Should BC Axe the Carbon Tax

[Pliny]

Well, not being particularly politically correct I think they should actually say what the carbon tax is - It's a shameless TAX GRAB.

The carbon tax is supposed to be "revenue neutral" but it was only about two weeks ago that Municipal Lower Mainland Mayors were clamoring to use it to fund translink.

Globally, carbon taxes are a form of wealth redistribution. It just moves money around and does nothing about pollution and consequently nothing about global climate change - if, and it's a big IF, there is anything at all to it being induced by human activity. There always will be climate change, let's face it. I am not going to argue against doing what we can to keep the playground clean though.

Today at the G8 conference on climate change China and India announced they don't plan on participating in reducing emissions. And Al Gore said he wasn't going to move out of his politically incorrect mansion.

I'm with Bill Tieleman on axing the Carbon tax in BC. Siding with the left on this one. What's he doing though - anyone opposing the tax is probably right wing? I guess he just thinks it is the wrong tax.

[Bonam]

Well, not being particularly politically correct I think they should actually say what the carbon tax is - It's a shameless TAX GRAB.

The carbon tax is supposed to be "revenue neutral" but it was only about two weeks ago that Municipal Lower Mainland Mayors were clamoring to use it to fund translink.

Globally, carbon taxes are a form of wealth redistribution. It just moves money around and does nothing about pollution and consequently nothing about global climate change - if, and it's a big IF, there is anything at all to it being induced by human activity. There always will be climate change, let's face it. I am not going to argue against doing what we can to keep the playground clean though.

Today at the G8 conference on climate change China and India announced they don't plan on participating in reducing emissions. And Al Gore said he wasn't going to move out of his politically incorrect mansion.

I'm with Bill Tieleman on axing the Carbon tax in BC. Siding with the left on this one. What's he doing though - anyone opposing the tax is probably right wing? I guess he just thinks it is the wrong tax.

I think the whole debate over this tax has been way overdone in BC. The $100 "climate action" check I got mailed is gonna pay for my extra gas costs due to the carbon tax for years.

Plus I do think it may have some impact on practices in industry. If emitting carbon costs something, then in cases where it is economical to reduce the emissions it will be done; whereas without the tax it would not have been.

[benny]

Tax allergy can only be cured by capturing economic rents on natural resources.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=14436

[Machjo]

Well, not being particularly politically correct I think they should actually say what the carbon tax is - It's a shameless TAX GRAB.

Strange that. A few at another forum said that they actually pay less tax overall with since the introduction of the carbon tax. Now that's a mighty bizar tax grab.

[benny]

Strange that. A few at another forum said that they actually pay less tax overall with since the introduction of the carbon tax.

Which few, which forum?

[gc1765]

The $100 "climate action" check I got mailed is gonna pay for my extra gas costs due to the carbon tax for years.

Yeah, the $100 was pretty sweet. I'll end up better off, especially since I don't own a car and don't use much energy.

[benny]

Yeah, the $100 was pretty sweet. I'll end up better off, especially since I don't own a car and don't use much energy.

Because one cannot sell what he has already consumed, these checks should go only to those who use less than their share of oil.

[madmax]

If this "carbon tax" is the solution to global warming, you can kiss the world goodbye. Other Provinces are expanding their Provincial Taxes for more revenues. They aren't called Carbon Taxes, but are taxing many Carbon emmitting Products. Energy Useage will not decline because of this tax. Infact, Energy Uses could increase, and possibly the poorest will suffer the most for the increase.

Most people who support a Carbon Tax and expect some environmental good to come from it are delusional or eternal optimists.

Most of BCs Carbon Tax doesn't make any sense other then to generate some alternative revenues for government in the face of declining incomes and lower income tax rates.

The monies got to come from somewhere.

As for the environment....unfortuneately it will continue to suffer without direct action and as long as people get suckered into the belief that this tax is somehow saving the planet.

[eyeball]

Its not the planet that needs saving as much as our economy will need saving if we continue to consume natural resources without putting anything back or accounting for the environmental costs of profit. Carbon emissions are just one metric by which our economy's drawdown of natural capital can be measured, taxed and mitigated. We need more ways to measure and reflect a truer price of profit.

Ensuring the government actually does use these taxes for their stated purposes is an entirely different issue that can only be dealt with by reforming how we govern ourselves amongst other things.

Take the old Forestry and Fisheries Renewal programs for example, there are still hundreds of kilometers of damaged salmon streams downstream of thousands of hectares of unstable watersheds in my region that need to be restored if they are to become productive again to the extent that our region can depend on them for its socio-economic sustenance.

The monies got to come from somewhere.

This is even truer in the context of our economy. You can have a natural ecosystem without a human economy but you can't have it the other way around.

The solution as I see it remains the same. We need meaningful regional self-governing mechanisms that virtually border on being autonomous that are located away from the centralized political centers where corruption can better thwart the good intentions of things like carbon taxes or the forestry and fishery renewal programs I mentioned. Note these programs were sold as not just being temporary make work programs they were intended to re-establish fisheries and forestry sectors in our local and regional economy. That this turned into bullshit shouldn't detract from the fact the ideas behind these programs were and still are good one's.

Edited July 11, 2009 by eyeball

[Pliny]

Strange that. A few at another forum said that they actually pay less tax overall with since the introduction of the carbon tax. Now that's a mighty bizar tax grab.

It's all a shell game.

Is government going to shoot itself in the foot by taxing disappearing "assets"? By taxing carbon emissions they become an asset to government. Government then, in order to maintain revenues, must discourage improvements to energy efficiency and pollution. Carbon taxes will act as a disincentive to government.

