Unheralded "Eco-Tax" hits Ontario shoppers

[Argus]

You can be forgiven if you've never heard of the "eco fee" Ontario introduced. The McGuinty government has thus far done just about nothing to tell people about it. It was slapped on tires in April, and on July 1st began to take affect on a whole host of other products, basically anything which is considered to be environmentally unfriendly - from electronics to dishwasher detergent, from lightbuilbs to windshield washer fluid and hair spray.

But in typical lying weaselly manner, McGuinty says it's not a tax. Oh no, it's for disposal of environmentally unfriendly substances.

And who was paying for that before? And btw, does this mean that when you take, say, fluerescant light builbs to the hazardous waste disposal site they won't charge you? Yeah, right!

So basically, the Ontario government is doing nothing new with this fee. It's substituting "tax" dollars to pay for a program with a "fee". But don't worry, it's not a tax! Oh no! As for how much the fee is, I can't figure it out, personally. It depends on the material and the amount. But it seems to be from 5%- 13%. And of course, this is in addition to the HST.

Eco Fee not a tax. Really! Honestly! Just a... fee

[capricorn]

Thanks for this thread Argus. As I posted in the HST thread, many of the items subject to the eco tax are also subject to the HST. So, add hst to the eco tax. See the cash register receipt in the following article.

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/833510--new-eco-fees-catching-consumers-by-surprise#article

The newest tax grab sprung on us by McGuinty.

[lictor616]

You can be forgiven if you've never heard of the "eco fee" Ontario introduced. The McGuinty government has thus far done just about nothing to tell people about it. It was slapped on tires in April, and on July 1st began to take affect on a whole host of other products, basically anything which is considered to be environmentally unfriendly - from electronics to dishwasher detergent, from lightbuilbs to windshield washer fluid and hair spray.

But in typical lying weaselly manner, McGuinty says it's not a tax. Oh no, it's for disposal of environmentally unfriendly substances.

And who was paying for that before? And btw, does this mean that when you take, say, fluerescant light builbs to the hazardous waste disposal site they won't charge you? Yeah, right!

So basically, the Ontario government is doing nothing new with this fee. It's substituting "tax" dollars to pay for a program with a "fee". But don't worry, it's not a tax! Oh no! As for how much the fee is, I can't figure it out, personally. It depends on the material and the amount. But it seems to be from 5%- 13%. And of course, this is in addition to the HST.

Eco Fee not a tax. Really! Honestly! Just a... fee

Green communism...

Anyone who has read the Copenhagen treaty literature, knows that the climate will be used as a pretext to end what little freedoms we still have, to organise a great big "commune" à la Soviet Russia.

Already there are plans underway for a GREEN POLICE in the US, who will have the right to strip search, any commerce at any time with no compensation, impose fines, arrests...

But, Westerners, and in particular Canadians and Americans, have long since been irrational and often the willing dupes of every scheme meant to injure them.

We stopped being viable species of mammalian life after the 50's. at this progression taxation in canada will be in the mid 80% in the next 20+ years. After that we`ll be able to stop pretending that we didn't turn communist.

[Michael Hardner]

If we force them to show us where the money is going, then they can't hide from us.

As it is, this sounds like the charging for a service already provided from the existing tax base.

[myata]

You can be forgiven if you've never heard of the "eco fee" Ontario introduced. The McGuinty government has thus far done just about nothing to tell people about it. It was slapped on tires in April, and on July 1st began to take affect on a whole host of other products, basically anything which is considered to be environmentally unfriendly - from electronics to dishwasher detergent, from lightbuilbs to windshield washer fluid and hair spray.

Let's answer the principal question: if sophisticated or costly effort is required to dispose of your refused products, should it be done? And who should be picking up the tub?

But in typical lying weaselly manner, McGuinty says it's not a tax. Oh no, it's for disposal of environmentally unfriendly substances.

See above. Should electronics, tires, etc be recycled? Or kept summarily dumped in the dumps (which we're running out of space for, and surprisingly, nobody, yourself included, wants to have anywhere near their place of living)?

And who was paying for that before? And btw, does this mean that when you take, say, fluerescant light builbs to the hazardous waste disposal site they won't charge you? Yeah, right!

