Toronto Escorts

Study suggests Liberal carbon tax plan would put more money in Canadians' pockets

Charlemagne

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2017
15,451
2,483
113
John Ivison: Game-changing study suggests Liberal carbon tax plan would put more money in Canadians' pockets

John Ivison

September 19, 2018 7:54 PM EDT

Last Updated September 20, 2018 8:45 AM EDT

“Bring it on.”

That was Conservative leader Andrew Scheer’s response Wednesday to Justin Trudeau’s defence of the Liberal carbon tax and the Liberals’ willingness to fight the 2019 election on its imposition on provinces like Ontario and Saskatchewan that have served notice they won’t comply with federal carbon-pricing legislation.

The Conservatives have made it clear they see the cost to the average family of Trudeau’s carbon tax as their preferred ballot question next year, particularly after Doug Ford’s Ontario government cancelled the province’s cap-and-trade regime and joined Saskatchewan in its court battle contesting Ottawa’s jurisdictional right to impose the tax.

But new research will be released next week that is set to transform the debate.

The National Post obtained an advance copy of a paper to be released by Canadians for Clean Prosperity, a non-partisan group led by Mark Cameron, ex-policy director to Stephen Harper, that promotes putting a price on pollution and cutting taxes.

The Liberals’ Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act requires Ottawa to return tax revenue to the province where it was raised in cases where it has imposed a “backstop” carbon tax in the absence of a recognized provincial climate plan. Trudeau has indicated that, rather than sending a rebate to the governments of those provinces, he may choose to send the money directly to its households.

Research by environmental economist Dave Sawyer of EnviroEconomics suggests that in this scenario most households, regardless of income level, would receive more money from the federal government than they would pay in carbon taxes.

The Conservatives have long railed against the Liberals’ “tax on everything” but the study of three provinces suggests those households — particularly at the lower end of the income spectrum — would end up better off. The amount they receive would rise over time in line with the direct carbon tax, which will start at $20-per-tonne next January and rise to $50-a-tonne in 2022.

Sawyer’s research indicates that the carbon tax will cost consumers more when it comes to gasoline and home heating — at $20 a tonne,roughly 4.5¢ more per litre of gas. These direct energy costs, and indirect costs for things like the transportation of goods, will vary according to income band and province.

But, for example, in 2019 an Ontario household earning $60,000-$80,000 a year would pay an average of $165 more in increased direct carbon costs for energy, while in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where there is more coal-fired electricity, that figure would rise to $249 and $259 respectively.

In line with the rising tax rate, in 2022 those direct costs would rise to $332 in Ontario, $486 in Alberta and $511 in Saskatchewan.

There would be additional indirect costs, which for the same income band would add $74 in 2019 in Ontario ($177 by 2022); $73 in Alberta ($174 in five years time); and $73 in Saskatchewan ($174 by 2022).

However, the study estimates the rebate per household would be $350 in Ontario in 2019, rising to $836 in 2022; $868 in Alberta in 2019, rising to $1,890; and $1075 in Saskatchewan, rising to $2,394. If this scenario plays out, in five years the net benefit per household at that income bracket would be $328 in Ontario, $1,231 in Alberta and $1,711 in Saskatchewan.

The reason households would get more back than they paid? Carbon taxes will be collected not only from households but also from business and industrial emitters, and Sawyer’s modelling assumes that while the federal government would return some industrial revenues to large emitters, most would be rebated directly to households.

Lower income families would benefit disproportionately — for example a Saskatchewan household earning $20-40,000 a year would be $1,864 better off by 2022.

Cameron’s argument is that the objection to carbon pricing — that it will cost average households large amounts of money — is ill-founded, and can be mitigated by smart government policy. Clean Prosperity suggests that per-capita carbon dividends would be highly progressive (the biggest benefit would go to lower income households) and would not penalize emissions-intensive provinces — which, in fact, have more to gain.

