The carbon tax is going up and so are emissions

[Moonbox]

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nope. You still can't read/

There is a large variation among food price increases due to the federal carbon tax, with the
range being from 0.34% to 3.6%. The most affected food commodities are fishery products, with
an increase in price of 3.60%, followed by unprocessed fluid milk and eggs, with an increase of
2.24%.

Annually. 

And - that's the 'commodity price'. Now add on the mark up for the bottling and transport to the store, and the grocer etc.

Sigh. You just can't read.

Sure.  I can't read.  🥱

Let's use the 2.24% as the estimate for dairy then.  That was without any exemptions. 

Over 65% of a dairy farm's emissions come from biological emissions (cow farts, burps manure).  All of that is fully exempt. 

We're now left with 0.78% per year, but much of that is also exempt, including most of the cost of feed production and farm machinery fuel use.    

Transportation, barn heating, grain drying, milk bottling etc are a small fraction of overall costs, and fuel/energy costs would only be a fraction of their cost in turn.

All of these small incremental costs, apparently, snowball out of control into something...but you have no specifics, no cites, nothing much of anything beyond your usual hand-waving, insisting and wild exaggeration.  

 

[CdnFox]

Just now, Moonbox said:

Sure.  I can't read.  🥱

 

Apperently not. You think 2.24 annually compounding is the same as 1 percent. 

You also think that nobody mentioned milk in a discussion about milk.

You magically see statements showing that businesses don't mark up carbon tax (they do) in a document that doesn't mention it.

Can't you find a grade 3 teacher to explain math and english to you? Why does it always fall on me to explain the basics to you?

[Moonbox]

You can't run away fast enough from a numbers-based discussion, can you?  As usual, you have nothing but make-believe and belligerence.  The one source you did provide was from 2018, using wildly inaccurate assumptions that render it instantly useless.  

You're left with nothing but canned insults.  Thanks for playing, playa.  👌

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You can't run away fast enough from a numbers-based discussion, can you? 

ROFLMAO - when you grow up enough to be able to HAVE one let me know and we'll find out    This 'discussion' has been several pages of you saying stupid things that are wrong and me having to take the time to correct you and point out WHY you're wrong and you saying "Oh - yeah.... but but but (next stupid thing)".

When you can get a SINGLE THING right then we'll talk but right now it's just me constantly saying "No little guy, here's where you made your mistake".  I mean you're usually not that smart but they're not even GOOD mistakes this time, they're just completely factually wrong  

I'm not your dad for chrissake - i'm sorry your mom can't tell you who is but that's not my fault.

 

[Moonbox]

So you're confirming you won't talk numbers.  Not surprising.  You never do.  👌

[CdnFox]

19 hours ago, Moonbox said:

So you're confirming you won't talk numbers.  Not surprising.  You never do.  👌

So you're confirming you're prepared to lie about it? Not surprising. You always do

There's no point trying to discuss numbers with someone who can't even remember what the conversation was about and already screwed up the numbers several times. When your math, comprehension skills and memory exceed a grade 2 level then maybe we can talk

[taxme]

On 3/3/2024 at 4:59 PM, Aristides said:

Interesting take from the world's largest car builder.

 

https://electrek.co/2024/03/01/toyota-says-it-would-rather-buy-credits-than-waste-money-on-evs/

At least the CEO is telling it like it is. A rare commodity these days. Personally, i believe that EV vehicles will soon go the way of the dodo bird. They may be okay for city driving, but not for the highway. An EV owner has to constantly worry about where they will get there next EV charge when they decide to go on long haul trips. Just saying. 

[Moonbox]

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So you're confirming you're prepared to lie about it? Not surprising. You always do

I'm not confirming it anything.  You are.  Like every other time you get challenged on numbers, you can't change the subject fast enough, and revert to your usual jackassing. You can't provide any actual numbers.  You can't provide any sources that support your claims, nor explain why all of the credible ones contradict you.  

So...thanks for confirming it.  👌

 

 

[herbie]

Vancouver gas prices are over $2 a litre and going up. The usual massive March hike before April 1 carbon tax, once again. You'll forget all about the 30-50¢ hike and shriek about the 3.5¢ agian without fail, won't you?

Nine dollars plus a gallon. Look at that 3.5¢ tree, not the forest !