Well, there's no miracles, is there? Because nobody was paying to recycle your garbage it went straight there, in the dump!

Edited July 8, 2010 by myata

[Topaz]

First of all, the PC's brought this in, in 2002 and the Liberals are following it up, so lets hear what the PC's say about it! As far as recycling, we all know it has to be done but its always the consumers that pay. Let the Corporate world take responsibility for their own products, even when we are done with them.

[Argus]

Well, there's no miracles, is there? Because nobody was paying to recycle your garbage it went straight there, in the dump!

As far as I've been able to determine there are NO new programs intiated or financed because of this "eco tax". It is simply a new, stealth tax which will be paying for things which taxes used to be paying.

[William Ashley]

As opposed to what landfill fee?

Or both?

I'm opposed to taxes in general.

This would be a municipal waste disposal issue.

Why isn't it just reflected in municipal costs?

Edited July 8, 2010 by William Ashley

[myata]

As far as recycling, we all know it has to be done but its always the consumers that pay. Let the Corporate world take responsibility for their own products, even when we are done with them.

We only way to achieve that without extra "fee" covering the cost of responsibility would be to dictate the prices to the market. I.e. you (manufacturer) do more for the same end price.

The only practical choices there are here: 1) dump, no recycling and no extra cost; 2) make the party responsible for the product pay for its disposal. Now, who would be that party? "The corporate world"? Or I myself, when I decided that I need to buy it?

[eyeball]

In the spirit of the so-called flat tax, I like the idea that we should tax consumption but not income. At least I'd feel like I have some control that I can actually see and measure instead of the ever present gnawing conviction I'm being screwed.

You'd think politicians of all people would want a simplified system that doesn't cause so many people to be pissed off all the time.

Edited July 8, 2010 by eyeball

[capricorn]

If we force them to show us where the money is going, then they can't hide from us.

McGuinty is hiding behind Stewardship Ontario to remain unaccountable on this latest tax grab and Stewardship Ontario is passing on the responsibility for the tax to industry.

According to Stewardship Ontario it has “no authority over how stewards (i.e., industries) manage the fees within their operations” but one of their options is to “pass the cost on to retailers.”

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2010/07/06/14628816.html

We will never know how much the Province will collect from the sales tax applied to these eco taxes or see measurable results from Stewardship Ontario.

As it is, this sounds like the charging for a service already provided from the existing tax base.

Exactly. I heard examples on the radio. There will something like $0.13 eco tax on a box of detergent, plus sales tax on that amount. We were already placing the empty box in the recycling bin to be recycled, a program our garbage taxes already cover. Why this new tax on detergent? What will be done differently with the empty box? The Liberals can't answer such simple questions other than to say we have to reduce the hazardous material in the landfill. Also, with regard to prescription pills, we ingest the pills and there is no waste to deal with. Why an eco tax on these pharmaceuticals? One of McGuinty's pals was interviewed and couldn't answer these simple questions. It always came back to the spin that the Liberals are somehow going to save our environment with these eco taxes. Bullshit.

The truth is, the Liberals don't trust us to deal with hazardous waste in a conscientious way and are determined to make us pay big time because they think we're ignorant and uncaring of the environment.

Edit to add: see my post above for the cash register receipt on Palmolive soap.

Edited July 8, 2010 by capricorn

[myata]

Exactly. I heard examples on the radio. There will something like $0.13 eco tax on a box of detergent, plus sales tax on that amount. We were already placing the empty box in the recycling bin to be recycled, a program our garbage taxes already cover. Why this new tax on detergent? What will be done differently with the empty box? The Liberals can't answer such simple questions other than to say we have to reduce the hazardous material in the landfill. Also, with regard to prescription pills, we ingest the pills and there is no waste to deal with. Why an eco tax on these pharmaceuticals? One of McGuinty's pals was interviewed and couldn't answer these simple questions. It always came back to the spin that the Liberals are somehow going to save our environment with these eco taxes. Bullshit.

