Should BC Axe the Carbon Tax

[Wilber]

Considering the rapidly rising provincial deficit, I am not expecting other tax rates to go down or further green initiatives as the carbon tax continues to increase. Great politics when times are fat but now it will just go into the big pot with the rest of revenues.

[msj]

Considering the rapidly rising provincial deficit, I am not expecting other tax rates to go down or further green initiatives as the carbon tax continues to increase. Great politics when times are fat but now it will just go into the big pot with the rest of revenues.

I agree that we are unlikely to see tax rates go down further.

Our income tax rates are already the lowest or second lowest in Canada (depending on tax bracket/ corporate etc) so one would be a fool to expect much to begin with.

What remains to be seen, however, is the extent to which the carbon tax is truly "netural" from the government's side of the ledger.

As an individual I know that I'm paying less in tax because of this and that makes me happy.

[Wilber]

I agree that we are unlikely to see tax rates go down further.

Our income tax rates are already the lowest or second lowest in Canada (depending on tax bracket/ corporate etc) so one would be a fool to expect much to begin with.

What remains to be seen, however, is the extent to which the carbon tax is truly "neutral" from the government's side of the ledger.

As an individual I know that I'm paying less in tax because of this and that makes me happy.

Any tax is only neutral until they decide they need the money for something else. That time is here IMO.

[msj]

Any tax is only neutral until they decide they need the money for something else. That time is here IMO.

If they pull in, say, $1 billion in the carbon tax, and give back $1 billion in tax cuts then the carbon tax is neutral.

If they turn around and raise taxes by $500 million because they can't control their spending then that is a spending issue rather than a carbon tax issue.

This, of course, assumes that we are not dealing with a permanent secular decline to the economic base. If that happens then talk of tax neutrality is out the window anyway.

Even at that, the government will tax us one way or another. They always do.

I note that the NDP, if elected, wanted to give me a tax holiday for a year (corporate). They would have eliminated the carbon tax and given this holiday.

We all know they may have eliminated the carbon tax if elected but there is no way that they wouldn't be raising income taxes and other fees to cover off the loss of the carbon tax revenue, the decline in tax revenues due to the recession and the increase in spending and waste that inevitably follows any NDP administration (well, at least in BC - other parts of Canada may be luckier with the NDP).

From that point of view, clearly there is some kind of wash effect between consumption and income taxes.

[Wilber]

If they pull in, say, $1 billion in the carbon tax, and give back $1 billion in tax cuts then the carbon tax is neutral.

If they turn around and raise taxes by $500 million because they can't control their spending then that is a spending issue rather than a carbon tax issue.

This, of course, assumes that we are not dealing with a permanent secular decline to the economic base. If that happens then talk of tax neutrality is out the window anyway.

Even at that, the government will tax us one way or another. They always do.

I note that the NDP, if elected, wanted to give me a tax holiday for a year (corporate). They would have eliminated the carbon tax and given this holiday.

We all know they may have eliminated the carbon tax if elected but there is no way that they wouldn't be raising income taxes and other fees to cover off the loss of the carbon tax revenue, the decline in tax revenues due to the recession and the increase in spending and waste that inevitably follows any NDP administration (well, at least in BC - other parts of Canada may be luckier with the NDP).

From that point of view, clearly there is some kind of wash effect between consumption and income taxes.

The carbon tax was sold on the promise that there would proportionate reductions in other taxes which is what happened the first year. We just had an increase in the carbon tax on the first of the month with further increases each July 1 for several years. I don't see those increases balanced with other tax reductions as long as we are in deficit and probably forever. Once the carbon tax becomes just another piece of general revenue, history tells me it will stay that way. History also tells me that this is exactly what happens to almost all "special" taxes, they are sold on the argument they will address a particular problem then eventually just wind up in the big bucket with the rest of them. GST was supposed to be used to pay down the deficit remember. Just my opinion.

[benny]

The carbon tax was sold on the promise that there would proportionate reductions in other taxes which is what happened the first year. We just had an increase in the carbon tax on the first of the month with further increases each July 1 for several years. I don't see those increases balanced with other tax reductions as long as we are in deficit and probably forever. Once the carbon tax becomes just another piece of general revenue, history tells me it will stay that way. History also tells me that this is exactly what happens to almost all "special" taxes, they are sold on the argument they will address a particular problem then eventually just wind up in the big bucket with the rest of them. GST was supposed to be used to pay down the deficit remember. Just my opinion.

A quiet cynicism may reinforce this course of history though.

