Discussions

BC carbon tax is a scam and a failure to reduce GHG! Some of the money went to reduce personal income tax, but doesn't make up what you pay in carbon tax. A large portion of it goes back to corporations, and nothing gone into green initiatives.  
BCs carbon tax has NOT reduced the populations carbon footprint.  
Don't be a sheep.  
If the tax collected went into paying for people's solar panels, geothermal, spray foam insulation HE appliances, that would be one thing, but it does not. But, it does help wealthy people subsidize their $160k Teslas.  
BCs biggest export? Coal

2nd biggest export for B.C is coal.

You said "the government is pushing for clean air...."  
 
Shame on them.  
 
Nemisisngr...  
 
Provide your evidence, otherwise it's just a biased statement.  
 
Marpet

http://cleanenergycanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Carbon-Tax-Fact-Sheet.pdf  
 
And there seems to be mixed reviews on how well it works.  
 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-insidious-truth-about-bcs-carbon-tax-it-works/article19512237/  
 
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/03/08/BC-Carbon-Tax-Failure/  
 
http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/07/british-columbias-carbon-tax  
 
http://www.taxpayer.com/blog/bc-carbon-tax-no-success-story  
 
http://www.ivey.uwo.ca/research/research/faculty-impact/impact-archive/vol21no1-schaufele/

This tax isn't for the environment, its to pay for flying all over the world and giving our money away to other countries. This makes our leader look good in the papers. People won't stop using carbon and the rich will still fly to their vacation spot and drive their big Suv. This tax is needed to pay for all the money the boy wonder is spending.

I don't know why a PM who is so concerned with the environment is so big on a carbon tax. Like just mentioned it's not going to stop people's behavior in some aspects.  
People still want items that are cheap (and therefore cheaply made) and to make these things you require factories that use fossil fuels. Without oil you don't have plastic, etc.  
If the tax was being towards funding or subsidizing alternatives then MAYBE I can stomach it. But there is no plan except a plan to tax us.  
Perhaps we should be encouraged to buy environmentally responsible items from accredited manufacturers and then come tax time we can receive a credit.

MARPET: I watch question & answer period in the House of Commons on tv everyday.....there's your proof!

@ Marpet, You know and i know, that anytime that a government states that the funds will be returned to the taxpayer, that all of a sudden they need more people to administer the idea, that every persons tax returns get another set of eyes to scrutinize everything.  
We do not need more government policing our income and everyday lives.

To answer the original question, we are not even close to the Dictatorship that Stephen Harper once ruled. Harper had the personality of a doorknob with no communication. Alienated many world leaders. Canada did not have a presence on the world stage in the past decade or more with that cold doorknob of a human being. Secretive policies, firings of people that crossed him, you think Trudeau has an ego? Look up Harper. Harper's Ego (not talking to anyone) makes JT look like a good person genuinely wanting to resonate with the public.  
 
Trudeau is far from perfect, but at least he is working on creating alliances with world leaders and forming positive communication with world relations. Networking is more important than standing by arms closed as cold as ice like the last twit we had.  
 
 
Did you vote?  
 
Edited by Kellye, 2016-10-08 16:39:16

What we need is a public that takes its MP's to task over the issues that bother them. Since that is unlikely to happen, prepare yourself to pay this tax. What will happen with the money is complete speculation as the PM has left it to the provinces to come up with their own plan by 2018. I would suggest you email your provincial representative to voice your concerns. I can guarantee that whinning and making unsupported assumptions on ebrandon will make no difference.  
 
GrandmaB - speculating that the government wants to stop the airplanes from flying is a wild accusation with absolutely no basis in reality. Watch all the question and answer periods you want, this world cannot run without fossil fuel given today's technology so electric airplanes are science fiction or a product of your imagination. The PM is simply trying to put a price on a compound that in excessive quantities is bad for our environment. If you insist on using larges amount of fossil fuels then you will pay more for it.  
 
I'm all for the tax and will try to reduce my exposure to the tax once implemented.  
 
Marpet

may eventually happen. But there's a long way to go before you can have long range aircraft like the Boeing 777 all electric powered. And airlines are always on the lookout for more fuel efficient aircraft.  
 
And one of the reasons that makes the current gas and diesel engine technology hard to replace is the convenience. When you get low on fuel, pull into a gas station, fill and off you go again. 5 to 10 minutes is all it takes. While for electric, the charge time is in the hours to get a full charge. While good for only city driving, try going on a long road trip. So once you get to the end of your battery range, that's the end of your trip for the day.  
 
