That's literally the point of an election though, which is the discussion I've been involved in. The objective isn't to walk in and either vote for the current guy if you things are ok or take a random stab in the paper because you just want change and don't want speculate what the others might do. Ideally you go to the poles and whether you're happy with the current leader or not, you should be voting for who think will do the best job for the next term. Or, as is more usually the case, who you think will do the least bad job. Or, should you be so inclined, you only consider your own representative but then you're basically doing the same thing at a more local level.
If you get the math, then you know saying scrapping it because low income families are under pressure doesn't make sense, because they're coming out ahead on average. I'm way behind, but that's the entire point. I'm in the 5th quartile, I'm supposed to be subsidizing the poor. That's why I pay in taxes every year what two average families earn gross. I would much prefer that taxes were spent better and there was less waste, but that's not what PP is talking about. He wants to give me back ~$1900 so that low income families can pay an extra ~$400, and that does not sound like a good policy if the objective, as he claims it is, is to relieve pressure from low income earners. It goes directly against that objective.
And yes, your rural. You can't walk everywhere and it takes you a lot of miles and so you won't get a big rebate. That's the whole point. It's to pressure those of us who are being callous with energy to do better and reduce our bills. People like us are exactly the target of carbon taxes. Us and corporations. Because unlike the poor, who are walking and who are taking public transit because they can't afford a car and also can't afford to commute far because they don't have the time to work their 2-3 jobs they need to work to pay the bills, we are using way more energy and spending far more carbon.
Your arguments aren't against carbon tax, as much as you think they are, your arguments are literally proving the point.
This is Poillievre playing US Republican-style politics. Convince the masses that something which is helping them is bad for them, fear-monger by calling it socialism and casually using it interchangeably with communism, and get them to vote so that the people who are actually paying, those who are far better off financially and the corporations, who are making record profits, get nice tax breaks and the middle class is further eroded. It's 100% ideological and I don't get how anyone that's educated can't see that. He's going to help ease the financial burdens of the poor by taking money away from them and giving it back to the rich and corporations? It's a ridiculous assertion. It's worse than Reaganomics. Poillievrenomics are worse. And Poillievrenomics is worse than Justinomics too. Because trickle down isn't a real thing and he's just going to many the rich richer and richer and richer, just in time for automation to render any chance of class change or the acquisition of generational wealth impossible.
You don't eat meat? You don't drive a car? I bet you spend more gas cutting your lawn than I do since I don't have a lawn. I bet you use more clean water in a month then I do since I have nothing to water. You never get anything delivered? Or pick anything up? It's getting shipped to the city first, then more miles are added on getting it to your house.
Unless you're living like the Amish, it's doubtful your impact is smaller than any one individual's living in the city. Almost certainly your impact is higher. You just have more trees eating your carbon. You live in a carbon sink. But again, that's a benefit to you that most of us would kill to have.
It's a sticky wicket. And it's not as simple as "urban dirty, rural clean", or "urban cheap, rural expensive" which is one reason I gave up Conservatism and Liberalism, gave up Capitalism and Communism, for Democratic Socialism. Because we're all in this together and we can all point fingers all day long, but pointing fingers doesn't resolve the problems of today. Which is why when all a guy can do it point fingers, whine, and disingenuously claim he's going to ease the financial burdens of the poor by taking money away from them, I call him out for being an asshat.
You've certainly changed my opinion.