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I'm not confirming it anything.

You do whether you mean to or not.  I think you're 4th or 5th time where i had to correct you this thread on basic facts you got wrong was confirmation enough

Sorry kid. Have a cookie and a nap and try to do better next time.   

[Moonbox]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You do whether you mean to or not.  I think you're 4th or 5th time where i had to correct you this thread on basic facts you got wrong was confirmation enough

The only thing you "corrected" me on was my not realizing the thread was (apparently) just about milk.  

Everything else has been your usual bullshitting and jackass distraction.  The only actual numbers you provided were from a 2018 study that do more to prove you wrong (again) than anything.  Scurry away little muppet.  We know you don't like talking facts, cites, or numbers.  Thanks for confirming it again, whether you mean to or not.  🙄

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The only thing you "corrected" me on was my not realizing the thread was (apparently) just about milk.  

 

so the report was bullshitting when it said that the correct number was 2.? (don't feel like looking it up).   And NOT the 1 percent you claimed? Because i certainly wasn't bullshitting that the report said that. You screwed the numbers up YET AGAIN.

And you said the tax didn't accumulate and we see it does and so on and so forth. I've had to factually correct you a NUMBER of times including on basic numbers that were right in the report.

Just like i had to correct you that 100 - 50 is actually equal to 50 previously.  And just like i had to point out the numbers and quotes in the link you provided proved the same results that you were trying to refute from my link.

This is BASIC MATH stuff and you can't get it right and you can't read the reports to figure out which numbers are relevant.

You CONSTANTLY need to be corrected.  I am constantly explaining what english words mean and how numbers work to you.

It gets boring.  If you can't get the basic starting points right then how can you have a conversation?  But of course once again you want your incompetence to be all my fault.

When you can manage to learn to get your facts straight when someone has been kind enough to put it right in front of you, then we can talk.

[Moonbox]

46 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

so the report was bullshitting when it said that the correct number was 2.? (don't feel like looking it up).

The report was from 2018, and estimated cost impacts of carbon taxes based on two scenarios:

Scenario 1

There being no exemptions whatsoever to carbon pricing.  This is the scenario you chose and quoted with your number, which was 2.24% for milk.  This scenario never came to be.  

Scenario 2 

The agriculture sector was exempt, in which case food prices would only go up 0.17-0.27%.  This is the scenario you ignored, and it's also the scenario closest to reality, because most agriculture activity is exempt.  These are also the sorts of numbers the economists and the Bank of Canada are providing.  

As for bullshitting, it's hardly the report's fault. It didn't know what would happen 6 years ago.  The bullshitting was all you, spinning your wheels and carrying on like a clown, quoting numbers from scenarios that you knew never came to pass (lying).  🤡

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

The report was from 2018, and estimated cost impacts of carbon taxes based on two scenarios:

 

And scenario 1 is what applies to our dairy industry.

And i've told you that.

So once again i have to explain the very basics of the report to you.  THey provide two scenarios, one that applies to our discussion and one that doesn't.  So we use the one that does.

How are you even this stupid? How does someone get old enough to graduate highschool not being able to figure that out?

SIgh.  Sorry kid, like i said you're just too dumb for this conversation, i spent the whole time correcting your mistakes. There is ONE scenario that applies.

[Moonbox]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And scenario 1 is what applies to our dairy industry.

And i've told you that.

You can tell people whatever you like, but when it's that clueless it counts for nothing. 

Scenario 1 doesn't really apply to anything, because it assumes there are no exemptions for farmers.  The dairy industry is at least +80% exempt from carbon taxes.  I've already told you that.  The difference is that what I'm telling you is actually real.  🤡

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

You can tell people whatever you like, but when it's that clueless it counts for nothing.

Dude they can see it for themselves.  It's right there. Your stupidity is on display for all to see.

And no- the dairy industry in bc is not exempt from carbon taxes.  So you can lie about it if you like but you're still wrong. Hell even the greehouse veggie growers didn't have an exemption at all till late last year.  Fruit and veg farmers (traditional) get a break on about 80 percent but dairy does not.

So yeah. It's scenario one.

But i'm sure you'll continue to lie about it for 7 more pages and then claim your stupidity is my fault because i post too much and they're too long and then follow me around desperately trying to win a fight to soothe your severe butthurt.