Until electric technology is as convenient as current engine technology, electric won't be popular.

Farmers Feed the World said "I have not heard directly from the pm how this tax will be applied. But I will reiterate it will have far reaching effects. Price of gas goes up rv sales will be effected which effects campgrounds. What about groceries?Everything is moved by truck because there are no railroad lines except the major ones. Take off your rose colored small town glasses and look at the big picture. There are families that are 200$ away from missing rent mortgage Hydro groceries. We can not continue to finance a system caters to the vocal minority while the majority are to busy working to put up a fight and say anything. "

"That is why the B.C. Government has taken action by introducing the [b]revenue neutral[/b]* carbon tax. By law, government must show how all of the carbon tax revenue flows back to individuals and businesses as tax reductions. To ensure this occurs, by law the government must table in the Legislature an annual plan that clearly outlines how every cent of carbon tax revenue will be returned to taxpayers in tax reductions."  
 
*emphasis mine  
 
Everything you listed is purely an assumption on your part. You do not know what the final outline will look like and are just playing to the fear of the unknown.  
 
"Myth: The carbon tax unfairly impacts low-income British Columbians.  
 
Fact: A major component of the personal and business income tax cuts provided as part of the revenue neutral carbon tax is the ongoing low income climate action tax credit designed to help offset the carbon tax paid by low-income individuals and families. The credit is paid quarterly along with the federal GST credit and BC HST Credit.  
 
The credit provides an annual maximum of $115.50 for each adult and $34.50 for each child ($115.50 for the first child in a single parent family). The maximum credit is reduced by 2 per cent of net income in excess of $31,711 for single individuals and $36,997 for families."  
 
All taxes returned to the taxpayers and credits for low-income earners. Sounds like the end of the world to me...rose coloured glasses and all.  
 
Marpet.

guessing the details of the Carbon Tax will be at the discretion of the individual Provinces. Each Province I'm guessing can set it up anyway they want as long as there's a Carbon Tax.

I guess I am assuming....just as you are. Since there is a model that is in use at this moment, one could assume others will follow it or use it as a reference. As each province has about a year to implement some type of tax or cap and trade...one could assume that the BC model in use for the last 8 years, would be a place to start.  
 
Your assumptions are based on.....?  
 
Marpet

I guess I'll blame getting old as the reason I'm having a bit if a problem understanding this whole British Columbia tax system on carbon. When they call it revenue neutral does that mean all monies collected from every provincial citizen is returned, and the reduction in the use of something like gasoline is just because of a seven cent a litre tax, that a person is supposed to get back. Cash rebates for the consumer are great at trying to compensate for an increased cost, but what happens if they use the idea of tax credits for business, or even individuals, and those credits are unable to be used.  
Could someone try and explain the BC system in simple terms, cause I'm a little slow lately.

Here is how a carbon tax will effect farming. When the fuel truck comes to the yard _I will e charged an extra 450 dollars for fuel. The govt says I will get a tax credit or rebate to get it back. In the 18 months it takes to get that rebate I will be out that 450 and will have to finance that. The govt will will make numerous forms available and hire people to administer them. When they say it will be revenue nuetral that is code for you get back your tax less govt administration. So in 18 months the farmer gets back 200 dollars of the 450 dollars he spent. I repeat a Tax is a tax is a tax and it will all go to our free spending friends....

First off about dictatorship, I would call it more like a Kingdom with endless selfies of our great King giving our tax money away to other countries. As far as carbon tax being revenue nuetral, that is code for they will spend every carbon tax dollar they bring in. The carbon tax will not be revenues nuetral for the taxpayer just the tax clollector. Mr Trudeau could reduce his own carbon footprint by reducing his endless plane trips all over the world. One of those jumbo jets burns more fuel taking off than my farm uses in a year and at least I am removing carbon from the atmosphere.

BC carbon tax  
So explain why it is in place.  
If that tax is returned to the tax payer, of what use is it.  
If a dollar of tax is collected then returned to the tax payer how did it make that transition.  
It isn't magic, there is a cost associated with returning that dollar back.  
There are administrative costs involved, that i bet are very high.  
Anytime a government says its a neutral tax, be very aware that nothing is free.  
There is a cost involved, and a lot of other government run schemes, and that is what this so called tax is, is that the funds are funneled off.  
Tax credits are a line on a piece of paper that nine times out of ten the tax payer never sees in cold hard cash.  
It is a bogus government run program, that will have absolutely minimal effect on our environment, but will certainly be used as financial number to make the government numbers look good.  
I don't believe in magic, but a lot seem to.