[msj]

The carbon tax was sold on the promise that there would proportionate reductions in other taxes which is what happened the first year. We just had an increase in the carbon tax on the first of the month with further increases each July 1 for several years. I don't see those increases balanced with other tax reductions as long as we are in deficit and probably forever. Once the carbon tax becomes just another piece of general revenue, history tells me it will stay that way. History also tells me that this is exactly what happens to almost all "special" taxes, they are sold on the argument they will address a particular problem then eventually just wind up in the big bucket with the rest of them. GST was supposed to be used to pay down the deficit remember. Just my opinion.

If you were to follow the budgets and announcements then you would have seen where they accelerated the tax cuts in year 1 for personal income tax rates and corporate tax rates.

As such, it is a matter of waiting and seeing if any further tax cuts are necessary to make it truly tax neutral for year 2 and beyond.

And no, I am not going to rely on the opinions of members of this forum for such information.

In the end, however, it still comes down to the government needing $X and taxing us for it. That is never going to change.

What will change is the mix - how much from income, consumption and fees.

I prefer high consumption taxes and low income taxes because I like earning income and then choosing (to some extent) how much I will pay in consumption taxes when I choose to consume something.

[Wilber]

If you were to follow the budgets and announcements then you would have seen where they accelerated the tax cuts in year 1 for personal income tax rates and corporate tax rates.

As such, it is a matter of waiting and seeing if any further tax cuts are necessary to make it truly tax neutral for year 2 and beyond.

And no, I am not going to rely on the opinions of members of this forum for such information.

In the end, however, it still comes down to the government needing $X and taxing us for it. That is never going to change.

What will change is the mix - how much from income, consumption and fees.

I prefer high consumption taxes and low income taxes because I like earning income and then choosing (to some extent) how much I will pay in consumption taxes when I choose to consume something.

In general I agree with you on the subject of consumption taxes although for some there is no choice to be made, they are stuck paying them regardless. My point is, all taxes eventually wind up general revenue no matter how they are sold to the public at the time. As we speak, the government is announcing health care spending cuts. There will be no revenue neutrality to future carbon tax increases. It will just be revenue.

[msj]

In general I agree with you on the subject of consumption taxes although for some there is no choice to be made, they are stuck paying them regardless. My point is, all taxes eventually wind up general revenue no matter how they are sold to the public at the time. As we speak, the government is announcing health care spending cuts. There will be no revenue neutrality to future carbon tax increases. It will just be revenue.

Sure, the government will do whatever they must to balance the budget.

The point still remains - if they are going to raise our taxes (for whatever reasons) then what mix will work?

If the carbon tax goes up then the government can keep income tax rates the same rather than raise them.

I still prefer that over no carbon tax and massive increases in income taxes.

[Wilber]

Sure, the government will do whatever they must to balance the budget.

The point still remains - if they are going to raise our taxes (for whatever reasons) then what mix will work?

If the carbon tax goes up then the government can keep income tax rates the same rather than raise them.

I still prefer that over no carbon tax and massive increases in income taxes.

So revenue neutral is now increasing one tax so you don't have to increase another. As I said, it is just another tax.

[msj]

So revenue neutral is now increasing one tax so you don't have to increase another. As I said, it is just another tax.

Well, isn't it? On both counts.

[benny]

So revenue neutral is now increasing one tax so you don't have to increase another.

It may since revenue has to be ajusted for inflation at some point in time.

[Pliny]

And let you spread your ignorant opinions unchallenged?

Most people are of the opinion my opinions are ignorant. I call 'em as I sees 'em.

[Pliny]

The carbon tax was sold on the promise that there would proportionate reductions in other taxes which is what happened the first year. We just had an increase in the carbon tax on the first of the month with further increases each July 1 for several years. I don't see those increases balanced with other tax reductions as long as we are in deficit and probably forever. Once the carbon tax becomes just another piece of general revenue, history tells me it will stay that way. History also tells me that this is exactly what happens to almost all "special" taxes, they are sold on the argument they will address a particular problem then eventually just wind up in the big bucket with the rest of them. GST was supposed to be used to pay down the deficit remember. Just my opinion.

That would be my "ignorant" opinion, as well.

[GostHacked]

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.

For some companies it is cheaper to pay the tax than to upgrade and update the facilities to be greener in emissions.

MSJ

If they pull in, say, $1 billion in the carbon tax, and give back $1 billion in tax cuts then the carbon tax is neutral.

Which comes to the conclusion that the carbon tax is not needed. Just means more jobs for the beurocrats.

in another post of yours

I prefer high consumption taxes and low income taxes because I like earning income and then choosing (to some extent) how much I will pay in consumption taxes when I choose to consume something.

I can get behing this 100%. This makes sense.

Wilber

GST was supposed to be used to pay down the deficit remember. Just my opinion.

