Carbon tax

[cybercoma]

If you believe that CO2 emissions threaten the environment, then the federal government 10 cent excise tax does not kill jobs. Rather, people are paying for the use of a resource.

I see you left your sarcasm detector at home this morning.

[Mr.Canada]

The NDP and Liberals never met a tax they didn't like. They want to raise taxes on everything, including the GST. With a NDP government taxes would rise about 30% across the board. The NDP plan is to keep raising taxes so that we are all forced to give up our homes then the government will come in and buy them at a reduced price. You see, the NDP wishes to make all housing public housing and houses will be handed out by your needs by the government. They will also make post secondary education free which will cost Billions which will lead to heavy wage tax increases. When the dust settles a NDP government will end up with over half your money in the pockets of the government. Don't let their cuddle exterior fool you, they are a hard left communist front who wish to control the people through labor unions. If you value your freedom vote against these tyrants.

[login]

If you sold a device to avoid Walmart's theft detection system, what would be the price?

That sounds like limited sales, it depends whether it is for lawful use or not. That is an awfully broad question can you be more specific, and perhaps message it to me.

Like me myself or if I were a criminal, or if I was doing security assessment testing for walmart or selling to someone who was?

I'm not driven by money. I'm driven by benefit to society.

[August1991]

I see you left your sarcasm detector at home this morning.

Oh, I detected the sarcasm. That's why I posted the phrase "If you believe... "

That sounds like limited sales, it depends whether it is for lawful use or not. That is an awfully broad question can you be more specific, and perhaps message it to me.

My point is that Saudi Arabia is selling a good at a price that does not include all of its costs (like the person selling my hypothetical device to avoid Walmart theft detection). Maybe a better analogy would be insurance. When you buy a car, you also have to buy third party liability.

The NDP and Liberals never met a tax they didn't like.

IMV, the problem with the NDP/Liberals (the Left in general) is not that they like taxes, it's that they like spending other people's money.

[Minor thread drift ahead but I'll get back to the OP.]

Why do people hate paying taxes? Do you "hate" buying a new car? The reason people hate paying taxes is that they don't get value for money. If governments delivered what we pay in taxes, there would be no complaints about taxes. This is so obvious that I'm surprised so many Leftists still want bigger government, rather than better government.

IOW, taxes are not the problem. The problem is what politicians/government bureaucrats do with the money they have.

A carbon tax is possibly worse than cap-and-trade (a quota system) because the tax revenues might encourage more foolish government spending. Then again, politicians/bureaucrats can always borrow or print money if they have insufficient tax revenue. I frankly don't know how to ensure that governments spend money wisely.

Edited October 14, 2012 by August1991

[login]

Oh, I detected the sarcasm. That's why I posted the phrase "If you believe... "

My point is that Saudi Arabia is selling a good at a price that does not include all of its costs (like the person selling my hypothetical device to avoid Walmart theft detection). Maybe a better analogy would be insurance. When you buy a car, you also have to buy third party liability.

What province are you in? When you buy a car here in Ontario you just need to pay for the transfer tax / HST etc... Insurance is only if you drive it this differs also.

I understand what you are saying but you still are living inside the world were money makes stuff, money is just a place holder. It doesn't really make anything.

You can buy a car in any province in Canada and use it in Quebec. You can also use a license from anywhere in Canada, or for that matter a large chunk of the world. Using an out of province registration or international may save you some fines too.

Edited October 14, 2012 by login

[TimG]

My point is that Saudi Arabia is selling a good at a price that does not include all of its costs.

Says who? You? David Suzuki? Just because environmentalists claim something that does not make it true. Economists that attempt to calculate the social cost of carbon put it around $43/tonne or 2.3 cents per liter. Almost every country that sells gasoline made from Saudi oil has a gas tax of at least 2.3 cents/liter so the cost of carbon is already included in the price. Where is your evidence to support your claim that Saudi oil does not cover all of its costs?

A carbon tax is possibly worse than cap-and-trade (a quota system) because the tax revenues might encourage more foolish government spending.

A quota system is many time worse than a carbon tax because it creates a system that will be exploited by fraudsters selling bogus credits or by government officials who hand out free credits like cash subsidies.

If you don't trust governments to spend tax money effectively why would you ever trust them to manage a quota system effectively?

Edited October 14, 2012 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

I hope this topic doesn't ended up like the F-35, but which do you think is better for Canada a Carbon tax or a cap and trade?Which do you prefer and why? Pro and Cons.

