Canada Federal Carbon Dioxide CO2 Tax

[madmax]

How is shifting taxation from income/business tax to a carbon tax going to cost trillions and trillions??

How is allowing rich people to pollute and allowing foreign exporters to continue to pollute going to be reduced with a tax shift that benefits the wealthy and puts poorer families in a position where they will not be able to heat their homes?

This reminds me of people who get rid of a functioning vehicle and by a smart car to save the planet.

The most ineffective, moderately useless expensive to produce vehicle that has very little function. Try carpooling with 4 people? No get two smart cars.

Like people want to see old vehicles scrapped, not realizing the carbon footprint created in manufacturing a new one.

Like people who claim Nuclear is the Solution to Carbon Pollution.... Heck I even think a Green Party candidate works in the Nuclear Plant.....

I met other Green Party Members trying to save Nanticoke with the Clean Coal phillosphy.

I do think that every party, barring the Conservatives, has an environmental initiative that can benefit Canadians.

But then Politics gets into it, and instead of dealing with the problem, we get the "TAX" solution, which is no solution. It is a tax with "Good Will" attached.

Heck if you want to curb peoples uses of carbon emmissions, just ration them, like items where rationed in the war.

Could you imagine what Rich people might do? Heck a tax would look good, as long as we can keep polluting and pretending to do good.

Really, I think people HERE should get Money for all beneficial retrofits to their homes. Obviously, with the costs to some heating possibilities, Geo Thermal is out of the range of most Canadians. But what a great way to do things.

Sorry if I am currently suspect about the many environmental initiatives put forth by government, corporations and Political Parties, including one with an environmental name.

BC has a Carbon Tax, I don't believe it is enough to change anyones habits, but it does generate revenue. It could put some poorer people in the North of BC who already pay draconian fuel prices in the dark.

But lets call BCs Carbon Tax, exactly what it is, it is a gas tax. Nothing short of that. If we look back, maybe Joe Clark was ahead of his time in 79

[Wilber]

Question is whether I am paying more provincial/municipal tax to build roads than what is transferred to the feds.

The point is, you are doing both but as little comes back from the feds to actually build roads, you can consider much of that fuel tax to already be a carbon tax, a sin tax or just a plain old throw it in the big bucket tax depending on your point of view.

One problem when politicians come up with things like blanket taxes, in this case according to the carbon content of fuels, instead of the actual emissions produced by its users is that they can be contradicting. The following is an email I sent to the Premier, Finance and Environment ministers of BC concerning their new tax. I got a reply from the Premiers office to say that a detailed response would be coming from the ministries. I'm still waiting but hopefully I will eventually get something.

Dear Minister

While I believe the market will dictate lowering emissions to a greater degree than any tax you impose, I would like to point out one contradiction in your policy.

You have decided to tax diesel fuel at a greater amount than gasoline ignoring the fact that diesel powered vehicles produce far less CO2 than comparable gasoline powered vehicles.

According to Transport Canada's fuel economy guide, the 2004 VW Jetta I drive with a 1.9L turbo diesel emits 2992 kilos of CO2 per year compared to the 4021 kilos emitted by the same vehicle powered by a 2L gasoline engine. Why would you want to discourage someone from emitting 25% less CO2?

If you really want to reduce CO2 emissions, perhaps you should take into consideration the relative emissions produced by the fuel users, rather than just taxing the carbon content of the fuel they use. If not, your policy may be self defeating in some areas.

[gc1765]

How is allowing rich people to pollute and allowing foreign exporters to continue to pollute going to be reduced with a tax shift that benefits the wealthy and puts poorer families in a position where they will not be able to heat their homes?

So then provide a rebate for the poor. If I remember correctly, this is what B.C. did.

[gc1765]

The point is, you are doing both but as little comes back from the feds to actually build roads, you can consider much of that fuel tax to already be a carbon tax, a sin tax or just a plain old throw it in the big bucket tax depending on your point of view.