It is an intriguing study, and one that is likely to make life easier for Trudeau as he prepares to impose his pricing scheme on provinces that don’t have one (or at least not one the feds recognize).

The Conservatives have been keen to make the carbon tax the biggest single issue of next year’s election campaign, on the premise that when the debate is over taxes, they win.

But in 2015’s campaign they found themselves outbid by the Liberals on giveaways, particularly the ridiculously generous Canada Child Benefit, and they may well be again.

Scheer has committed to meeting Canada’s Paris climate targets — emissions 30-per-cent below 2005 levels by 2030 — but without a carbon tax. That likely means regulation across a range of sectors that, while less visible, most experts suggest would be more complex and more expensive than a simple pricing mechanism.

The Conservatives will hope nobody notices. But the Liberals can be relied upon to point out that, while their plan will put money in the pockets of Canadians, their opponents intend to increase the cost of everything, for absolutely everybody.

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-game-changing-study-suggests-liberal-carbon-tax-plan-would-put-more-money-in-canadians-pockets/wcm/94c270af-568a-4af2-88b4-a4d5d0d0c0d0
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
The right wingers will avoid this thread as well.
No, I'm ignoring it. It is a height of stupidity to push the idea that more taxes, on pretty much everything, will allow me to keep more money. That's just simple math- oh, I forgot, they don't teach that, anymore.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,707
3,405
113
Why is it returning money collected is considered the preferred option to buy collecting at all.

As well, we've heard this song before about various taxes. Somehow once they gave the money there are all kinds of things they find they can spend the money on rather than give it back.
 

LickingGravity

New member
Sep 9, 2010
962
0
0
Although it should emphasize "in comparison to the cost of regulation" this thought process is so deeply flawed its surprising that there are people you buy into it.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,743
17,569
113
Why is it returning money collected is considered the preferred option to buy collecting at all.

As well, we've heard this song before about various taxes. Somehow once they gave the money there are all kinds of things they find they can spend the money on rather than give it back.
Because it will have Canada join the global movement to start doing more about climate change.
Tornado in Ottawa last night.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,149
113
Because it will have Canada join the global movement to start doing more about climate change.
Tornado in Ottawa last night.
Global movement?
Yeah get back to us when the US, China, Russia , India & Brazil get on that train
Until then Canada's contribution is nothing more than symbolic, while making our economy uncompetitive.

If the goal is truly is to try & stop global warming, then every cent collected from the taxes should be directed to developing clean fuel technologies. (Assuming you buy all three parts of the climate change question)
Granny wynn was going to spend all of that loot on social programs.
It was a wealth transfer move with zero real environmental benefits plain and simple
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
Because it will have Canada join the global movement to start doing more about climate change.
Tornado in Ottawa last night.
These Climate Change deniers will not believe that there was a tornado in Ottawa. They worry about their children having to pay for the debts, but are okay with all the dangerous forecasts for the future that their children will be subjected to with respect to Climate Change!!
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
I'll say the same thing I said in another thread when Frankfooter posted a link to this story.

This study is as plausible as the prediction by environmental zealot Rick Smith (repeated by George Smitherman and Dalton McGuinty) that the cost of renewable energy in Ontario would be so tiny that no one would ever notice the difference on their hydro bills.

We saw what happened with that prediction.

Similarly, there was the prediction that the Green Energy Act would create 50,000 new jobs. In fact, it led to a net loss of jobs.

This study is no more believable.

Indeed, the source is a guy who claims to be an "environmental economist." That description is as contradictory as a meat-eating vegetarian. :peace:
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
200,000 jobs were created, thanks to the Ontario Green Energy Act. Yes, around 50,000 jobs will be lost as a result of the cancellation of the Green Energy Projects!!
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,743
17,569
113
I'll say the same thing I said in another thread when Frankfooter posted a link to this story.

This study is as plausible as the prediction by environmental zealot Rick Smith (repeated by George Smitherman and Dalton McGuinty) that the cost of renewable energy in Ontario would be so tiny that no one would ever notice the difference on their hydro bills.:

We saw what happened with that prediction.
Remember when you made a prediction about the global temperature?
You failed, you lost a bet and refused to admit it.