I'm leaning towards the concept of cap-and-trade to punish the heaviest of polluters while encouraging the growth of more environmentally friendly business practices with the earned carbon tax (less you pollute the more you earned, the more you pollute the more you lose). The carbon tax affect every businesses that uses materials based on carbon based raw materials.

A quota system is many time worse than a carbon tax because it creates a system that will be exploited by fraudsters selling bogus credits or by government officials who hand out free credits like cash subsidies.

Any human system is many times worse than the alternative, and even that alternative is many times worse than the original system.

because it creates a system that will be exploited by fraudsters selling bogus credits or by government officials who hand out free credits like cash subsidies.

Which is why we have something called "laws".

[TimG]

Which is why we have something called "laws".

Which is why we have a creature called a "lobbyist". Quotas systems are red meat for lobbyists because it is easy to exploit complex rules and guarantee a profit for who ever is paying the lobbyist. Politicians are more than happy to oblige because no one really cares if the targets are met - all they care about is getting elected and if getting elected means rendering a quota system useless with freebees and exclusions then that is what will happen.

No matter how you spin it cap and trade is a recipe for corruption that is best avoided.

Edited November 1, 2012 by TimG

[Mr.Canada]

We need less taxes and less social services not more. We need to cut Refugee and Immigrant services drastically. We spend far too much on these people who aren't citizens of our great nation. We need to decrease spending on freeloaders and increase social assistance and disability benefits for real Canadians who are in need. Why should refugees and immigrants get everything while real Canadians are forced to suffer in squalor?

[PIK]

Window dressing.

[Sleipnir]

Which is why we have a creature called a "lobbyist".

Which is why we have laws regarding accountability - not perfect I'll admit that.

But in any cases, whether it's healthcare, economy, environment or anything. Lobbyists will always there to influence government decisions - one way or another, no difference for cap-and-trade.

[Mighty AC]

No matter how you spin it cap and trade is a recipe for corruption that is best avoided.

I agree. I believe a carbon tax is a more efficient and stable system for pricing carbon.

[TimG]

I agree. I believe a carbon tax is a more efficient and stable system for pricing carbon.

I agree too. Fortunately we already have a carbon tax in Canada that vastly exceeds the estimated 'social cost of carbon' so there is really no need for further policy action.

[login]

No what else makes C02. Humans.

No one has brought that obvious fact up.

with all the hot air being typed around here I can only imagine how much this forum alone contributes to global warming.

Can't we just Tax China and the US instead?

Call it the foreign carbon tax? Anyone from those countries enter canada needs to plant a tree or pay $2.50

It will likely be much more accepted by Canadians at large if we just implement that measure for the time being.

People out in onadogin country will love their new forests.

You know $2.50 or a tree isn't a whole lot.. to apply to everyone.. its a way of putting blame and guilt on the world instead of just Canadians.

HERE HERE

who is with me.

Edited November 2, 2012 by login

[Sleipnir]

I agree too. Fortunately we already have a carbon tax in Canada that vastly exceeds the estimated 'social cost of carbon' so there is really no need for further policy action.

Not a federal carbon tax. The only carbon tax that currently exist in Canada are in the province of Alberta, B.C and Quebec.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Sleipnir

[TimG]

Not a federal carbon tax. The only carbon tax that currently exist in Canada are in the province of Alberta, B.C and Quebec.

The federal excise tax on gasoline is currently 10 cents a liter. The 'socialized cost of carbon' is 3 cents a liter. The GST payable on electricity is 0.5cents/kWh - the 'socialized cost of carbon' is 0.3 cents/kWH since only 25% of our electricity comes from fossil fuels.

There is absolutely no justification for adding additional carbon taxes given the existing taxes and the 'social cost of carbon'.

Edited November 2, 2012 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

The federal excise tax on gasoline is currently 10 cents a liter. The 'socialized cost of carbon' is 3 cents a liter. The GST payable on electricity is 0.5cents/kWh - the 'socialized cost of carbon' is 0.3 cents/kWH since only 25% of our electricity comes from fossil fuels.

There is absolutely no justification for adding additional carbon taxes given the existing taxes and the 'social cost of carbon'.

lol that isn't a carbon tax - a carbon tax is much more than a simple 'gasoline tax'.

A carbon tax is a fee based on per barrel of oil (or per metric ton of natural gas, or per 'something' of coal) - it would cost companies that uses or manufactured oil based products.

