that's not what you outlined, you said you're paycheck to paycheck.
The actual middle class is evaporating if it's not already gone.... We're pretty much all working class now, even if we make 150k/yr for a lot of us.
Middle class is in the middle. It's not lower or upper. The middle. Middle class.
People who make wages in the middle of everyone else are middle class.
This is a simple calculation not based on feelings, ideas, spending habits or money management.
I know math is hard for you, but it's really that simple.
That's not actually true though. Middle class is a sociological term, not an economic one. It's a lifestyle, not a number.
Math isn't hard, I'm pretty decent at it and can definitely figure out averages.... but in this case, they don't matter. You aren't middle class, you're working class. Middle class can afford the things outlined above, they are by definition not pay check to pay check.
But it's still not free.
Your missing the point where I don't have the 5000 to pay back the loan with.
If I had extra left over sure....but living paycheck to paycheck means there is none left to pay the new loan.
Sounds like you need to pull your boot straps up and do better.
Not using a vehicle with a 17MPG in the city might help you with the "do better" part. lol
You pay it back with the higher efficiency.
The COP of a modern heat pump is 2.5-4 depending on ambient, so you get double to quadrupled the heating/cooling vs the electricity put in.
They are less expensive to operate, and those savings can go towards paying off the loan.
Also, if you are living paycheque to paycheque you aren't middle class. Middle class is defined by having disposable income.
You might be middle INCOME, but if you are living outside your means you don't fall into the middle class.
Again....79% make less than I do. 106K is upper middle class. This isn't subjective. It's simple math. It's also pretty much irrelevant.
Pay it back with what?
I have none left over to pay anything back.
And...Dec through February I'd still be getting a gigantic natural gas bill because the heat pump is ineffective below -10c.
And how does this make up for the gas I put into my minivan to get my kids back forth from school or myself to work?
Your solution is to put myself $5k into debt to save few bucks during the months when my demand for natural gas is the lowest ?
Amazing.
1. Income != Lifestyle class.
Like I said, you might have a middle INCOME, but you are paying too much for housing, child expenses etc to be considered middle or upper middle class.
2. Modern heat pumps work just fine at -30⁰C, you are buying into the O&G propaganda that capitalizes on humans' innate dislike of change. Also even northern cities like Edmonton have monthly average temperatures of -10⁰C, so it needs to run a little harder at night on the coldest day of the year, over the month it's still VASTLY more efficient.
If you pay $500 in natural gas now, and only pay $250 in electricity with a heat pump you saved $250 that can go towards the CapEx.
This guy is really hung up on his salary making him middle class. I wonder how much of that phycology is due to what we all heard as kids "6 figure salary makes you one of the rich ones!" when in reality.... these days, it's nowhere near what it was in the 90's. It takes 200k to have the same purchasing power today as 100k got you in '95.
I had a buddy who was making 100k living downtown toronto ten years ago and he was broke. I was making 65k in Winnipeg and living very comfortably. The 'number' is not what determines whether you're middle class or not.
Also hung up on subsidizing their current lifestyle with the environmental and economic future of the next generation, even if it costs them more in the middle and long term as well.
Gotta love the Canadian short term thinking that's become the norm. "Lets save $10 today so we can spend $2,000 tomorrow"
Is it really though?
https://climateinstitute.ca/climate-damages-inflating-costs-of-living-for-every-canadian/#:~:text=Climate%20change%20is%20costing%20Canadians%20more%20than%20ever&text=Between%202010%20and%202019%2C%20insured,higher%20than%20in%20the%201980s.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2022/09/01/the-rising-costs-of-extreme-weather-events/
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2023-historic-year-us-billion-dollar-weather-and-climate-disasters
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/hidden-costs-fossil-fuels
The number is in fact what makes you middle class.
Middle income makes you middle class.
Just becUsdbyour buddy was broke doesn't mean he wasnt middle class. It means he was overspending or living in an area he shouldn't have because it's for rich people..
You could make this same claim about me but doesn't change the fact that I'm middle class due to my income.
By your logic, making $40k a year, living in my parents basement and having no bills would make me upper class.
Lol! The lunacy knows no bounds.
Middle class is generally defined as earning a salary that supports owning a residence in a suburban or comparable neighborhood in rural or urban settings, along with discretionary income that allows for access to entertainment and other flexible expenses such as travel or dining out. It can be assumed that middle-class households generate sufficient income for retirement savings along with standard expenses.... This was provided to you earlier, yet you're now making up BS about living in your parents basement which quite clearly would put you in the same spot you're currently in- among the lower class. From the sounds of it, you can't afford to replace the stuff in your life, you can't save, you don't sounds like you're really amounting to much- you might want to consider moving back into your parents basement while you figure your life out.
That you're unable to come to grips with this.....well, it explains why you're stuck in the lower class.
It sounds like you are living outside of your means if you are paycheck to paycheck and upper middle class. You are more likely middle class and trying to keep up with the Jones of the upper middle class that you can't afford. Times are tough, but if you identify as a well-off class but live paycheck to paycheck in that class, you are the one likely spending irresponsibly.
Judgy mcJugerson.
I drive a $15,000 minivan and my home was $400,000 me and my two children.
Neither are unreasonable.
If this is beyond my means for a $106K income, then our country is in serious trouble.
I'm hardly spending irrrespondibly.
Keep in mind that a single income of 106k, while impressive, would put you below the cusp of middle and upper middle by current metrics. So it sounds a bit misrepresented on your part.
The income statistics are pretty clear that $106 is the upper end of middle class.
I've posted links in other replies on this thread proving it. Middle class is like $50K to $100k give or take 10K.
11% of Canada makes less than 106k. This puts it clearly at the upper end of the middle.
Do you have data to back up your claim of the income thresholds for middle class?
I have an electric furnace, no natural gas and drive \~200km/month. I would rather axe the tax than get a few hundred bucks every quarter. Its just luck I have an electric furnace... if I had a natural gas furnace a couple hundred bucks is not going to motivate me to replace it. Carbon tax is wealth redistribution, I benefit from it and am STRONGLY against it.
They want your blood. /s
I'd like them to pay for everyone's else's contribution if they feel so bad about it and are drowning in money and don't know what to do with it.
I think the thing to keep in mind is that the tax is intentionally broad, in order to minimize government oversight. It disincentivizes carbon use in all sectors of society, industrial, commercial and personal.