INdeed it was, and indeed it helped for a while, until other spending got out of control and the GST reduced by 1%. I have not noticed any decrease in my total taxes because of it. The drop from 15% to 14% total tax (gst pst) really did not help me save money at all. It works out to 1 dollar for every $115 spent ($100 item plus tax) If I spend a grand, I have saved 10 bucks. This is not a saving at all. And when you talk about $50 and under, that savings is even smaller. It is nickle and dime stuff. Petty. The gst should have stayed at 8%.

[Pliny]

Sure, the government will do whatever they must to balance the budget.

They aren't likely to cut spending much. They are likely to increase taxes.

The point still remains - if they are going to raise our taxes (for whatever reasons) then what mix will work?

If the carbon tax goes up then the government can keep income tax rates the same rather than raise them.

I still prefer that over no carbon tax and massive increases in income taxes.

The carbon tax will accomplish nothing to reduce carbon. Taxes on income should be illegal especially when there are taxes on consumption as well.

[stranger little]

Europe has had trouble curbing its emissions with a lackluster cap and trade system. I'm interested in seeing what the Carbon tax accomplishes.

[Pliny]

INdeed it was, and indeed it helped for a while, until other spending got out of control and the GST reduced by 1%. I have not noticed any decrease in my total taxes because of it. The drop from 15% to 14% total tax (gst pst) really did not help me save money at all. It works out to 1 dollar for every $115 spent ($100 item plus tax) If I spend a grand, I have saved 10 bucks. This is not a saving at all. And when you talk about $50 and under, that savings is even smaller. It is nickle and dime stuff. Petty. The gst should have stayed at 8%.

You saved $10. The homeowner buying a new house at $250,000 saved s$2500. If every person saved $10 then that amounts to $10 million dollars per million population. The effect on your wallet is insignificant to you but on the economy it has a greater impact. Your argument makes it easy for government to bilk the unwitting taxpayer of a few dollars and take millions out of the economy.

It might be argued we get a return on that in government services but we certainly aren't going to see a reduction in carbon emissions because of a carbon tax. And as we move away from fossil fuels and reduce our carbon emissions significantly what will the government do about disappearing revenues? Or do they have a vision of carbon emissions not decreasing at all?

[msj]

They aren't likely to cut spending much. They are likely to increase taxes.

The carbon tax will accomplish nothing to reduce carbon. Taxes on income should be illegal especially when there are taxes on consumption as well.

We will have to see what they do about cutting spending and raising taxes.

It is likely to depend on just how bad the recession is and if it gets any worse.

I would prefer them to cut a little, run a deficit and leave taxes where they are now.

As for income taxes being illegal - what planet are you from?

As for you being "ignorant" - well, I will put you back in the disingenuous category.

Your OP and some of your other posts are beyond "convenient" in what you mention while failing to mention other facts.

Sure, they are not blatantly ignorant like some of Machjo's posts but they are far too deficient on facts, imo.

[Pliny]

Europe has had trouble curbing its emissions with a lackluster cap and trade system. I'm interested in seeing what the Carbon tax accomplishes.

Carbon taxes or cap and trade - neither will curb emissions. Changes in technology and people will curb emissions. Environmentalists are not about to go away as I think most everyone is secretly an environmentalist. We simply have to develop ways and means to deal with environmental negatives generated by our activities and a tax grab in the name of the environment is simply opportunism by government.

[benny]

We simply have to develop ways and means to deal with environmental negatives generated by our activities and a tax grab in the name of the environment is simply opportunism by government.

If it was so simply!

[GostHacked]

You saved $10. The homeowner buying a new house at $250,000 saved s$2500. If every person saved $10 then that amounts to $10 million dollars per million population. The effect on your wallet is insignificant to you but on the economy it has a greater impact. Your argument makes it easy for government to bilk the unwitting taxpayer of a few dollars and take millions out of the economy.

It might be argued we get a return on that in government services but we certainly aren't going to see a reduction in carbon emissions because of a carbon tax. And as we move away from fossil fuels and reduce our carbon emissions significantly what will the government do about disappearing revenues? Or do they have a vision of carbon emissions not decreasing at all?

2500 on a house is peanuts. Considering how long it will take you to pay off a house. That is not much of a savings at all. I was not in support of reducing the GST at all myself.

Scrap the tax and just put in huge ass fines for not going greener. Make the fines huge and make them stick. This carbon tax will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions, for the simple fact that all animal life on this planet are carbon emitters.

What types of carbon emissions are they wanting to reduce? Carbon Dioxide, or monoxide? CO2 is something we all breath out, CO is something cars spit out the tailpipe. But yet all we hear is about reducing the CO2 emmissions. PLANT MORE TREES !!!!