I said 'something' for coal because I forgot the unit.

[TimG]

that isn't a carbon tax - a carbon tax is much more than a simple 'gasoline tax'.

The principle behind a carbon tax is to capture the 'social cost of carbon' - i.e. the polluter pays. It really makes no difference what the label on the tax is as long as the cost to consumers is increased. That is what the gasoline tax and the GST do.

Now if you are mainly interested in raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes and are simply looking for an excuse then you should just say so. Don't bother claiming it is about making 'polluters pay' because they already do.

Edited November 2, 2012 by TimG

[August1991]

Says who? You? David Suzuki? Just because environmentalists claim something that does not make it true. Economists that attempt to calculate the social cost of carbon put it around $43/tonne or 2.3 cents per liter.

I will quibble about your numbers but I'll agree with the intent. (From what I recall, the social cost of CO2 is about $20/tonne and that's roughly equivalent to 10 cents/litre. My recall may be wrong.)

Numbers aside here's the rub, TimG.

Whether carbon, CO2, toxic chemicals or mere rubbish, too often, it costs nothing to throw it out. We are living in our own cesspool because nobody owns this public toilet that we call earth.

Fortunately so far, the world is a big place but there are limits to how many people can throw garbage on a public beach.

-----

Whether it's a carbon tax or cap-and-trade, both policies establish ownership of the environment and then charge for its use.

Edited November 2, 2012 by August1991

[login]

the world is a big place but there are limits to how many people can throw garbage on a public beach.

We could charge them for that too.

Now I bet you are thinking that 50 cents ain't a whole lot for letting people throw garbage on our beaches, but say 10,000 people enter Canada on a given day, that is $5000. multiply that by 365 it turns out to about 73 beach cleaning jobs, there probably arn't many more beaches than that in Canada..

We could tack on, foreigner littering "general" 25 cents another 35 jobs.

I'm sure there are other things we could hit them for too.

They pee and poo too, that must make stuff dirty like 50 cents there to use our rivers.

Foreigner Estrogen pollution levy for women 25 cents.

Why hasn't anyone taken this angle before, how can Canadians oppose levies for foreigners despoiling the world. It is genius. Carbon is just the tip of the iceberg.

Edited November 2, 2012 by login

[Mighty AC]

Whether it's a carbon tax or cap-and-trade, both policies establish ownership of the environment and then charge for its use.

Agreed, both systems turn an "externality" into a stable, budgetable business cost. Both systems also create an incentive to become more efficient. I still favour the tax because there is less room for corruption and it will require less bureaucracy to oversee.

[TimG]

Agreed, both systems turn an "externality" into a stable, budgetable business cost.

Of course a reasonable sounding statement becomes complete nonsense once you realize that the determining a price for these so called externalies is a purely subjective exercise which turns the "business cost" in a completely arbitrary tax driven by the ideology of the government imposing the tax. Edited November 2, 2012 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

The principle behind a carbon tax is to capture the 'social cost of carbon'

social cost of carbon? Elaborate.

[TimG]

social cost of carbon? Elaborate.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Carbon_tax

The social cost of carbon (SCC) is the marginal cost of emitting one extra tonne of carbon (as carbon dioxide) at any point in time. To calculate the SCC, the atmospheric residence time of carbon dioxide must be estimated, along with an estimate of the impacts of climate change. The impact of the extra tonne of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must then be converted to the equivalent impacts when the tonne of carbon dioxide was emitted. In economics, comparing impacts over time requires a discount rate. This rate determines the weight placed on impacts occurring at different times.

According to economic theory, if SCC estimates were complete and markets perfect, a carbon tax should be set equal to the SCC. Emission permits would also have a value equal to the SCC.

If we take the high end of estimates the SCC on a liter of gasoline is 6 cents - much less than the taxes that are currently leveled so IMO the price of gas already incorporates the cost of emissions therefore no further taxes can be justified on that basis. Edited November 2, 2012 by TimG

[August1991]

Agreed, both systems turn an "externality" into a stable, budgetable business cost. Both systems also create an incentive to become more efficient. I still favour the tax because there is less room for corruption and it will require less bureaucracy to oversee.

I love your phrase "...favour the tax because there is less room for corruption... ". You obviously don't live in New Orleans, Montreal or Russia.

As New Yorkers say, "Whatever."

We could charge them for that too.

Yes, login, we could... and arguably should. As they say, "there's no free lunch".