-1=e^ipi

No, it was introduced because a value-added consumption tax has a less negative impact on the incentive to invest in Canada than previous taxes such as the MST mentioned above and various other sales taxes. The shift to generating tax revenue from a value-added consumption tax over the past few decades, rather than say a corporate tax, has been observed across many developed economies.

There are no economic wizards in that party. They are economically illiterate too. Again, there is no magic point where people go from no having no response to CO2 emission taxes to suddenly having a large response to CO2 emission taxes. There are a variety of ways to reduce emissions (using a more fuel efficient vehicle, driving less, using public transport, insulating your home, eating less meat, etc.) and people respond to prices. The fact that taxes on CO2 emissions leads to a reduction in CO2 emissions has been confirmed empirically by various econometric studies. They are going to replace the burning of coal with coal? And coal produces more greenhouse gasses than coal? Is this a typo? You can use revenue generated from a tax on CO2 emissions to lower other taxes such as corporate taxes. Alternatively, you could use the revenue from a CO2 emission tax to fund a universal basic income. Take your pick at what you want. Either way, the government needs to generate tax revenue, so there is always the question of how the government should collect tax revenue, since different taxes will have different incentives. A tax on CO2 emissions incentivizes the reduction in CO2 emissions. Political parties have been elected over the past few decades all around the world on platforms on taxing CO2. Europe, Australia, Chile, British Columbia, etc. It is very possible for a party to win elections on a platform of wanting to tax CO2 emissions. It's almost like there was recently a federal election in Canada, where the party that ended up forming government ran on a platform of taxing CO2 emissions... There are alternative fuels to other types of fuels. But I don't really know what you mean by an alternative to fuel... You don't understand... Harberger's triangle is a triangle of deadweight loss / harm to society. The point is to minimize the area of the triangle, or rather to minimize the sum of the area of multiple triangles such as by having broad based taxes.

Yes, there is an economic cost to a tax on CO2 emissions. But the cost to meet the 2030 targets wouldn't be enough to offset expected increases in GDP per capita due to increases in technology, education, the physical capital stock, etc. In the case of an "industry pricing", which O'Toole wants, the results of the Ecofiscal Commission suggest that the costs would be more than enough to offset increases in GDP per capita.

With respect to Erin O'Toole's desire for an "industry pricing policy" to reduce CO2 emissions, according to research by the Ecofiscal Commission, this is far less efficient than having a broad based "tax-on-everything" CO2 emission tax. In fact, their research predicts that, in order to meet the Paris targets, that an Erin O'Toole approach would result in a decline in GDP per capita over the next decade, whereas a broad based tax would still allow for an increase in GDP per capita. These economically illiterate conservatives don't care if your life is more expensive. They only care if your life is more expensive and you know about it. If your life is more expensive due to regulation or through taxes that indirectly affect you then they are fine with that.

If the Europeans tolerate it, I don't see why Canadians would not. You just need to articulate why it is a good idea to shift to proportionately more tax revenue coming from the VAT.

The GST/HST/PST/QST is arguably Canada's most efficient source of tax revenue. Far better than the personal income tax or the corporate income tax at the margin. Here is a link to open-access research by Canadian economists at the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy, where they estimate the marginal cost of public funds of various taxes in Canada and find that the GST/HST/PST/QST has a much lower marginal cost of public funds.

1. Not all goods and services are easily tradable. A good example of an untradable service would be getting a haircut. 2. Production located in one country is not a perfect substitute for production located in another country. Multinational enterprises might have a variety of reasons to locate production in a particular country, including access to the domestic workers, distance to customers, access to trade, political stability, taxes, etc. If a multinational enterprise decides to locate in a particular country, it's probably because it is more profitable for them than the next best choice. In some cases, the multinational enterprise might prefer to pay the CO2 emission tax and find ways to reduce emissions rather than relocate production. You don't get a perfect and costless relocation of production to other countries. Which is why I added "in the house of commons." No, they always work. You just get more mitigation the higher the level of tax. There is no magic threshold where the taxes suddenly go from no effect to a super large effect. Here is a fun economic fact. "Taxes on everything" are generally more economically efficient because you can have a large base and a lower tax rate, thereby reducing economic deadweight loss. See the concept of Harberger's Triangle. Unfortunately, the economically illiterate Harperites never understood this. Which is why they lowered instead of raised the GST, one of the most economically efficient sources of federal tax revenue.

Can't both parties be bad? This was not pointed out, nor is it true. There are many empirical econometric studies that find that taxes on CO2 emissions do in fact reduce emissions. It's almost like people and corporations have a tendency to want to avoid paying taxes.... *sarcasm*

It's a Canadian political establishment thing. All the parties in the house of commons are economically illiterate and worship the Dairy Cartel.