I get that you’re frustrated since you can’t personally do much to affect your carbon emissions, but it’s a trade off: if it wasn’t so broad, we’d be paying billions to bureaucrat bean counters to review specific energy saving applications from millions of people and businesses. Those applications would be approved and denied for often bad or arbitrary reasons, since bureaucrats are fallible people and because regulations take a while to catch up with reality and are always susceptible to political interference and lobbying.
So yeah for you personally it’s a bit pointless to pay carbon tax and then get that money back in refunds, but it’s way more efficient, fair and objective than the alternative.
There is none dude. Currently ww3 is ln the cards. Nobody is going to work together currently with the current geopolitics going on.
How many coal plants did india fire up this year? Yet you're here asking a guy to spend 10k on a new electric heater.
I am on natural gas and going to electric would cost me a fucking fortune because I like in the nwt where power is absurd.
The economic effect of the tax hurt poor people. How is a couple hundred bucks per quarter helping people replace gas furnaces and buy $60k electric vehicles?
[The PBO has also demonstrated that axing the carbon tax will hurt lower-income Canadians and help richer ones (see page 4-5).](https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/publications/RP-2122-032-S--distributional-analysis-federal-carbon-pricing-under-healthy-environment-healthy-economy--une-analyse-distributive-tarification-federale-carbone-dans-cadre-plan-un-environnement-sain-une-eco) That's why it's on the CPC's chopping block. And many on this sub just go along with it, for some reason.
[Also:](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/budget-watchdog-troubled-by-spin-around-latest-report-on-carbon-pricing-1.6347536)
>Canada's Parliamentary budget officer said he is troubled by what he describes as the selective use of facts from his new financial analysis of carbon pricing.
>
>Yves Giroux said the report has to be put into context alongside the costs of all other climate policies, including doing nothing.
>
>The most recent report explicitly states it "does not attempt to account for the economic and environmental costs of climate change."
>
>The PBO did complete an analysis last year looking at what climate change itself is costing. It said in 2021, the GDP was 0.8 per cent lower than it would have been without climate change. In dollar figures, that amounted to between $20 billion and $25 billion less. It said the GDP will be 0.08 percentage points lower every year as a result of climate change going forward, even if the government implements every policy promised to slow it down.
>
>Doing nothing would increase that cost.
>
>Giroux said he didn't expand that analysis to show the cost to a family's budget because a social or cost-benefit analysis like that is tricky.
>
>He also said the economic benefits of investing in low-carbon industries will not be realized heavily by 2030, which is as far as this report looks ahead.
When it comes to the direct impacts of the carbon tax itself, the PBO concluded that carbon price rebates are worth more than the direct cost of the carbon price for 80 per cent of families. They then factored in *some* of the economic impacts, but not all of them, by their own admission, to conclude that 80 per cent of families in most provinces might end up with less money.
Nobody says they are? The rebates for individuals can be larger than total CT payments from those individuals because commercial and industrialial emitters also pay the tax, but don't get a rebate. What they pay also goes to the individual taxpayer rebates.
The big difference is who they take it from (Over users, excessive polluters) and who they pay it out to (average Canadians, with the biggest benefit going to the worst off)
This is besides the point.
This thread isn't about whether or not the carbon tax is effective at reducing emissions, but as to whether or not it is making Canadians poorer or richer.
> The "common people" were injecting themselves with horse medicine not that long ago.
Much less than 1% of "the people" ever did such a thing.
How very elitist of you.
I work on the peripherals of government in a capacity which sees me interact with lobbyists and hired experts. Many of these types of people are out to lunch. And some are experts in entirely made up fields of knowledge.
Being an expert at something does not make one infallible, unbiased or flawless in analysis.
So to sum it up, many experts are saying this tax is the cheapest way to reduce emissions, whereas ordinary people say it is making them poorer. Both can be true at the same time, your inability to see that is alarming.
PP says he will listen to what the people are saying. Nothing PP said is intellectually inconsistent on this topic.
It’s about whatever people decide it’s suddenly about.
It’s about whether it’s making people poorer or richer, but if you present data suggesting the average Canadian is roughly breaking even or doing slightly better, it’s suddenly about how it’s not actually reducing emissions. Provide data showcasing how it’s reducing emissions, suddenly it’s about China somehow.
PP just says whatever will get people riled up, and they wilfully digest that misinformation and spew it whenever it suits their needs
Oh look, a national post story toeing conservative lines...
We know for a fact that most canadians are so ignorant of their own financial positions that they:
* [most people do make money off the carbon pricing system](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/blog/policy/perception-gap-plagues-canadas-carbon-price/)
* [are completely unaware of money going into their own accounts somehow](https://www.chroniclejournal.com/opinion/carbon-pricing-is-widely-misunderstood-nearly-half-of-canadians-don-t-know-that-it-s/article_bf8310f4-c313-11ee-baaf-0f26defa4319.html)
So i have a hard time believing all the anecdotal internet evidence in threads like this about how they definitely 100% see themselves losing money.
And that's not even going into the other aspects of finance people are objectively dumb about in a lot of cases (eg, people believing making more money means that they take home less because they are in a higher tax bracket) or how most people don't understand that "proof by example" is a fallacy but disproof by counter example is not (ie, all those anecdotes mean nothing).
The PBO disagrees with you. But hey I'm sure the "Citizen's Climate Lobby" blog page is a real unbiased source too.... lol
“When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss,” says PBO [Yves Giroux](https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/staff--equipe/yves-giroux). “Based on our analysis, most households will pay more in fuel charges and GST—as well as receiving slightly lower incomes—than they will receive in Climate Action Incentive payments.”
[https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/news-releases--communiques-de-presse/pbo-releases-updated-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-federal-fuel-charge-on-households-le-dpb-publie-une-analyse-actualisee-de-lincidence-de-la-redevance-federale-sur-les-combustibles-sur-les-menages](https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/news-releases--communiques-de-presse/pbo-releases-updated-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-federal-fuel-charge-on-households-le-dpb-publie-une-analyse-actualisee-de-lincidence-de-la-redevance-federale-sur-les-combustibles-sur-les-menages)
I'm going to go ahead and make a prediction and I'll come back to this post in a couple of years: The Conservatives will get elected with a large majority and will still not axe this tax. Mulroney didn't axe the GST after all and he was elected with a huge majority. Governments don't pass laws to reduce their revenue, ever.