I'm sure there can be all kind of examples, but what about serious ones like thrown out electronics; investments to clean up water from pharmaceutical contamination by all the clueless people who dump unused or expired pills in the toilet? tires? used engine oil? and any number of such things. How's the "existing tax base" going to pay for something that never existed before? Of course the best way to encourage even slightest thinking about environmental consequences of our choices is to include the full cost of recovery into the price of product. If we want to have any chance of moving toward a sustainable society, it's a must economic truth that has to be incorporated into practice now. Good stuff that somebody actually has the courage to do it, rather than useless and endless discussions, studies, reports, etc, blah, yada all the useless and endless verbal ball game that's taking by far most of our active resources now.

Now, where I'm going to have some concerns is how efficiently these extra funds will be handled. Aren't looking for them to sponsor another expensive and useless consultancy a la e-Health Ontario.

[capricorn]

Good stuff that somebody actually has the courage to do it, rather than useless and endless discussions, studies, reports, etc, blah, yada all the useless and endless verbal ball game that's taking by far most of our active resources now.

What's good about a government that has been derelict in its duty to develop alternate technologies of waste management that would have already addressed ways to safely dispose of hazardous waste. And I mean all governments of all political stripes, not just the Liberals. Successive governments have fallen down on their duty to properly address waste management now the only way they think they can deal with the problem is to tax us to death. It's time to move into the 21st century.

Now, where I'm going to have some concerns is how efficiently these extra funds will be handled. Aren't looking for them to sponsor another expensive and useless consultancy a la e-Health Ontario.

Ditto.

[Machjo]

You can be forgiven if you've never heard of the "eco fee" Ontario introduced. The McGuinty government has thus far done just about nothing to tell people about it. It was slapped on tires in April, and on July 1st began to take affect on a whole host of other products, basically anything which is considered to be environmentally unfriendly - from electronics to dishwasher detergent, from lightbuilbs to windshield washer fluid and hair spray.

But in typical lying weaselly manner, McGuinty says it's not a tax. Oh no, it's for disposal of environmentally unfriendly substances.

And who was paying for that before? And btw, does this mean that when you take, say, fluerescant light builbs to the hazardous waste disposal site they won't charge you? Yeah, right!

So basically, the Ontario government is doing nothing new with this fee. It's substituting "tax" dollars to pay for a program with a "fee". But don't worry, it's not a tax! Oh no! As for how much the fee is, I can't figure it out, personally. It depends on the material and the amount. But it seems to be from 5%- 13%. And of course, this is in addition to the HST.

Eco Fee not a tax. Really! Honestly! Just a... fee

I actually support this idea in principle as it makes it more user pay. However, I hope this means the provincial debt can be paid off more quickly so that our income taxes can start dropping to compensate.

[Machjo]

First of all, the PC's brought this in, in 2002 and the Liberals are following it up, so lets hear what the PC's say about it! As far as recycling, we all know it has to be done but its always the consumers that pay. Let the Corporate world take responsibility for their own products, even when we are done with them.

That could be a solution too. But what happens if the company goes bankrupt?And even if it doesn't go bankrupt, don't you think it will just pass the costs onto the consumer too?

One solution to the bankruptcy question could be for the company to have to pay a certain fee to the government for each product sold, with the government giving the money back for each product taken back by the company. Perhaps it could be kept in a fund. That way, if the company does go bankrupt, then any other business or organization willing to take responsibility for the product could get the money back too. I could support such an idea if well implemented, so long as we're not fooled into thinking that it won't push prices up.

[Remiel]

I think I may be with Argus on this one. It is not that there is a new tax that I oppose in principle, but I object to the stealth method by which the government is implementing (or pretending to implement, a la G20 police powers) these new measures. Of course, there is no way in hell I will be voting Conservative (and the Conservative will get elected in my riding again anyway), but unless the Liberal candidate is so strong as an individual that I should consider voting for them no matter what party they were in, I do not think I will be voting for them either.

[capricorn]

Some consumers are reporting they were charged an eco tax on kleenex tissues and paper towels. This is getting ridiculous.

[myata]

Some consumers are reporting they were charged an eco tax on kleenex tissues and paper towels. This is getting ridiculous.

What is needed here is a full transparency. Which products are affected, with what justificaiton, how much is collected, and where it is going. Looks like once again, as with proportional vote referendum, the government is seriously failing the communication responsibility.