Come back when you're NOT too stupid for this conversation.

 

[blackbird]

On 3/15/2024 at 1:11 PM, herbie said:

Vancouver gas prices are over $2 a litre and going up. The usual massive March hike before April 1 carbon tax, once again. You'll forget all about the 30-50¢ hike and shriek about the 3.5¢ agian without fail, won't you?

Nine dollars plus a gallon. Look at that 3.5¢ tree, not the forest !

 

If you have to put 50 litres in your tank once a week, that will mean another $3.50 per week or $14.00 per month on top of everything else that will go up.  The cost of home heating for natural gas, oil furnaces, manufacturing, agriculture, meat production, grain production, and transportation of all products will go up too.  So how much will that add to the monthly cost of living?   A lot more than the increase in gas prices will occur.  The cost of living will go up by far more than $14 per month.  The cost of living could go up several times that.  Carbon tax increases affects everything else too.  But the federal government doesn't know how much it affects everything and can't say.

I forgot, you don't know or care.   You still think it will be only 3.5 cents.  Dream on buddy if it makes you feel good.  

Edited March 17 by blackbird

[Moonbox]

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Dude they can see it for themselves.  It's right there. Your stupidity is on display for all to see.

Yes, we can see what you're doing here.  It's right there.  You're making shit up again carrying on like a clown.  

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And no- the dairy industry in bc is not exempt from carbon taxes.  So you can lie about it if you like but you're still wrong.

and yet you're wrong, and still cluelessly bullshitting, as usual.  

(lifted from the power point presentation of the Canadian Agriculture Federation's annual general meeting, 2019).  

From the dairy farmers of Canada, in their submission to the Senate in 2018:

"DFC also notes with appreciation that the government has excluded greenhouse gases of a biological nature from their pricing scheme. "

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Hell even the greehouse veggie growers didn't have an exemption at all till late last year.  Fruit and veg farmers (traditional) get a break on about 80 percent but dairy does not.

Whoopsy, not true.  As usual, you're just making shit up, or have no idea what you're talking about, but it's probably both.  

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Yes, we can see what you're doing here.  It's right there.  You're making shit up again carrying on like a clown.  

 

Says the guy who coudn't remember we were talking about milk.

The dairy industry in bc (which was the reference in case you forgot) pays carbon tax.  A general blurb saying some agricultural does not doesnt change that fact.

The fact you're a loser is obvious.  What's a little surprising is how desperately needy you are. Unloved as a child I take it?

To recap -

scenario 1 applies to our discussion.

Carbon tax stacks - its marked up then marked up then marked up all the way up the supply chain.

It also indirectly affects prices by affecting things such as wages.

Which is why it has a larger impact on the final cost of milk than it would on a banana grown in another country.

You fail. Come back when you can actually use numbers and words correctly.

[Moonbox]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The dairy industry in bc (which was the reference in case you forgot) pays carbon tax.  A general blurb saying some agricultural does not doesnt change that fact.

Nobody argued it doesn't pay any carbon taxes. This is just you arguing with yourself...again.  

The reality, however, is that most of the industry's expenses and emissions are not taxed.  Most of it is exempt and never pays a dime. 

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

To recap -

scenario 1 applies to our discussion.

Scenario 1 never happened, so it only applies in your fantasy. 

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Carbon tax stacks - its marked up then marked up then marked up all the way up the supply chain.

Considering what's actually being taxed is a tiny portion of their overall expenses, you're stacking tiny percentages on tiny percentages, to equal up to tiny percentages, which is what bears out in the present day according to any credible source. 

According to Fox-math, however, pleading and waving your hands around is more reliable than what published economists and the Bank of Canada are saying.  🫠

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Nobody argued it doesn't pay any carbon taxes. This is just you arguing with yourself...again.  

 

No, that's you trying to distract from your lies.  Nobody suggested anyone DID argue that. You just make that shit up hoping you'll be able to change the channel. But you did suggest they're mostly exempt and they're not.

What you also claimed is that it doesn't get marked up and passed forward and then marked up again etc etc and it does

And MILK production, which is what we were discussing (did you forget again) is not exempt.  So your 'most industry' bullshit is just that - bullshit.