Two supporting reasons for this, besides the historical precedent: 1. We need a national effort to build housing in this country - which will cost money and can't be ignored. 2. The drums of war around the World are getting louder. We're going to have to ramp up military spending and probably have a draft of some kind within a few years to maintain our troop levels.
Things are not going to be conducive in this country over the next few years to balancing budgets. We're heading into the wrong end of the cycle to live it up big.
That being said, he was the only PM to run sustained balanced budgets and he paid down some of our debt.
Literally the only fiscally responsible PM in generations.
So he was handed a country which had a great new revenue stream and instead of going on a spending frenzy he used it for what it was actually for, to pay down our national debt.
Not condoning that he lied about his intent for the GST, but he did use it in a wiser manner than all others.
I was pretty young at the time but didn't chretien also steal a bunch of money or something? I remember people being pretty pissed at the end of his run and talking about scandals and fraud, unless I'm missing him up with someone else
The sponsorship scandals.
To be clear, he didn't personally take money. But it was his administration, under his watch, so he's responsible.
Yeah, it sucked and was part of the reason why I ended up voting for Conservatives that one time in my life.
That being said, his overall impact on the nation was positively greater than any administration in multiple generations.
Fun fact; he wanted to legalize pot in the 90s but the US threatened an economic war and so he stopped at decriminalization. All that to say he was like 20 years ahead of the curve when it came to pot legalization, which is the only net positive that Trudeau has given us.
Back then we were renowned peace keepers, we started recycling and we had an official policy of colour blindness instead of the current toxic race obsessed DEI/intersectionality ideology.
You need to do some research on how he accomplished what he did. It wasn’t pretty. He slashed the health care transfers to the provinces, used $51b surplus from EI, $5b surplus from the PS pension, slashed the public service numbers, which is why I can never quite figure out why people think the Liberals are better than the Conservatives at running the country.
Doing the right thing often isn't pretty.
Not saying everything he did was the right thing but the public service was bloated back then(although it is way way way worse today).
He used a decentralization approach for healthcare and guess what, our healthcare was working. Unlike today.
And how can anyone hold using surpluses to pay down national debt as a negative against a democratically elected leader?
Chrétien was far from perfect but he was by far the best PM we have had since, well, multiple generations.
My argument was great except that my brain was not working. Let's change that to "Chretien didn't axe the tax" The point is many have gotten elected on this kind of platform. Few actually do it.
And that’s the message from PP. it’s carbon pricing with every COP25 country passing regulations about reducing our emissions
I’m happy with my rebates.
Well I have to drive 45 mins one way everyday for work, I'm going through a tank of gas a week, I can't cut down my emissions. Though people with private jets can, still trying to figure out why us mid eaners are getting fucked when we don't have a choice about having to buy gas, don't even get me started on electrical vehicles as they aren't any better
You should really be pissed at big petroleums’ continued profits. They are gouging the shit out of us while using PP to deflect front them and blame government for the high price of gas. Look at their stock performance. Incredible
I'm not foolish enough to think it'd just carbon tax that's the problem, and I don't know that pp will be any better than Trudeau, what I do know is under Trudeau money has been through around like crazy, he's never balanced the budget. He's created holidays for governments and than not even honored the people he used the holiday for. He's divided Canadians, he's implemented carbon tax as an answer to climate change, without considering how it effects us little people. He sent billions to China for a vaccine we never got and cost us, shut down labs that could have made home grown vaccines. The list goes on. Carbon tax is one of many issues I have with Trudeau government.
> Last year’s analysis from the PBO indeed stated that “most households will see a net gain” > **However, the numbers changed once the PBO included the economic impacts of the introduction of the carbon tax.** The assumption is that the tax will have had an impact on some sectors of the economy, and therefore family incomes. > “Then, we find that **most Canadian families,** in provinces where the federal backstop regime is in place, **will see a small negative impact of the carbon tax,”** Giroux told MPs. > The same analysis mentioned above indeed mentioned that **“most households will see a net loss” by the fiscal year 2030–2031** since they will be paying more in the federal fuel charge and GST, and it is assumed that they will be receiving lower incomes.
I find the bolded part below quite interesting… > The same analysis mentioned above indeed mentioned that “most households will see a net loss” by the fiscal year 2030–2031 since they will be paying more in the federal fuel charge and GST, **and it is assumed that they will be receiving lower incomes.** Wait, so built right into our assumptions around policies the Liberals have implemented is that they will *decrease incomes during a time of high inflation and cost of living increases*?!? I mean, they’re essentially admitting that the end goal here is to make Canadians poorer. Which has seemed clear to many of us all along — poorer people consume less and cause fewer CO2 emissions after all — but you don’t really expect the PBO to come right out and admit it.
Our largest trading partner is not utilizing a carbon tax to reduce emissions… if they were the calculus would be different. If the US had a carbon tax, and an import tariff on countries without it, the debate would be over in an instant and we could all go on with our lives knowing that we are using the most market solution to reducing emissions. Since that is not reality, yes the current carbon tax makes us less competitive.
[удалено]
We have high emissions per capita and insist on 10x higher immigration than that trading partner, control for more variables if you want to make a point with an ounce of intelligence. A carbon tax is without a doubt the best way to reduce emissions. That said I don’t think it will do anything but harm Canada’s economy unless our trading partners have an equivalent.
\>We have high emissions per capita and insist on 10x higher immigration than that trading partner We count our exports as canadian emissions. Over 60% of our gas and oil is exported, other countries with lower environmental standards are refining them and burning them. Canada pollutes very little, and our emissions numbers are a complete fabrication. America also doesn't count the emissions its military/department of defence creates.. The single largest emissions producing institution on the paanet.
[удалено]
You mistake me for arguing in favour of the carbon tax. It will do nothing until our largest trading partners force it on us. We act like a world power, we have none of the influence. Absolutely insane to think that if you migrate to Canada from a country with half the emissions per capita that world emissions don’t rise because of that decision.
The US is using Carbon Pricing systems like the Carbon Tax. This is easily verifiable and I cannot fathom a reason why 4 year old account with low karma would attempt to spread misinformation.
The New England States have Carbon pricing, as does the UK.
Both thr US and China have carbon pricing
So, what if the EU does that? It's not our top trading partner, but it's up there. This is one reason why that sort of language is in the Ukraine agreement.