[Pliny]

We will have to see what they do about cutting spending and raising taxes.

I think governments have learned not to choke the golden goose. I really can't understand politicians like Obama though. Where has he been for the last century? He is attempting to tax and spend his way to prosperity. Chavez is another anomaly of modern politics.

I am hoping, with the failure of the USSR and the abysmal economies of Western Europe that governments realize they need to retract somewhat. They cannot extract wealth from people who feel entitled to being looked after and don't make an effort to produce any wealth or become disconnected from knowing how their work produces wealth.

As for income taxes being illegal - what planet are you from?

Whoa - the Canadian tax me some more mentality. It isn't an impossibility for government to exist without income taxes. there were none before WW I. If government were limited in it's mandate to what it is originally contracted to do - justice, defense and foriegn affairs it's prime directives, it could do quite well without taxing income.

They should be illegal especially if there is a consumption tax. The graduated tax system we have adopted is basically the Marxist concept of "from those according to their ability and to those according to their need" Funny but "abilities" seem to disappear and "needs" seem to increase under that idea. Ever notice that?

As for you being "ignorant" - well, I will put you back in the disingenuous category.

At least I know how to spel.

Your OP and some of your other posts are beyond "convenient" in what you mention while failing to mention other facts.

I do consider taxes on carbon emissions a tax grab and it is my opinion that people can better resolve social issues or at least contain them better than a centralist government. I would challenge you to mention what social ills have disappeared as a result of direct government intervention. Poverty? Illegal Drugs? Illiteracy? Government has waged war on all of them. They are still with us and we are financing vast bureaucratic empires that seem to be more costly and less effective over time.

Sure, they are not blatantly ignorant like some of Machjo's posts but they are far too deficient on facts, imo.

It is true I do not do much "cutting and pasting". I like to argue my points based upon my own view or understanding of things not on someone else's view. I don't use statistics much because statistics are often based in bias and correct interpretation involves factors not often included in an argument. Besides I hold the same view of statistics as Mark Twain. They are a much more complicated thing than simply quoting numbers.

I would like more agreement with my point of view but don't find it very often. I do like to feel my view has enough merit for me to stand on my own and agreement is not necessary. My concepts are not stamped in cement so they can change but my opinion of government is that it must be watched very vigilantly by it's citizens who should not be lulled into entitlement to rights it can't guarantee and should not even offer to guarantee or privilege to one segment of society over another - including granting favor to the have-nots at the expense of the haves. Forced charity generally turns to resentment on both sides so it is a divisive mechanism that keeps each faction focused on the other and not the third party, i.e., government, creating the resentment.

I don't find Machjo's posts to be blatantly ignorant. Ignorance is a lack of information or education.

[Pliny]

2500 on a house is peanuts. Considering how long it will take you to pay off a house. That is not much of a savings at all. I was not in support of reducing the GST at all myself.

It may be peanuts looked at from the individual's point of view. In the aggregate it is significant.

Scrap the tax and just put in huge ass fines for not going greener. Make the fines huge and make them stick. This carbon tax will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions, for the simple fact that all animal life on this planet are carbon emitters.

Fines make people criminals. And are not justice in my view. What is considered damaging should be corrected.

What types of carbon emissions are they wanting to reduce? Carbon Dioxide, or monoxide? CO2 is something we all breath out, CO is something cars spit out the tailpipe. But yet all we hear is about reducing the CO2 emmissions. PLANT MORE TREES !!!!

I suggested one time that we cut carbon emissions by learning to take a breath every other breath. CO2 would be halved. No one commented.

I don't hear anything about CO anymore. I wonder if it is a greenhouse gas? CO2 is definitely considered to be so and we hear about it. Why would we be worried about automobiles and fossil fuel emissions if CO were not classified a greenhouse gas? I remember reading on Wiki what comprised a greenhouse gas and CO was not one, I believe. Should look it up again.

[benny]

2500 on a house is peanuts. Considering how long it will take you to pay off a house. That is not much of a savings at all. I was not in support of reducing the GST at all myself.

Scrap the tax and just put in huge ass fines for not going greener. Make the fines huge and make them stick. This carbon tax will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions, for the simple fact that all animal life on this planet are carbon emitters.

What types of carbon emissions are they wanting to reduce? Carbon Dioxide, or monoxide? CO2 is something we all breath out, CO is something cars spit out the tailpipe. But yet all we hear is about reducing the CO2 emmissions. PLANT MORE TREES !!!!

Logically, if the tax is set too low to reduce carbon emissions, the most obvious solution is to increase this tax.