Are we in a dictatorship? This is a loaded question and it depends how you define the terms. In my opinion every form of government, will naturally include some degree of dictatorship.  
You see someone who dictates his position is a dictator however limited that might be. In the question on climate change it is unquestionable that Justin Trudeau is acting like a dictator.  
However I will also say it is impossible to lead without dictating at all, otherwise we could throw out the position of leadership and simply put in a system that operates on majority votes on any and all questions that come up.  
However that is not the system we choose, instead we choose a system that elects a leader to the position with a limited power to dictate the direction of the country. We reserve the right to be wrong and set up a system so after a couple years we can change our mind and vote out that leader.  
However our choices are extremely limited, as every leader of any party has been filtered through the system. We really have no real choice, as the best choice is usually none of the above. Other than that we are simply voting on the the degree of the slope going downhill. Plus the system makes us choose who is more important, our local representive or the prime minister. Of course I think it is more important to vote on the direction of our country I pay little attention to who will represent us locally.

I think the Trudeau climate policy will do one thing and one thing only: drive inflation and make it harder for the poorer people of this country to survive. I think is it is an extremely stupid policy because it will do nothing for climate change. The bigger companies will simply pass the cost downstream to the consumers while adding a little extra to that cost to make sure they gain a bigger profit than before. The smaller companies that are allready suffering now will suffer more or disappear. And the lower class who have no choice in the matter will feel the brunt of the policy.  
While I do think we are being fed a bunch of garbage when it comes to climate change, because the model I trust the most predicts accelerated warming with or without man, and personally in time past when dinosaur were around the earth was quite a bit warmer and thrived. The earth can and would adapt either way. I'm more interested in the pollution that we spew out, destroying our air, water and soil quality. It is for that reason I could potentially support a tax on products that are not green.  
 
Here is a model I could support. A none-profit tax. All profits of the tax go to make alternative options cheaper. (Not in research, I think the results of the tax would drive private companies to do their own research to keep putting out greener products) here are some examples. Concerning gas: every vehicle could be outfitted with a device near the gas tank that would let the pump know what the model of the vehicle and how green it is rated, and adjusting the price of gas to reward the use of a greener model, the money would come from a higher rate to models that are not as green. Every class of vehicle could have its on rating system.  
On food: Food would be taxed based on how much processing the food goes through raising the price on packaged foods while making fruits and vegetables cheaper.  
On light bulbs greener bulbs would become cheaper because of the tax on none green bulbs. But the offset would have to be designed to not to raise the price of products but to reward people for useing greener products. What I mean by that is that the price of gas for the average vehicle would not change but for a none green vehicle it would cost more and that profit would go to rewarding people with greener vehicles.  
Such a system would benefit the consumer and the demand for greener products would drive change. The model that is currently proposed is big company driven and will make the lower class suffer the most, those who have the least ability to change making it harder for them to change.  
The model I presented would also prevent the tax to be used for running any part of the country, thus ensuring it is not simply a excuse to raise taxes to pay for wreck less policies.

According to the BC Ministry of finance, http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/carbon_tax.htm "The carbon tax is revenue neutral, meaning every dollar generated by the tax is returned to British Columbians through reductions in other taxes. "

still don't see where it would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases produced? There might be a very small reduction and that's it. So you get $115 credit on income taxes, yet you would pay much more than that in carbon tax in a year.  
 
The industries/companies won't loose money over it because they just pass the increased cost onto the customer. So they are the ones that will profit since they will be recovering the cost through the consumer and through increased tax breaks.

Rum, I like some of your ideas but chances are that in order to have the advantage of lower prices at the pump, you will have to pay a premium price for the vehicle. Most people with take the cost savings today (lower car price) rather than wait for tomorrow (lower gas prices)!