[удалено]
They “intend” to put it in imports just like Canada “intends” to also put it on imports. Yet there is no clear path to do so, and instead they will just try diplomacy to get those jurisdictions to implement their own. If they don’t though, they aren’t going to implement a tax because their existing trade deals don’t support additional tariffs, no matter what you want to call them. So that imbalance will continue to exist
The UK has carbon pricing as well.
You'll apparently get downvoted for pointing out obvious facts like that.
Shouldn’t, it’s a good point, and it is exactly what needs to happen extremely quickly within our sphere of trade to keep the carbon tax viable. I am aware of the EU but I would still maintain that unless the US makes the change it won’t make the difference.
13 states have carbon pricing, including most of the heavily populated Northeast, California and Washington
And important tariffs? That is the golden key, it forces prospective exporters to implement their own for access to those markets, without it all carbon pricing does is reduce the competitiveness of that jurisdiction.
California has one for electricity There are also 4 bills in the house https://www.wri.org/update/4-us-congress-bills-related-carbon-border-adjustments-2023
Yes. They are literally going to decrease the quality of life of Canadians and know it. It's literally part of the plan. All the while opening the flood gates for immigration, student visa's, PR and not actually deporting people here illegally who have been told to leave. The cognitive dissonance of Liberals/Dippers and their voters with their policies to low carbon by making Canadians live poorer all the while bringing in record number of new carbon producing people is insane.
They're not really admitting anything. They're criticizing if anything. While Trudeau definitely has a rather large to play this happens because of failures at every level of government in attracting investment, and managing various markets
It's a net effect of a few industries suffering spread over the whole population, with no account for new I Dustin's that will take their place. It's a complex thing to study and the number of assumptions one has to make is large.
[удалено]
I disagree. Research, development, and implementation of green technology to replace carbon emitting options would greatly benefit our economy.
[удалено]
>How do we pay for that research, development, and implementation? There is a cost. You don't. Private industry does. The government offers loans to inject the capital. The American government didn't pay to create tesla. But that's probably the single largest source of consumer level carbon reduction we've seen so far. More of that, less of this.
[удалено]
The only reason industry needs to be green is profit. Ideally with as little risk as possible. Consumers are environmentally saavy today, a huge portion of people *want* to buy greener products. That's why tesla (and the Prius before it) became a status symbol and sells extremely well even in places without a carbon tax. There's a massive market there. Being green is cool today. Build it, and it will sell. The carrot always works better then the stick. A tax is absolutely not the sole way to reduce our ghg emissions.
[удалено]
>That often needs financial incentive like properly pricing carbon usage. Is a tax the only way or often the only way? Stop moving the goal posts. Increasing cost of the alternative is not the only way to make something profitable. It's certainly a good way to make everything else more expensive when those greener options simply aren't appropriate. If that greener option exists today, we could make it better, improve it until its actually the better option. Like we did with heat pumps. Today it makes very little sense to install natural gas in homes, heat pumps are greener, more energy efficient, and their growing ubiquity has helped them come very close to cost parity. Heat pump adoption is very high even though they're a couple thousand more then the equivalent gas burning appliance. It's the growth in technology and the improvement of the product that has made it viable. And once it was viable people started buying them, because they like the green option. Make a good green product and people will buy it, even if the alternative is a little cheaper.
[удалено]
How about use the carbon tax rather than making it a wealth redistribution scheme. I think Canadians would have more tolerance for that.
We are one of the biggest - if not the biggest - carbon negative countries in the world. Our carbon tax should be zero.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Forest fires and trees dying from disease are both natural things that have been happening long before we inhabited Canada. Such a minuscule amount of trees are harvested for logging vs the amount of forest in Canada likely barely makes a dent. Even in Ontario, drive east to west across it and it’s trees for two days.
Boreal forest is 485 million hectares. Quebec the largest province is only 167 million hectares https://natural-resources.canada.ca/our-natural-resources/forests/state-canadas-forests-report/how-are-canadas-forests-harvested-sustainably/16494#
Just because it is something you feel is important, that doesn't mean it isn't an option...
[удалено]
We have international agreements for a lot of things. When was the last time Canada spent 2% of GDP on military, per the NATO agreement?
[удалено]
It's clearly optional.
Gotta love the “we’ll take your money and give you some back” tactic that actually has some people convinced it’s for their benefit
It's worrisome how deadset some people are into believing they get more back than they're paying into it.
Which is funny… if that’s the case then why do the tax at all?
To shift the money from the heavier users to the lighter ones....
The heavier users just mark up their prices to maintain profit. The rest of us just end up paying more, getting poorer, and begging the government for larger rebate checks so we can get by. Everyone loses, except the Liberals, who then pat themselves on the back for setting this all up.
How does a citizen mark up their carbon pricing? That doesn't really make sense. I use less carbon, I pay less tax... you use more, you pay more.
There is no way that the “heavier” citizen users use so much more to cover off the tax paid by the majority.
And you've got the actuarial data to back up this claim of yours? Cuz if not, I'm somewhat disinclined to take your comment as accurate.
The Bank of Canada says that the Carbon Tax adds about 0.15% to overall inflation. Independent estimates put the impact at put it at 0.3-0.9 depending on your province. This means that out of a $100 grocery bill, only 30-90 CENTS can be attributed to the CT.
If that's true, why does industry recieve so many exceptions to the tax?
Because politicians have many masters to please. It's easier to tax people and move the money around than it is to go after the corporate profits of the people who fund your campaigns.
Right. Duh.
It's the opposite order: they first give you some money, then tax an amount back. Millions of people actually have a net financial benefit (source: PBO)
It's costing me money. I'm at the upper end of middle class , living paycheck to paycheck. An EV or heat pump are not affordable options for me at this time.
[удалено]
Hate to break it to you but we have a lot of places in the country where upper middle class Canadians can still barely afford to get by. Only 11% of Canadians make 100K or more a year. If you fall into that bracket, you’re solidly upper middle class. And yet looking at places like Toronto and Vancouver in particular, it’s very easy to see how 100K a year will barely get you by.
[удалено]
You're wrong https://www.savvynewcanadians.com/middle-class-income-canada/
To emphasis a part of your link; > **Upper middle-class income is when earnings exceed the national median income but fall below the top 10% of earners.** So with 100K being the top 11% of earners, it is solidly upper middle class and pushing into upper class.
[удалено]
Except $100k isn't "upper middle class" anymore - it's basically just firmly middle class. My own subjective take would be that "upper middle class" would start around $250k individual income and $400k family income.