Taxes on CO2 emissions are the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions. This is because it allows for competition between different ways of reducing emissions and doesn't pick winners and losers like crony-capitalism does. Admittedly, they can lead to some emission spillovers to jurisdictions without taxation of CO2 emissions. That's why it would be optimal to have a global pigouvian tax on CO2 emissions, that applies to other countries. In the meantime, spillovers could be countered with either CO2 tariffs on imports or CO2 emission taxes that only apply at the margin for sectors of the economy that are more at risk of relocating to other countries. Alternatively, if the goal is to reduce global emissions rather than meet Stephen Harper's goal of 30% emission reductions by 2030, then beyond a minimal level of taxation of CO2 emissions in Canada, it could be more economically efficient to buy emission credits from other countries and pay other countries to reduce emissions. But then if the CPC disagrees with reducing domestic CO2 emissions as the goal, then why did Stephen Harper create that as the target? And why don't any of the candidates or MPs criticize the decision by Harper? It's almost like the CPC doesn't actually care about climate change, but they will say whatever to be elected. So in 2010, they would gladly agree to a 30% CO2 emission reduction target in 2030, because that is in the distant future and the Harper would be long out of power before he has to do anything to meet the target. Similarly, in 2020, all the MPs in candidates will agree to the net-zero CO2 emission target for 2050, because 2050 is in the distant future and they don't have to actually do anything today to meet that target. Even if they do win the next election, they will be long retired before 2050. Agreeing to a ridiculous target several decades in the future has the appeal that you don't have to do anything now, but you can pat yourself on the back at how green you are, and maybe get a few more votes. But it isn't good policy. The level of mitigation that society should do should be determined by weighting the various costs and benefits of different policy. Maybe that means more mitigation than the CPC wants today, but less mitigation than they promise in 2050. But by opposing the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions (CO2 taxes) the CPC has no path forward to make a coherent and believable position on climate change. But I guess it is to be expected from an economically illiterate party that worships the Dairy Cartel.

Erin O'Toole could have a better chance at winning a plurality of seats in the house of commons than Andrew Scheer. - He is willing to march in pride parades and answer questions on social issues. - In his victory speech he appeared willing to try to target and engage with LPC and NDP voters, which would be a very different tone than Scheer. - The speech suggested that he wants to focus more on law-and-order issues (such as rail blockades and not wanting to abolish the police) as well as cancel culture, which could be issues where the CPC could gain support. Honestly, the LPC and NDP seem to be moving in a direction where they no longer agree with equal application of law and with open debate in society. However, I doubt the CPC would form a government even if they get slightly more seats than the LPC. The party doesn't know how to tackle the issue of climate change, which makes a majority government impossible and a coalition government difficult. Also, it is unlikely that you will have an equivalent of the blackface scandal like in the last election.

Even weirder, they endorsed China's crackdown on Uyghur muslims. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt all support it. Edit: See this tweet for details: Maajid Nawaz has called for a non-violent jihad (ideological war) on the CCP because of its treatment of Uyghur muslims and other abuses.

When Harper was prime minister, he mostly hid from his media and told all of his MPs not to talk to the media. He was prime minister for nearly a decade, but never really talked about what he believed and why, nor did he ever show his personality (if he had one). Harper only became prime minister due to the sponsorship scandals, he never actually had any appeal. He was destined to lose once anger over the LPC scandals died down. Then we get Scheer who runs on a platform of changing nothing, exempt maybe being a bigger worshiper of the diary cartel, and unsurprisingly he loses. The next leader may likely be O'Toole, who will also change nothing, and will also probably lose. Never at the rate things are going. In fact, we appear to be going backwards with cancel culture.

The LPC not being appealing doesn't mean that the CPC isn't also unappealing. The Canadian political parties in general are unappealing. With respect to the next election, the CPC tried Harper 1.0 and then Scheer (Harper 2.0). I doubt Harper 3.0 (O'Toole or MacKay) will make a difference. If Trudeau survived the blackface scandal, then he can survive the WE scandal, no problem. There is essentially 0 political diversity within the CPC if you compare it to the political diversity in the US Republican party, to the UK Conservative Party, to the Australian Liberal Party, etc. They represent a narrow subset of the population, but then surround themselves with sycophants and preach to their choir. They can't adapt to changing circumstances (which I guess makes sense being conservatives). They never try to reach out to make a more politically diverse party and be appealing to subsets of the population that may agree with them on some issues. Thus the CPC is doomed to failure.

They get a third of the popular vote due to lack of competition and options in a first-past-the-post system. Not because they are an appealing option and certainly not because they have good policies. CPC members account for 0.1% of the Canadian population. Membership in political parties in Canada is a lot lower than other democracies, such as the United States. Perhaps that is a good indication that the Canadian political parties are very out of line with the political views of the Canadian public compared to other democracies.