[Michael Hardner]

What is needed here is a full transparency. Which products are affected, with what justificaiton, how much is collected, and where it is going. Looks like once again, as with proportional vote referendum, the government is seriously failing the communication responsibility.

The old ways of organizing government aren't working anymore. People are rightly demanding to know where the money goes, and the technology is there to provide us those numbers.

[myata]

The old ways of organizing government aren't working anymore. People are rightly demanding to know where the money goes, and the technology is there to provide us those numbers.

Indeed, and the less competion is there in the political system, the less like it is to ever happen.

[capricorn]

The old ways of organizing government aren't working anymore.

I think there is something seriously wrong when a government can create an agency like Stewardship Ontario that has the power to levy taxes without debate in the Legislative Assembly.

What is an eco fee?

That’s where the environmental fee – sometimes referred to an “eco fee” – comes in. In many cases, the costs of recycling products that are covered under Orange Drop have already been absorbed into the sticker price. In others, stewards pass the fee onto retailers who may make the cost transparent by itemizing it on your cash register receipt. You may already have noticed a separate “environmental” or “eco” fee added to the price of things like solvents, antifreeze, fluorescent bulbs or fertilizer at checkout. When you pay this fee, you’re helping ensure that these products are collected, recycled or reused or, when that’s not possible, disposed of in the most environmentally friendly way.

---

Is this a tax?

These fees are not a tax. Stewardship Ontario is not government, although we are regulated by government. None of the money collected goes to government. And every cent we receive from our stewards is used to pay for a program that will mean less waste in landfill, less damage to our waterways – and a better future for generations to come.

http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/consumers/what-we-do/mhswenvironmental-fees?path[nid]=2

This is the same game McGuinty played when he introduced the health tax. (Which by the way went into general revenue, not the health care envelope). He said it's not a tax, it's a premium. Once again, we're being manipulated and lied to.

People are rightly demanding to know where the money goes, and the technology is there to provide us those numbers.

As far as I know, Stewardship Ontario is managed by a Council whose members are appointed by the provincial government and it audits itself. I'm researching who exactly is on this Council.

[Michael Hardner]

As far as I know, Stewardship Ontario is managed by a Council whose members are appointed by the provincial government and it audits itself. I'm researching who exactly is on this Council.

I hadn't even heard of this before.

The sad thing is that we're at a point where most Canadians are on board with most of our programs, but McGuinty seems to be cynically taking advantage of that to hide his mismanagement, and avoidance of difficult conflicts.

[myata]

Well, here's a proposal: a bill that any new tax / levy / fee, etc collected by the government or government agency has to comply with standard accountability practice. Collected revenues and expenditures, in detailed format, in the public forum, regularly. Failure to do can be grounds for class suit.

Edited July 9, 2010 by myata

[capricorn]

Here is the site listing the people who are governing Stewardship Ontario.

http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/stewards/who-we-are/senior-management-team

The Stewardship Ontario Board of Directors is committed to conducting its activities with integrity and in accordance with best practices in corporate governance. Through its Finance, Audit & Risk, Governance, Compensation and Human Resources committees. Stewardship Ontario’s Board of Directors plays an active role in setting the strategic direction of the organization, monitoring its adherence to program plan deliverables and targets, exercising fiduciary oversight over Stewardship Ontario’s finances, monitoring and responding to risk and overseeing management’s performance in relation to these and other matters. In addition to monitoring the performance of the organization and its senior officers, the Board monitors its own performance annually and develops a plan to address governance-related performance issues.

(my bolding)

http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/stewards/governance

Sure looks to me like they audit themselves. I glanced at their 2009 annual report and nowhere does it speak to external audits.

[capricorn]

Well, here's a proposal: a bill that any new tax / levy / fee, etc collected by the government or government agency has to comply with standard accountability practice. Collected revenues and expenditures, in detailed format, in the public forum, regularly. Failure to do can be grounds for class suit.

Interesting idea. The problem is McGuinty presently has a majority. I doubt he would want to tie his own hands in terms of bleeding us for more revenue. As governments go, even if the PCs form the next government, would they want to cut off this revenue tap?