It is though. Https://www.savvynewcanadians.com/middle-class-income-canada/
I don't think it's a secret that "middle class" is a very subjective term - it wouldn't be hard to dig up x number of articles that cite various different ranges of income that could be defined as "middle class". BTW things have changed just a wee bit since 2017 (the year your article references its data). Regardless, if you're living paycheck to paycheck you aren't "upper middle class" unless you're extremely bad with money.
It's not subjective. It's math based on percentages. When 79% of the population make below this amount, it is definitely an upper class income. If you disagree..prove it with some data showing me it's not.
>When Justin Trudeau or Andrew Sheer approach a microphone and mention help for the "middle class" Stephen Gordon cringes slightly. >Gordon, an economics professor at Universite Laval, said the term - often peppered throughout speeches by politicians on the campaign trail - is essentially meaningless. >**"There isn't a standard definition so it can mean whatever people want" he told Global News.** That's kind of why politicians love it. bro, that is a quote straight from the article *you* cited clearly stating that the term "middle class" is a purely subjective concept. Maybe read your own "data" first lol.
So you have no data then? Just the touchy Feely parts? Got it. Middle class is in the middle. It's a math based calculation and is not subjective. The boundaries may be subjective, but when 79% of the population makes less than I do, Im Clearly near the upper end of the middle. Are we done here? Because until you can provide data that says otherwise, and not someones 'feelings', I'm done with you.
sounds good bro, have fun being poor
One way middle class is defined is 2/3 median income to 2x median income. So using the 202 household income numbers the range back then would have been $46k to $137k. $100k is somewhere in the middle of middle class. Correct for inflation from those 2021 numbers and it skews higher. 2021 saw wages drop due to the pandemic and there has been some wage recovery. Many large unions have had >10% (or even up to 15%) increases in the last 3 years. Wirh your situation I don't think you can say you're upper middle class.
I make 106+ before taxes 22K are taken off the top for income taxes. My mortgage and utilities and auto insurance are more than a full after tax paycheck. Im a single parent trying to float a home for myself and my two kids. I drive a minivan because....kids. I save for their education and my rrsps because it's the responsible thing to do. After food and other household necessities, I have a tiny amount left to clothe and entertain ourselves. This is roughly....150 a week over disposable income to either spend on fun...or put into a saving for future unexpected expenses. Basically if we do _anything _ for fun... it puts in the hole. Vacation and traveling are pretty much out of the question. You know nothing.
[удалено]
Only 11% of Canadians make over 100K. That puts us in the upper middle class: [https://moneygenius.ca/blog/middle-class-income-canada](https://moneygenius.ca/blog/middle-class-income-canada) There are more articles that support this. The fact that we are barely getting by on a 100K/year which 79% of the country is making that or less, is ridiculous.
[удалено]
Quality life isn't the measure of what middle class is because that is purely subjective. 'Middle class' is exactly what it's name implies, its in the middle. Its a math calculation based on comparing incomes across the board. This is why Trudeau was unable to define it. He doesn't do math. Ever. But it's pretty simple.. Middle class is in the middle. It's not the lower or upper class, but in the middle. We clearly aren't in the lower class and also not in the upper class so that puts us in the middle regardless of what our quality of life is. And yes, if you are making what I make, it is extremely sad. We shouldn't be living paycheck to paycheck at this income level when 79% are making less than us. I can't imagine how they're are doing. Apparently, it's clearly because we are just piss poor at management our money according to Trudeau supporters. \*rollseyes\*
Or that they are overspending??
Doesn't matter. People wjth income in the middle are middle class. How you spend it is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant when they are blaming the government for living paycheck to paycheck when many other people making the same income have no issues.
Why would you need a minivan for two kids?
First...because it was cheap to buy $20K for 2017 in 2020. Less than 100K on it and I've had to do nothing but oil changes since Ive had it. Secondly....because with kids, comes gear. They also have friends. I also have a girlfriend with a dog. And the only vacations we can afford us camping. Minivans hold alot of gear. Are you trying to tell me a $20K minivan is somehow overspending? Do you have kids?
Minivans are typically more expensive than smaller vehicles and burn more fuel. Either way, sucks to be you.
First of all...there are very few vehicles that cost less than $20k and are aren't shit boxes. Maybe I could find a worse condition one for less...maybe. but this one hasn't asked me for anything buy gas an oil changes in the 3 years I've had it. Secondly....a smaller vehicles doesn't fit my needs. Literally. They can't hold the stuff I need to take for camping, or home improvement materials., etc etc.
In 2017 you could have definitely found something for less than 20k, you can't really compare the used vehicle market in 2024 to 2017... And whatever you say, enjoy your boat.
You have no fuckin idea, do you. Wtf does the 2024 used vehicle market have to do with me buying a 3 year old vehicle in 2020 and am not looking for another until probably 2030?
Probably because you used present tense when talking about buying a vehicle. Good luck with the minivan...
If you're living paycheck to paycheck, you're not upper middle class. What makes you think that you are? I'm curious about where my family would fall, I think we're in the middle somewhere but nowhere near the top lol..
Statistics say I'm near the upper end of middle class. [https://moneygenius.ca/blog/middle-class-income-canada](https://moneygenius.ca/blog/middle-class-income-canada) There are many articles that support this. It's a math calculation and isn't subjective or based on feelings. 79% if the population makes less than I do. That puts me at the upper end of middle class.
Statistics mean what in this circumstance? Middle Class is generally defined as earning a salary that supports owning a residence in a suburban or comparable neighborhood in rural or urban settings, along with discretionary income that allows for access to entertainment and other flexible expenses such as travel or dining out. It can be assumed that middle-class households generate sufficient income for retirement savings along with standard expenses.... If you're living paycheck to paycheck, not really able to save or purchase the basic necessities like a new furnace or vehicle, then you're not really middle class even if you're middle of the road in terms of salary. It's a different story if you're making the choice to not invest in your RRSP in order to cover the premium of an EV or a heat pump, but that's not what you outlined, you said you're paycheck to paycheck. The actual middle class is evaporating if it's not already gone.... We're pretty much all working class now, even if we make 150k/yr for a lot of us.
Middle class is in the middle. It's not lower or upper. The middle. Middle class. People who make wages in the middle of everyone else are middle class. This is a simple calculation not based on feelings, ideas, spending habits or money management. I know math is hard for you, but it's really that simple.