I disagree. A lot of people don't see any viable options to voting for Trudeau. Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives don't count as a party; they certainly don't compete in the marketplace of ideas and nor do they try to convince people why their policies are better. They only preach to their choir of CPC members, which accounts for 0.1% of the Canadian population.

Do you realize that Justin Trudeau's first scandals where back in 2012 or earlier, before he became leader of the LPC, where he was charging 'charities' excessive amounts of money to speak at events? Like $20,000 per speech. Often these speeches would not have much content. That's more than a lot of people earn in this country in an entire year for doing far more work.

Any threshold would be arbitrary and undemocratic, which is why I suspect the so-called New Democratic Party might support it... It would be better if parties like the Islamic Party had representation, as they do in the Netherlands. It is better for fringe groups to have their ideas represented, so that bad ideas can be more easily defeated, and so that good ideas can challenge the status quo.

What matters is the long term battle of ideas. Also, I disagree that a PR system would benefit the NDP the most. A PR system would benefit most those without current representation, such as the libertarians. Unless of course the political parties in the house of commons collude to create a form of PR system that disincentivises new-comers to the political arena.

I think that one important factor is random drift of the first-past-the-post system. The first-past-the-post system encourages only 2 parties having power and representation, which creates polarization and feeds into tribalism. Also, by reducing representation of many political perspectives to zero, which is what occurs in a first-past-the-post system, bad ideas often go unchallenged and unchecked. If, let's say, the conservative party were to elect a hyper religious candidate, then this would encourage more hyper religious people to join the party and alienate non hyper religious people. This means that more of the party membership consists of hyper religious people, which increases the chance that the next candidate will be hyper religious. The same would be true if the conservative party elected a libertarian candidate, a crony-capitalism candidate, an anti-immigrant candidate, etc. It would be similar if the democratic party were to elect a centrist candidate, an environmentalist candidate, a socialist candidate, or a woke candidate. This mechanism allows mainstream political parties to drift significantly from the will of the electorate for decades. Because there is little competition between parties in a first-past-the-post system, this means that there is little electoral choice to keep random drift in check. In Canada and the US, we have randomly drifted to a place where there is essentially zero political centre. Also, in Canada's case there is zero political diversity within the parties in the house of commons. This is a result of having leaders such as Harper, Trudeau, and Trump and the direction they have taken things in. A slight change in luck could have resulted in a very different political landscape today. If you look at Australia or the UK, there is more of a political centre and more political diversity within parties, so what we are seeing in North America is in part bad luck and political drift. While this doesn`t explain all that we are seeing, any solution must involve the abolition of the first-past-the-post system.

Not really. I mostly just visit this site occasionally to make snarky comments. I'm not as active as I was a few years ago due to a number of reasons: work, the changes to the editing policy, having a more established set of political beliefs, etc. With respect to the topic, I will say that it is interesting that Michael Ignatieff signed it. It makes sense given the threats to freedom that occur to universities in Hungary. But in the Canadian political context it is interesting. Based on some recent videos of him, I suspect that he might be uncomfortable in his current political party under Trudeau. I wouldn't be surprised if he jumps ship (although I doubt he would join the Conservative party). If that happens, it would be interesting to see how that might shake up the political status quo. Edit: on this topic, I wonder what happened to Stephane Dion. One could argue that he was pushed out of his role in Foreign Affairs in favour of Champagne, who is more amicable to the communist party of China. Obviously, Champage's appeasement of authoritarian regimes hasn't been working out very well, not to mention his monetary ties to communist China. I think that Dion would have supported human rights more. But I guess this helps solidify the control of the Trudeau faction over the LPC.

I think you praise them on twitter, like Trudeau and Singh did to Castro.

It doesn't seem that bad. Oh the horror! People dancing to music, painting art, exchanging goods, and having a good time. Clearly we must send in the military to stop it! *sarcasm*

In the US they derive power from the will of the people. In Canada, it stems more from the insane concept of the divine right of monarchs. In the case of the communist party, they derive their power from having the biggest stick.

@ Rue, I have no idea where your ramblings about invasion are coming from. Also, you keep bringing up legality here, but the concept doesn't apply. For example, the communist party ignores Hong Kong basic law as well as their promises under the Hong Kong transfer. The law is whatever the thugs with the biggest guns say it is (which in this case is usually the communist party of china). We like to dress this up by referring to international law, or have romantic notations that laws stem from a monarch divinely appointed by god, or from a romanticized revolution long before we were born (US revolution, French revolution, Chinese civil war) even though all these revolutions were illegal at the time, or from the righteousness of protecting the best interest of some nationality (be it the turks, han chinese, or whoever); but ultimately all laws and legal systems derive their power from violence or the threat of violence.