No. Again, it doesn't matter if the gas tax goes the feds because other taxes go to building roads. This reminds me of the logic that the Bloc uses when claiming that a "fiscal imbalance" exists, not realizing that it's all the same money, just going through different hands.

Or think of it this way: I deposit $20 into the bank. Someone else comes along and withdraws the $20 that I just put in. That doesn't mean he "took" my money, because I get that $20 back from someone else.

[Wilber]

No. Again, it doesn't matter if the gas tax goes the feds because other taxes go to building roads. This reminds me of the logic that the Bloc uses when claiming that a "fiscal imbalance" exists, not realizing that it's all the same money, just going through different hands.

Or think of it this way: I deposit $20 into the bank. Someone else comes along and withdraws the $20 that I just put in. That doesn't mean he "took" my money, because I get that $20 back from someone else.

You are suggesting a federal carbon tax, well you have one, it is the existing fuel tax. It is money razed by taxing users of carbon based fuel. What would make a so called carbon tax different other than the name?

[gc1765]

You are suggesting a federal carbon tax, well you have one, it is the existing fuel tax. It is money razed by taxing users of carbon based fuel. What would make a so called carbon tax different other than the name?

What would make it different? It would mean that the people emitting CO2 and other pollution are paying to do so, rather than simply paying to build and maintain the roads that they are using. Alternatively, you could raise the fuel tax, but the point is that people who consume hydrocarbons should be paying for more than just roads.

[August1991]

The world appears to be getting warmer. We're not entirely sure why. Some people think it might be solar activity, others a fairly normal divergance in the world's temperature which occurs from time to time. But it might be, at least in part, a small part, due to our carbon emissions.

If we spent trillions and trillions and trilllions of dollars, it's possible this might, eventually, have some small influence on the warming of the globe. But we're not entirely sure.

If you aren't willing to do it, though, you clearly are a monster who hates the planet.

That's a caricature Argus. No one doubts the greenhouse gas process. I agree that we need to understand better how the earth's "temperature" is determined. CO2 clearly plays a role.

In my mind, it is more pertinent to note that if something appears to be free, people will use more of it. If something appears to be free and valuable, people will rush to get it before it's gone. That's human nature. The environment appears to be free and many people think that if you don't get it now, it'll be gone soon. QED.

It is sad that environmentalists/leftists have taken over this debate, botched it and put all the emphasis on global warming climate change. We destroy the earth's environment in many other ways.

How much of that 10 cents per litre goes towards building new roads and maintaining them? Shouldn't the people who use the roads (i.e. the people buying gas) be paying for them, in addition to any tax on the carbon dioxide/pollution they emit?

Simple answer: no.

How is the income tax you pay connected to the cost of educating my neighbours kids?

You are asking that tax payments be "earmarked". That's an American term and it's a simplistic non-solution to a complicated problem. We all would like governments to spend our money in ways that we feel useful. No one has yet devised a way to make that happen but if someone does, not only will they win a Nobel Prize but they'll also make the world a much better place.

[Wilber]

What would make it different? It would mean that the people emitting CO2 and other pollution are paying to do so, rather than simply paying to build and maintain the roads that they are using. Alternatively, you could raise the fuel tax, but the point is that people who consume hydrocarbons should be paying for more than just roads.

My point is that they are. When it comes to the federal government, they are paying for more than just roads, much more. When it comes to provincial and municipal taxes, maybe not. Personally, I am dead against giving even more revenue to the least accountable level of government in the country which already collects about 70% of the taxes paid by its citizens.

The provincial tax is supposed to be neutral. Whatever is gained by the carbon tax is supposed to be returned in other tax reductions. Maybe so but I'll believe it when I see it.

[August1991]

There are basically two groups of people/businesses:

1) Those who will end up with more disposable income in the short term because the decrease in taxes offsets the increase in energy costs.

2) Those who end up with less disposable income because the increase in energy costs exceeds any tax offsets.