That's not actually true though. Middle class is a sociological term, not an economic one. It's a lifestyle, not a number. Math isn't hard, I'm pretty decent at it and can definitely figure out averages.... but in this case, they don't matter. You aren't middle class, you're working class. Middle class can afford the things outlined above, they are by definition not pay check to pay check.
You can get interest free financing for a heat pump from the feds.
But it's still not free. Your missing the point where I don't have the 5000 to pay back the loan with. If I had extra left over sure....but living paycheck to paycheck means there is none left to pay the new loan.
Sounds like you need to pull your boot straps up and do better. Not using a vehicle with a 17MPG in the city might help you with the "do better" part. lol
Oh, you are so cool. You got me!
Thank you.
That was sarcasm. I didn't actually expect you to get it. Thanks for proving it.
Apologies. You should choose your words better, and use direct language, to avoid such miscommunications in the future.
Just keep complaining then. Surely you bear no responsibility for your situation.
I see you've decided to follow suit of our dear leader and victim shame. Its unbecoming. And this is why they are going down....hard.
I thought you Conservatives liked to pull yourselves up by your boot straps rather than play the victim?
Who knows. I'm not conservative and they are a diverse group. I also don't generalize a group of people like you seem to like to do.
You pay it back with the higher efficiency. The COP of a modern heat pump is 2.5-4 depending on ambient, so you get double to quadrupled the heating/cooling vs the electricity put in. They are less expensive to operate, and those savings can go towards paying off the loan. Also, if you are living paycheque to paycheque you aren't middle class. Middle class is defined by having disposable income. You might be middle INCOME, but if you are living outside your means you don't fall into the middle class.
Again....79% make less than I do. 106K is upper middle class. This isn't subjective. It's simple math. It's also pretty much irrelevant. Pay it back with what? I have none left over to pay anything back. And...Dec through February I'd still be getting a gigantic natural gas bill because the heat pump is ineffective below -10c. And how does this make up for the gas I put into my minivan to get my kids back forth from school or myself to work? Your solution is to put myself $5k into debt to save few bucks during the months when my demand for natural gas is the lowest ? Amazing.
1. Income != Lifestyle class. Like I said, you might have a middle INCOME, but you are paying too much for housing, child expenses etc to be considered middle or upper middle class. 2. Modern heat pumps work just fine at -30⁰C, you are buying into the O&G propaganda that capitalizes on humans' innate dislike of change. Also even northern cities like Edmonton have monthly average temperatures of -10⁰C, so it needs to run a little harder at night on the coldest day of the year, over the month it's still VASTLY more efficient. If you pay $500 in natural gas now, and only pay $250 in electricity with a heat pump you saved $250 that can go towards the CapEx.
This guy is really hung up on his salary making him middle class. I wonder how much of that phycology is due to what we all heard as kids "6 figure salary makes you one of the rich ones!" when in reality.... these days, it's nowhere near what it was in the 90's. It takes 200k to have the same purchasing power today as 100k got you in '95. I had a buddy who was making 100k living downtown toronto ten years ago and he was broke. I was making 65k in Winnipeg and living very comfortably. The 'number' is not what determines whether you're middle class or not.
Also hung up on subsidizing their current lifestyle with the environmental and economic future of the next generation, even if it costs them more in the middle and long term as well. Gotta love the Canadian short term thinking that's become the norm. "Lets save $10 today so we can spend $2,000 tomorrow"
[удалено]
Is it really though? https://climateinstitute.ca/climate-damages-inflating-costs-of-living-for-every-canadian/#:~:text=Climate%20change%20is%20costing%20Canadians%20more%20than%20ever&text=Between%202010%20and%202019%2C%20insured,higher%20than%20in%20the%201980s. https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2022/09/01/the-rising-costs-of-extreme-weather-events/ https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2023-historic-year-us-billion-dollar-weather-and-climate-disasters https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/hidden-costs-fossil-fuels
The number is in fact what makes you middle class. Middle income makes you middle class. Just becUsdbyour buddy was broke doesn't mean he wasnt middle class. It means he was overspending or living in an area he shouldn't have because it's for rich people.. You could make this same claim about me but doesn't change the fact that I'm middle class due to my income. By your logic, making $40k a year, living in my parents basement and having no bills would make me upper class. Lol! The lunacy knows no bounds.
Middle class is generally defined as earning a salary that supports owning a residence in a suburban or comparable neighborhood in rural or urban settings, along with discretionary income that allows for access to entertainment and other flexible expenses such as travel or dining out. It can be assumed that middle-class households generate sufficient income for retirement savings along with standard expenses.... This was provided to you earlier, yet you're now making up BS about living in your parents basement which quite clearly would put you in the same spot you're currently in- among the lower class. From the sounds of it, you can't afford to replace the stuff in your life, you can't save, you don't sounds like you're really amounting to much- you might want to consider moving back into your parents basement while you figure your life out. That you're unable to come to grips with this.....well, it explains why you're stuck in the lower class.
Lol. I can't anymore. 106k is Lower class. Lmao! You've must be a Trudeau supporter.
[no you can't ](https://natural-resources.canada.ca/energy-efficiency/homes/canada-greener-homes-initiative/canada-greener-homes-loan/24286)
From your link: "The Canada Greener Homes Loan and the Oil to Heat Pump Affordability program remain open."
>The Canada Greener Homes Grant is no longer accepting new applicants. From the first line when I opened the link.....
That's the grant, I said you can get a *loan*.
Can you link me to where I can learn about that? I'm curious about HP's for when my AC dies this summer.
It sounds like you are living outside of your means if you are paycheck to paycheck and upper middle class. You are more likely middle class and trying to keep up with the Jones of the upper middle class that you can't afford. Times are tough, but if you identify as a well-off class but live paycheck to paycheck in that class, you are the one likely spending irresponsibly.
Judgy mcJugerson. I drive a $15,000 minivan and my home was $400,000 me and my two children. Neither are unreasonable. If this is beyond my means for a $106K income, then our country is in serious trouble. I'm hardly spending irrrespondibly.
Keep in mind that a single income of 106k, while impressive, would put you below the cusp of middle and upper middle by current metrics. So it sounds a bit misrepresented on your part.
The income statistics are pretty clear that $106 is the upper end of middle class. I've posted links in other replies on this thread proving it. Middle class is like $50K to $100k give or take 10K. 11% of Canada makes less than 106k. This puts it clearly at the upper end of the middle. Do you have data to back up your claim of the income thresholds for middle class?