You're the last person on this board to complain about anybody else's credibility on predictions.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
Remember when you made a prediction about the global temperature?
You failed, you lost a bet and refused to admit it.

You're the last person on this board to complain about anybody else's credibility on predictions.
The mods have already made it clear that they -- and all of us -- are tired of your bullshit claims about the bet.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
I love the line in this National Post column that shreds the fairy-tale claim that the carbon tax will make us richer: "If that’s so, why stop at a $50 carbon tax? Let’s make it a $500 carbon tax and we can all retire early."

https://business.financialpost.com/...aus-carbon-tax-will-make-us-richer-yeah-right

LMFAO!

On a more serious note, though, I can't understand why the people who want to move to a "low-carbon economy" peddle this kind of nonsense.

At least some greenies are honest and admit that adapting their proposals means making sacrifices and accepting a reduced quality of life. I disagree with their agenda, but at least they're being frank about the impact.

But the politicians and activists who promote the nonsense about a "green economy" that creates more jobs and more wealth are just asking for trouble.

As Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne learned the hard way, voters will eventually figure out the truth.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,743
17,569
113
The mods have already made it clear that they -- and all of us -- are tired of your bullshit claims about the bet.
Sure, moviefan, sure.
Keep on trying to claim that 0.86 is lower then 0.83 and that you didn't lose the bet.
And sure, try to call the mods on this as well.
Good luck.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,743
17,569
113
You're the last person on this board to complain about anybody else's credibility. PERIOD
Sure, laure, sure.
Why don't you accuse me of lying yet again and then squirm away as you always do when I challenge you on it?
Its a great way to establish credibility.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
You're the last person on this board to complain about anybody else's credibility. PERIOD
This is one of Frankfooter's regular tactics -- whenever he's getting totally crushed in a debate (a frequent occurrence), he posts lies about another TERB member to try to derail the thread.

Indeed, he knows the mods are fed up with his bullshit claims about the bet and that further efforts to try to get Frankfooter to face reality will likely lead to the thread getting locked.

However, let's stick with the debate in this thread and what I posted earlier. Frankfooter says we can't trust my predictions about the impact of energy policies on the economy.

But let's examine his predictions.

A few years back, I said the Green Energy Act would lead to skyrocketing hydro bills. At the time, Frankfooter -- who was posting as Groggy -- accused me of "fearmongering."

Better yet, he predicted the people of Ontario would come to view Dalton McGuinty as a "hero" for bringing wind and solar power to Ontario.

Some hero. McGuinty resigned in total disgrace and his party has been left in shambles.

As for the Green Energy Act, it is being repealed in its entirety. And not a moment too soon.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/re...ad-let-that-be-a-warning-to-green-politicians
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
200,000 jobs were created, thanks to the Ontario Green Energy Act. Yes, around 50,000 jobs will be lost as a result of the cancellation of the Green Energy Projects!!
Oh for fuck's sakes!!! I've been personally involved with dozen of the "green projects". Those are all short term projects that last maximum of 6-10 months. After that, they're serviced by 3-4 guys. The green jobs is a fucking lie.
L
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,743
17,569
113
But let's examine his predictions.
The only prediction here was your bet that 2015's global temperature would never hit 0.83ºC and your ridiculous claim that didn't lose when the temp was reported at 0.86ºC.

That's the record of predictions on this board.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,135
6,341
113
Room 112
200,000 jobs were created, thanks to the Ontario Green Energy Act. Yes, around 50,000 jobs will be lost as a result of the cancellation of the Green Energy Projects!!
More were lost as businesses shut down because they couldn't afford energy costs. Those 200,000 jobs you cite, the majority were likely paid for by taxpayers. Green Energy Act was an abysmal failure, to deny that is sheer ignorance.
 
Toronto Escorts