Do oil companies have an incentive to eliminate the internal combustion engine or find non-polluting substitutes for gas? They haven't and they don't. Oil being a non-renewable resource is dictating to them the necessity - not Environmentalists. Governments in the world own 80% of all oil reserves, so I have heard, and they also have no incentive to eliminate the internal combustion engine or implement alternate forms of fuel. The depletion of the resources is the only thing dictating their environmental policies. It means oil and gas will be around until alternative revenues are in place.

The government, after all, is too big to fail.

The placement of oil and gas as a secondary or even tertiary form of preferred energy would occur gradually with the development of replacement technologies. Government will only retard the development of a "correct" technology, by correct meaning nonpolluting and efficient. It will encourage lower quality alternatives because a workable technology replacing oil and gas entirely would upset the global social structure and current tax revenues, and the concentration of power could shift from the cold hands that currently hold the reins.

[Machjo]

Which few, which forum?

Canadiancontent.net. I can't remember which said it, but if you start a thread on this there, a few BCers there say will come to its defence and say they actually have benefitted from it, though I'm guessing perhaps they have relatively carbon-free lifestyles? I don't know.

[Machjo]

Yeah, the $100 was pretty sweet. I'll end up better off, especially since I don't own a car and don't use much energy.

There ya go. Seems it's not much of a tax grab for some on this forum too.

[Machjo]

Actually, we should learn from Germany. Sonce the 80s it's been going greener, and now photovoltaic cell technology industries are booming, private home owners are planting them on their roofs as an investment for their retirement. And apparently, Canada doesn't produce one solar cell nationwide if I understood correctly. This was on the Fifth estate yesterday, criticizing Ontario's electric authority for complete incompetence. Some farmers in Ontario tried to connect ot the grid, but just got tangled in government bureaucracy. One farmer produces enough biofuels for quite a few houses, yet can't connect to the grid! In Germany, the law would do everthing to ensure he connects, and reward him for it too!

One criticism is that the Ontario power authority is too concerned that it would not be able to 'control' such a grid.

Seriously now, is their job to 'control' or produce?

[benny]

Canadiancontent.net. I can't remember which said it, but if you start a thread on this there, a few BCers there say will come to its defence and say they actually have benefitted from it, though I'm guessing perhaps they have relatively carbon-free lifestyles? I don't know.

I'm always in search of brighter people. Thank you for the reference!

[Machjo]

I should make a point about any kind of tax shift. Even though it may be revenue neutral overall, it still doesn't change the fact that different things are being taxed. So a person with a high income and low carbon consumption would certainly benefit from such a tax (reduced income tax and increased gas tax). On the other hand, a low income earner with a big gas guzzling car would certainly feel the pinch. You can only lower his income tax to zero percent at most, but he'll certainly feel the gas hike. Any kind of revenue-neutral tax shift is doing just that, shifting taxes. So it's natural that some groups will see their taxes increase, and others will see them decrease.

[Machjo]

I'm always in search of brighter people. Thank you for the reference!

My pleasure. And like in this forum, we have quite a variety there, left wing, right wing, and a few non-partisan too. A good mix overall.

[msj]

The thing about threads like this is that the usual suspects come out an spout off without providing any facts.

So, for the comments regarding tax neutrality see what is meant by tax neutrality in the link below.

No, it does not mean that each individual will see a perfect wash - the increase in carbon tax cancelled out with the decrease in income taxes and/or receipt of the annual "climate action dividend."

It means that you may come out ahead if you reduce your consumption of fossil fuels or you may come out behind if you don't.

More importantly, it means that the government is supposed to decrease other taxes to offset the amount of tax that the carbon tax brings in. We'll have to see how effective this is over time.

For the comments about low income people not getting any benefit if they don't pay income tax anyway - see the annual "climate action dividend."

See link, do math, and stop being so bloody disingenuous.

[benny]

The thing about threads like this is that the usual suspects come out an spout off without providing any facts.

So, for the comments regarding tax neutrality see what is meant by tax neutrality in the link below.

No, it does not mean that each individual will see a perfect wash - the increase in carbon tax cancelled out with the decrease in income taxes and/or receipt of the annual "climate action dividend."

It means that you may come out ahead if you reduce your consumption of fossil fuels or you may come out behind if you don't.

More importantly, it means that the government is supposed to decrease other taxes to offset the amount of tax that the carbon tax brings in. We'll have to see how effective this is over time.

For the comments about low income people not getting any benefit if they don't pay income tax anyway - see the annual "climate action dividend."

See link, do math, and stop being so bloody disingenuous.

Not all posters here are disingenuous.

[Machjo]

See link, do math, and stop being so bloody disingenuous.

You may have forgotten that this is the internet, so not all of us live in BC. I wasn't aware that there was a dividend. Fine, that doesn't make me disingenuous. Let's not be so presumptuous.

[benny]

You may have forgotten that this is the internet, so not all of us live in BC. I wasn't aware that there was a dividend. Fine, that doesn't make me disingenuous. Let's not be so presumptuous.

Bonam has called this dividend a "check"!

[msj]

You may have forgotten that this is the internet, so not all of us live in BC. I wasn't aware that there was a dividend. Fine, that doesn't make me disingenuous. Let's not be so presumptuous.

Then let's be more accurate and change it to "ignorant" instead.

In fact, that word probably is more accurate for the lot of you.

[benny]

Then let's be more accurate and change it to "ignorant" instead.

In fact, that word probably is more accurate for the lot of you.

Accuracy comes with quoting the posters.

[Pliny]

Then let's be more accurate and change it to "ignorant" instead.

In fact, that word probably is more accurate for the lot of you.

Yeah, I wouldn't waste my time here if I were you.

[msj]

Yeah, I wouldn't waste my time here if I were you.

And let you spread your ignorant opinions unchallenged?

[benny]

And let you spread your ignorant opinions unchallenged?

Don't wait!