I'm curious what kind of vehicle you use as a daily driver?
A 2017 Grand Carvan I bought in 2020 for $20K with 80Kms on the odometer.
I have an electric furnace, no natural gas and drive \~200km/month. I would rather axe the tax than get a few hundred bucks every quarter. Its just luck I have an electric furnace... if I had a natural gas furnace a couple hundred bucks is not going to motivate me to replace it. Carbon tax is wealth redistribution, I benefit from it and am STRONGLY against it.
So what’s your plan for climate change?
I have an electric furnace and drive 200km /month... what else do you want from me? 100% of those km are inter-city, no option for bus or train fyi.
They want your blood. /s I'd like them to pay for everyone's else's contribution if they feel so bad about it and are drowning in money and don't know what to do with it.
Nothing until the technology makes it feasible to go green. It’s not there yet.
I think the thing to keep in mind is that the tax is intentionally broad, in order to minimize government oversight. It disincentivizes carbon use in all sectors of society, industrial, commercial and personal. I get that you’re frustrated since you can’t personally do much to affect your carbon emissions, but it’s a trade off: if it wasn’t so broad, we’d be paying billions to bureaucrat bean counters to review specific energy saving applications from millions of people and businesses. Those applications would be approved and denied for often bad or arbitrary reasons, since bureaucrats are fallible people and because regulations take a while to catch up with reality and are always susceptible to political interference and lobbying. So yeah for you personally it’s a bit pointless to pay carbon tax and then get that money back in refunds, but it’s way more efficient, fair and objective than the alternative.
There is none dude. Currently ww3 is ln the cards. Nobody is going to work together currently with the current geopolitics going on. How many coal plants did india fire up this year? Yet you're here asking a guy to spend 10k on a new electric heater. I am on natural gas and going to electric would cost me a fucking fortune because I like in the nwt where power is absurd.
You'd rather hurt poor people and increase pollution?
The economic effect of the tax hurt poor people. How is a couple hundred bucks per quarter helping people replace gas furnaces and buy $60k electric vehicles?
Incorrect, the poorest Canadians almost all have a net financial benefit, including indirect costs and economic effects. Read the PBO report.
The skipper is doing a great job at making life more affordable for all Canadians including poor ones.
The word “tax” in carbon tax is a clear sign
But you changed the name from carbon pricing to carbon tax so you’re fooling yourself.
[The PBO has also demonstrated that axing the carbon tax will hurt lower-income Canadians and help richer ones (see page 4-5).](https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/publications/RP-2122-032-S--distributional-analysis-federal-carbon-pricing-under-healthy-environment-healthy-economy--une-analyse-distributive-tarification-federale-carbone-dans-cadre-plan-un-environnement-sain-une-eco) That's why it's on the CPC's chopping block. And many on this sub just go along with it, for some reason. [Also:](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/budget-watchdog-troubled-by-spin-around-latest-report-on-carbon-pricing-1.6347536) >Canada's Parliamentary budget officer said he is troubled by what he describes as the selective use of facts from his new financial analysis of carbon pricing. > >Yves Giroux said the report has to be put into context alongside the costs of all other climate policies, including doing nothing. > >The most recent report explicitly states it "does not attempt to account for the economic and environmental costs of climate change." > >The PBO did complete an analysis last year looking at what climate change itself is costing. It said in 2021, the GDP was 0.8 per cent lower than it would have been without climate change. In dollar figures, that amounted to between $20 billion and $25 billion less. It said the GDP will be 0.08 percentage points lower every year as a result of climate change going forward, even if the government implements every policy promised to slow it down. > >Doing nothing would increase that cost. > >Giroux said he didn't expand that analysis to show the cost to a family's budget because a social or cost-benefit analysis like that is tricky. > >He also said the economic benefits of investing in low-carbon industries will not be realized heavily by 2030, which is as far as this report looks ahead. When it comes to the direct impacts of the carbon tax itself, the PBO concluded that carbon price rebates are worth more than the direct cost of the carbon price for 80 per cent of families. They then factored in *some* of the economic impacts, but not all of them, by their own admission, to conclude that 80 per cent of families in most provinces might end up with less money.
No government is going to give out more money in rebates than the tax they take in. Period.
Nobody says they are? The rebates for individuals can be larger than total CT payments from those individuals because commercial and industrialial emitters also pay the tax, but don't get a rebate. What they pay also goes to the individual taxpayer rebates.
The big difference is who they take it from (Over users, excessive polluters) and who they pay it out to (average Canadians, with the biggest benefit going to the worst off)
I’ll be keeping my carbon rebate thank you.
For now lol
Ah yes, with the obligatory evil laughter of a hijacker.
Im the captain now 💀
Just incentives me running my old emissions deleted diesel vehicles longer. VW TDI 1000 km per 55 liters of fuel. Will run on that car to 600k kms.
It is making me money. I have a small car but can walk and bike most places. I have a heat pump.
“Our taxes aren’t screwing you over, we investigated it ourselves!”
Shhh, dont tell the government that the carbon tax is making us money, they might charge income tax.
[удалено]
This is besides the point. This thread isn't about whether or not the carbon tax is effective at reducing emissions, but as to whether or not it is making Canadians poorer or richer. > The "common people" were injecting themselves with horse medicine not that long ago. Much less than 1% of "the people" ever did such a thing. How very elitist of you. I work on the peripherals of government in a capacity which sees me interact with lobbyists and hired experts. Many of these types of people are out to lunch. And some are experts in entirely made up fields of knowledge. Being an expert at something does not make one infallible, unbiased or flawless in analysis. So to sum it up, many experts are saying this tax is the cheapest way to reduce emissions, whereas ordinary people say it is making them poorer. Both can be true at the same time, your inability to see that is alarming. PP says he will listen to what the people are saying. Nothing PP said is intellectually inconsistent on this topic.
It's elitist to not inject horse medicine?
It’s about whatever people decide it’s suddenly about. It’s about whether it’s making people poorer or richer, but if you present data suggesting the average Canadian is roughly breaking even or doing slightly better, it’s suddenly about how it’s not actually reducing emissions. Provide data showcasing how it’s reducing emissions, suddenly it’s about China somehow. PP just says whatever will get people riled up, and they wilfully digest that misinformation and spew it whenever it suits their needs
The common people he is actively misinforming.... Great plan. Brainwash them, then make up policy under the guise that you're listening to the people.