 

And once again i'm forced to correct you on the very basics like what we're talking about. 

There's no point in even trying to discuss more with you - you can't get your head around something as simple as "we're talking about milk" or "taxes get marked  up and then passed on and marked up again", which is true.

I get it. So far in this conversation you look like you have the brains of a road-kill tree sloth and you're desperately trying to find SOME angle that you can redeem yourself with.

There isn't one. You were wrong from the get go and you just get 'wronger' as you go.

Carbon tax gets added to milk (and most other products)  several times along the supply chain. That's why it has more impact on items produced in canada than ones shipped in from other countries like bananas.  Thanks for playing little guy.

 

[Moonbox]

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

What you also claimed is that it doesn't get marked up and passed forward and then marked up again etc etc and it does

Nope.  That's just you making up what you want to argue against again.  🤡

I mean, I literally just said:

22 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Considering what's actually being taxed is a tiny portion of their overall expenses, you're stacking tiny percentages on tiny percentages, to equal up to tiny percentages, which is what bears out in the present day according to any credible source. 

This is probably the 4th time I've reiterated this point, and you're still insisting that I'm saying something else.  That's all you're really capable of on this forum.  You're too foolish and helpless to argue against anything but the things you make up in your head.  Look at big boy Fox, bravely arguing with himself...AGAIN! 🤣

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And MILK production, which is what we were discussing (did you forget again) is not exempt.  So your 'most industry' bullshit is just that - bullshit.

No, you're absolutely clueless.  MILK production costs consist mostly of raising cattle, feeding cattle, milking cattle.  Almost none of that is taxed, and what little that is makes up a tiny percentage of the overall cost of milk in your grocery store (things like pasteurization, bottling, transportation etc).  

The overwhelming majority of emissions generated by MILK production is exempted, including almost everything on the farm beyond heating the barn when it's cold.  

That's why the BoC has quoted the impract of carbon taxes on food prices to be negligible.  That's why the economists have as well.  That's why CdNFox has nothing but his usual hand-waving bologna to offer us in terms of hard numbers.

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Nope.  That's just you making up what you want to argue against again.  🤡

 

Nope.  Just you lying about it again. 

And in case you haven figured it out i stopped reading your crap some time ago - i just comment on the first line or so for the most part.

Like i said, you're far too stupid for this conversation. I had to correct you  a half dozen times on simple facts and you still were screwing it up. 

But like a desperate loser you just keep posting fervently begging for my attention hoping you can say something that looks less stupid.

YOU .. ARE... TOO... STUPID... FOR.. THIS .. CONVERSATION.   It's over your head. You can't figure out what we're talkign about, you can't post relevant information, you can't even stick to the same story and you misquote the references. You're just too dumb.

Come back when you learn how math and english works  And when you DON"T feel like being a  lying sack of shit. 

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Nope.  Just you lying about it again. 

You insisting on me lying looks pretty dumb when what your invented argument is contrasted side-by-side with my actual argument.  I'm cool leaving those quotes there.  

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

And in case you haven figured it out i stopped reading your crap some time ago - i just comment on the first line or so for the most part.

That's because you have nothing to offer as response but limp jackassing, which is your standard coping mechanism for being confronted with facts and numbers.   Thanks for explicitly confirming it.  😆👌 

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You insisting on me lying looks pretty dumb when what your invented argument is contrasted side-by-side with my actual argument.  I'm cool leaving those quotes there.

Dude you're a lying sack at the best of times but this time you really showed yourself to be a particularly stupid lying sack.

NOBODY MENTIONED MILK

The whole conversation is about milk, it's been mentioned many times

WELL .. OK BUT THEN CONSIDER 1 PERCENT....

it's over 2 percent, here's the quote from the report.

WELL... .OK BUT THERE"S TWO OPTIONS SO IT COULD BE...

No.  Option 1 is the correct one. 

FINE BUTT BUTT BUTT...

And you wonder why i'm not listening to you anymore.  You're a loser who couldn't get the basics right. You're also the loser who thought 100 - 50 doesn't equal 50.  You're also the loser who claimed i was wrong and as proof posted a research paper proving i was right.  this is you CONSTANTLY. 

When you learn to get the basics right we can talk. But seriously - right now it just feels like i'm picking on a child.