Federal carbon tax could raise billions in GST, HST over next seven years: PBO

[CdnFox]

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/carbon-tax-billions-gst-hst

Remeber how everyone gets more than they spend?

Yeah - no.

The carbon tax is a lie that just keeps on lying.

The revenue from the carbon tax itself is required by law to be returned to households and businesses through rebates and granting programs.

 

But that does not apply to the sales tax, which is collected on top of the carbon tax.

 

The PBO estimates that will be worth about $600 million in 2024-25, rising to $1 billion a year by 2030-31 in parallel with increases to the carbon tax itself.

 

In total, that could amount to $5.7 billion between the beginning of this April and the end of March 2031.

 

The figures include revenues from the eight provinces and two territories that use the federal carbon pricing system, as well as those from British Columbia, Quebec and Northwest Territories, which have their own systems.

[eyeball]

We should scrap income taxes and progressively increase tax on consumption (GST) instead.

Taxing labour discourages working. Taxing consumption encourages saving and investing. But the best reason why? Tax returns would probably be a thing of the past.

 

 

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

We should scrap income taxes and progressively increase tax on consumption (GST) instead.

So if i hoard  the wealth but am frugal i can get filthy rich and pay no tax?

 

[eyeball]

Just now, CdnFox said:

So if i hoard  the wealth but am frugal i can get filthy rich and pay no tax?

Yup, fill yer boots.

[Aristides]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So if i hoard  the wealth but am frugal i can get filthy rich and pay no tax?

 

What would be the point of being filthy rich?

Several US states have sales taxes but no state income tax. Washington do one.

Edited February 23, 2024 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

What would be the point of being filthy rich?

 

It would allow you to become filthy rich much easier - at that point if all you're doing is enjoying the proceeds of the money without paying income tax on it you'll still pay a small tax but the vast majority of your cash would have grown and still be tax sheltered.

Quote

Several US states have sales taxes but no state income tax. Washington do one.

They offset it with property taxes. And they don't provide the same level of services a province does. Washington doesn't have universal health care for all it's people for example.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

What would be the point of being filthy rich?

Well it's not like the wealth would be wasted. There would be benefits

1. Whatever bank he saved his money in would have more to lend out.

2. Storing wealth is just like sequestering CO2. It'll still be there to tax when he dies and passes his gas on. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Well it's not like the wealth would be wasted. There would be benefits

1. Whatever bank he saved his money in would have more to lend out.

 

No, unless it's a tiny credit union or something. Money hasn't worked that way for over 100 years now,

Quote

 

2. Storing wealth is just like sequestering CO2. It'll still be there to tax when he dies and passes his gas on. 

 

In the meantime it did nothing.  And it can grow.

Remember - sittitng in that bank it's earning interest. Or sitting in rental units earning rent etc etc etc - it's growing tax free the whole time. So the rich get richer and the poor who have to spend their money buying things they need all the time stay poor. the rich will never pay their fair share.

And it's even worse if i die because now it transfers and starts a whole new generation of wealth that has never been taxed while the kids live off the proceeds and pay fairly minimal taxes.

 

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Remember...

Remember I said to make it progressive....

And don't forget you also have to pay people that build and operate all the stuff you invest in an income.

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yup, fill yer boots.

Meh - i'lll just vote for lower taxes and less unnecessary services under our current system and fill my boots that way.

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

Remember I said to make it progressive....

 

 That doesn't mean anything.

Quote

And don't forget you also have to pay people that build and operate all the stuff you invest in an income.

So? Their pay isn't taxed anymore so how does that change anything.  And i only have to pay for what they built once, unlike a job which is ongoing.

In fact -if i wanted to save money on taxes for example instead of buying a home i could pay someone to built it on property and only pay for the property because their income from the building would be tax free. I'd pay tax on the material but that's a fraction of the tax.

No matter how you slice it i'd probably pay far less tax.

The real victims would be poor people. They'd still have to pay huge taxes on everything they need and there'd be no getting around it for them. Consumption taxes always punish the poor.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

That doesn't mean anything.

Sure it does, it means the wealthiest pay more.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

The real victims would be poor people. They'd still have to pay huge taxes on everything they need and there'd be no getting around it for them. Consumption taxes always punish the poor.

So exempt the poor. There's still everyone in between them and the very top.

The point of the exercise is that taxing consumption is better than taxing labour. People with bigger pay cheques have more to spend on consumption and if they decide to save it, that's just fine.

[August1991]

If Trudeau Jnr had been a better retail politician, he would have abolished the GST - and replaced it with a CO2 tax.

His father learned politics in 1974.

[CdnFox]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

Sure it does, it means the wealthiest pay more.

Does it tho? Probably not much more.  I mean they pay a LOT more now - they'd probably see a big reduction. I'd pay a bit more when i bought my house and my car  but after that... chances are i'm not paying all that much more. Certanly no where near the difference between the poor and wealthy now.

Quote

So exempt the poor. There's still everyone in between them and the very top.

How would you know who's poor?  There's no income tax or income tax filings anymore remember? We're all just the same .No exemptions.

Quote

The point of the exercise is that taxing consumption is better than taxing labour.

I think you'll find if you actually work it all the way through, it just doesn't work out that way.  I'm in favour of consmption taxes but not as the primary revenue generator. It just doesn't work.

The other idea that gets floated all the time is to base taxes on property value, not income or consumption.  And there are those who make very detailed arguments as to why that works. But in the end it really doesn't.

When you look at ALL the variables, generally speaking taxes work best when they're charged at the time of the creation of wealth/value, such as when someone trades their work for compensation or an asset earns income or goes up in value etc.  That's when wealth happens, and that's when it's most appropriate to tax it and that allows for the most fairness and flexibility.  Earn a buck in wealth, pay a buck's worth of tax.