V-BallRocks said "Rum, I like some of your ideas but chances are that in order to have the advantage of lower prices at the pump, you will have to pay a premium price for the vehicle. Most people with take the cost savings today (lower car price) rather than wait for tomorrow (lower gas prices)! "

My hope would be that every vehicle be rated not just new ones. thus a person driving a newer mustang would pay more at the pump than someone driving an older civic.  
One of the goals in that plan would be to not disadvantage the lower class. the poor will not buy a new vehicle, therefore options have to be available for them to make greener choices when they purchase a second hand vehicle and be rewarded by making the greener choice.  
If it would end up being harder on the lower class, than the entire idea falls apart as far as I am concerned  
 
Now that is how I would envision a plan that I could support. I`m not saying it would be perfect, but I can not support a plan that only serves to drive inflation, and serve as an alternative source of revenue to run the country.

sprinter said "BC carbon tax   So explain why it is in place.   If that tax is returned to the tax payer, of what use is it.   If a dollar of tax is collected then returned to the tax payer how did it make that transition.   It isn't magic, there is a cost associated with returning that dollar back.   There are administrative costs involved, that i bet are very high.   Anytime a government says its a neutral tax, be very aware that nothing is free.   There is a cost involved, and a lot of other government run schemes, and that is what this so called tax is, is that the funds are funneled off.   Tax credits are a line on a piece of paper that nine times out of ten the tax payer never sees in cold hard cash.   It is a bogus government run program, that will have absolutely minimal effect on our environment, but will certainly be used as financial number to make the government numbers look good.   I don't believe in magic, but a lot seem to. "

It is in place to make habits that are carbon intensive more expensive and hopefully get the general public to make better choices.  
 
I am sure there are costs involved and that some people will pay more but BY LAW the government has to return all the funds collected so your assumptions really are just that...assumptions.  
 
I don''''t know what the difficulty is in understanding this but this will be Provincially run program meaning the Federal government will not see any of the proceeds...others who have compared it to a GST hike are oblivious to the facts.  
 
Saying that it will have no impact other than to burden the low income earners is also not factual.  
 
The CTC states:  
 
The 12.9% decrease in British Columbia’s per capita emissions in 2008-2013 compared to 2000-2007 was three-and-a-half times as pronounced as the 3.7% per capita decline for the rest of Canada. This suggests that the carbon tax caused emissions in the province to be appreciably less than they would have been, without the carbon tax.  
 
http://www.carbontax.org/where-carbon-is-taxed/british-columbia/  
 
Anyone asking me what I see happening is giving me too much credit. All I have said is that the Provinces have a model, that works, that they can use to implement their own system. To imply that this is purely a tax grab, especially a Federal one, is completely without merit and an attempt to strike fear and confusion in the general public.  
 
Get the facts, ask the right people the right questions, and put your PM to task to make sure the money is used properly and effectively.  
 
Marpet  
 
Edited by Marpet, 2016-10-09 16:02:53

The incentive lies in the ability to lower your carbon footprint while saving money.  
The implementation of the Carbon tax Hass allowed BC to lower it's Provincial sales tax. If I make a conscious effort to reduce my carbon use, I can save at the pump but I also can save by paying less sales tax and any money spent on the carbon tax can be claimed. The money generated can be used by the province for green initiatives to help taxpayers switch over to lower carbon intense utilities and transportation.  
 
Go to the BC governments page on the tax and read what it says.  
 
Marpet

This may be what some of us are worried about.  
 
http://pics.uvic.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Carbon%20Tax%20on%20Agricultural%20Trade_0.pdf  
 
On page 14 of the report they talk a bit about agriculture, it is mentioned the it doesn't appear to affect the amount of trade that happens because of the tax, but were unsure how it affected the profitability of the sector. Now if I read things right they also said that 100% of the tax would not be rebated. Now in industries that are domestic, if all players are affected by a common factor, like a tax, the competition between producers is not a problem, but when you are in an industry where your competition is beyond your borders this leads to problems on the industry, maybe that is the reason no study or information was provided on profits.

Don't be a sheep.  
If you think for one second CORBON TAX REDUCED GHG or YOUR carbon footprint, you are wrong. It's a proven fact. Google it.  
 
DONT BE A SHEEP.  
 
"We are going to Tax you, but give it back".... BS!

The only way to lower carbon use is to change our lifestyle. Who is going to sell their car or not take a vacation to Mexico. The poor can't afford that already and the rich will fly their jets regardless. A 747 burns 11 tonnes of fuel an hour so saving 2 gallons of gas going to Winnipeg it would take 1100 trips to offset one trip of vacationers. A carbon tax will effect the poor the most and the rich will still burn fuel like there is no tomorrow. Just raise the gst Trudeau ,then everyone will pay their share. We know this tax is only to pay for your free spending ,not going to change the environment.

The aluminum foil is in the drawer...  
 
You embarrass yourself.  
 
Marpet