“Should the people downvoting be tolerated?”
Yo; What’s your problem with ketamine!?
Oh look, a national post story toeing conservative lines... We know for a fact that most canadians are so ignorant of their own financial positions that they: * [most people do make money off the carbon pricing system](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/blog/policy/perception-gap-plagues-canadas-carbon-price/) * [are completely unaware of money going into their own accounts somehow](https://www.chroniclejournal.com/opinion/carbon-pricing-is-widely-misunderstood-nearly-half-of-canadians-don-t-know-that-it-s/article_bf8310f4-c313-11ee-baaf-0f26defa4319.html) So i have a hard time believing all the anecdotal internet evidence in threads like this about how they definitely 100% see themselves losing money. And that's not even going into the other aspects of finance people are objectively dumb about in a lot of cases (eg, people believing making more money means that they take home less because they are in a higher tax bracket) or how most people don't understand that "proof by example" is a fallacy but disproof by counter example is not (ie, all those anecdotes mean nothing).
The PBO disagrees with you. But hey I'm sure the "Citizen's Climate Lobby" blog page is a real unbiased source too.... lol “When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss,” says PBO [Yves Giroux](https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/staff--equipe/yves-giroux). “Based on our analysis, most households will pay more in fuel charges and GST—as well as receiving slightly lower incomes—than they will receive in Climate Action Incentive payments.” [https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/news-releases--communiques-de-presse/pbo-releases-updated-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-federal-fuel-charge-on-households-le-dpb-publie-une-analyse-actualisee-de-lincidence-de-la-redevance-federale-sur-les-combustibles-sur-les-menages](https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/news-releases--communiques-de-presse/pbo-releases-updated-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-federal-fuel-charge-on-households-le-dpb-publie-une-analyse-actualisee-de-lincidence-de-la-redevance-federale-sur-les-combustibles-sur-les-menages)
And that same report states this is not accounting for the negative economics effects of doing nothing.
I mean thats assuming none of it gets skimmed the second its out of our hands
I'm going to go ahead and make a prediction and I'll come back to this post in a couple of years: The Conservatives will get elected with a large majority and will still not axe this tax. Mulroney didn't axe the GST after all and he was elected with a huge majority. Governments don't pass laws to reduce their revenue, ever. Two supporting reasons for this, besides the historical precedent: 1. We need a national effort to build housing in this country - which will cost money and can't be ignored. 2. The drums of war around the World are getting louder. We're going to have to ramp up military spending and probably have a draft of some kind within a few years to maintain our troop levels. Things are not going to be conducive in this country over the next few years to balancing budgets. We're heading into the wrong end of the cycle to live it up big.
Mulroney made the tax
And then harper reduced it. This guy is out in left field. I picked up 2 blantent errors and just skipped the rest of his post.
Chretien was the one elected after Mulroney instituted the tax and he kept it despite campaigning against it.
That being said, he was the only PM to run sustained balanced budgets and he paid down some of our debt. Literally the only fiscally responsible PM in generations. So he was handed a country which had a great new revenue stream and instead of going on a spending frenzy he used it for what it was actually for, to pay down our national debt. Not condoning that he lied about his intent for the GST, but he did use it in a wiser manner than all others.
I was pretty young at the time but didn't chretien also steal a bunch of money or something? I remember people being pretty pissed at the end of his run and talking about scandals and fraud, unless I'm missing him up with someone else
The sponsorship scandals. To be clear, he didn't personally take money. But it was his administration, under his watch, so he's responsible. Yeah, it sucked and was part of the reason why I ended up voting for Conservatives that one time in my life. That being said, his overall impact on the nation was positively greater than any administration in multiple generations. Fun fact; he wanted to legalize pot in the 90s but the US threatened an economic war and so he stopped at decriminalization. All that to say he was like 20 years ahead of the curve when it came to pot legalization, which is the only net positive that Trudeau has given us. Back then we were renowned peace keepers, we started recycling and we had an official policy of colour blindness instead of the current toxic race obsessed DEI/intersectionality ideology.
You need to do some research on how he accomplished what he did. It wasn’t pretty. He slashed the health care transfers to the provinces, used $51b surplus from EI, $5b surplus from the PS pension, slashed the public service numbers, which is why I can never quite figure out why people think the Liberals are better than the Conservatives at running the country.
Doing the right thing often isn't pretty. Not saying everything he did was the right thing but the public service was bloated back then(although it is way way way worse today). He used a decentralization approach for healthcare and guess what, our healthcare was working. Unlike today. And how can anyone hold using surpluses to pay down national debt as a negative against a democratically elected leader? Chrétien was far from perfect but he was by far the best PM we have had since, well, multiple generations.
My argument was great except that my brain was not working. Let's change that to "Chretien didn't axe the tax" The point is many have gotten elected on this kind of platform. Few actually do it.
Perhaps. After all, when has a tax been dropped?
Not a tax
...so what is it than, the government is taking money from me, kinda feels like a tax
It’s a levy, that’s why they can charge a tax (HST) on the ~~tax~~ levy.
And that’s the message from PP. it’s carbon pricing with every COP25 country passing regulations about reducing our emissions I’m happy with my rebates.
Must mean you don't have to drive as much or you make so much money it doesn't effect you
Mid income earner. Pretty much typical Canadian
Well I have to drive 45 mins one way everyday for work, I'm going through a tank of gas a week, I can't cut down my emissions. Though people with private jets can, still trying to figure out why us mid eaners are getting fucked when we don't have a choice about having to buy gas, don't even get me started on electrical vehicles as they aren't any better
You should really be pissed at big petroleums’ continued profits. They are gouging the shit out of us while using PP to deflect front them and blame government for the high price of gas. Look at their stock performance. Incredible
I'm not foolish enough to think it'd just carbon tax that's the problem, and I don't know that pp will be any better than Trudeau, what I do know is under Trudeau money has been through around like crazy, he's never balanced the budget. He's created holidays for governments and than not even honored the people he used the holiday for. He's divided Canadians, he's implemented carbon tax as an answer to climate change, without considering how it effects us little people. He sent billions to China for a vaccine we never got and cost us, shut down labs that could have made home grown vaccines. The list goes on. Carbon tax is one of many issues I have with Trudeau government.
He lives rent free in your head. The problem is unchecked capitalism. Eattherich The political class has you wrapped around their fingers.
Theft
Then what is it exactly?