Most people in group 2) don't have any options to reduce energy consumption. For example, trucks are already extremely efficient and there are zero alternatives to fossil fuels if you want to move goods from one place to another. Even in the case where alternatives are available they are always more expensive than fossil fuels. This means that people in group 2) will end up with less money.

More importantly, many energy intensive businesses provide services which people in group 1) want but these services will cost a lot more due to the carbon tax. In the long term, rising prices means people in group 1) will end up with less money too even though they may think they are 'winners' in the short term.

That is why the term 'revenue neutral carbon tax' is an oxymoron. Artificially increasing the price of energy costs everyone in the long term. Such a cost might be justified if CO2 was known to be a real concern, however, the best the current science can tell is that CO2 *might* be a problem.

Riverwind, are you an accountant? An engineer? Because engineers and accountant too often reason as you.

People are not straight lines. They bend and curve and move. What somone does today, they would abhor tomorrow.

It is true that if the price of gasoline goes up tomorrow, I will have less money in my pocket when I fill up my tank. The local gas station will have more money. Is it a wash? No. At $1.26 a litre (or almost $150 to fill the SUV tank), I'm thinking of driving a different vehicle for my next lease. The hassle of commuting 20 kms is not only time, it's also money. I'm thinking of moving too. (These questions really matter to people and my best evidence is the morning traffic radio reports in every large North American city.) All of these decisions take time before they appear in any real change.

In 1973, oil prices quadrupled. In 1979, they quadrupled again -eventually peaking in 1980 at $100/barrel (in 2008 dollars). It wasn't until the 1980s that real change in energy consumption really showed up. The price mechanism works quickly sometimes and more slowly at other times.

But then Politics gets into it, and instead of dealing with the problem, we get the "TAX" solution, which is no solution. It is a tax with "Good Will" attached.

Heck if you want to curb peoples uses of carbon emmissions, just ration them, like items where rationed in the war.

Could you imagine what Rich people might do? Heck a tax would look good, as long as we can keep polluting and pretending to do good.

Madmax, you pay for your bread, meat and chicken. What do you pay? Well, you pay the price but you might just as well call it the "tax". What's the difference? The money comes out of your pocket.

At present, the environment appears to be free. Anyone can use it without paying for it. When you buy 50 litres of gasoline, you're buying about 50 kilograms of gasoline. When you drive your car, you dump those 50 kilograms of gasoline into the environment - and you pay nothing for dumping this.

If I came over to your house and dumped 50 kilograms of garbage on your front lawn, you'd be livid and then sue me. The environment is different. It won't sue you.

The environment is the slave of the 21st century. We can abuse it and we don't have to pay.

Edited April 12, 2008 by August1991

[gc1765]

How is the income tax you pay connected to the cost of educating my neighbours kids?

You are asking that tax payments be "earmarked". That's an American term and it's a simplistic non-solution to a complicated problem.

I'm asking for people to pay for what they use, if they can afford it.

I pay income tax now to pay for education, because in the past I too was educated. I am simply paying for what I used, albeit a few years later.

[August1991]

I pay income tax now to pay for education, because in the past I too was educated. I am simply paying for what I used, albeit a few years later.

And what if you have no children? And what of an immigrant who was never educated here? If I don't own a car, why should I pay for streetlights? If I never take the metro, why should I pay for public transport?

gc1765, your logic is that if I want a chocolate bar, I pay for it - and the same logic should apply to government. If government were so simple, we wouldn't have need for government.

-----

I still think that environmental taxes, royalties and congestion fees can accomplish two goals: ensure we pay for the use of the environment (that we collectively all own) and such revenues will more or less pay for the government services we want. In such a world, we would have no income tax, property tax or GST.

The universe belongs to all of us because we can all look freely at the night sky. The environment is the same.

A smart politician is going to figure this one out and then have the credibility to make it possible.

Edited April 12, 2008 by August1991

[gc1765]

And what if you have no children?

It makes no difference whether I have children. We were all educated, and we all pay taxes.

And what of an immigrant who was never educated here?

I guess they get screwed, no one ever said our system was perfect.

If I don't own a car, why should I pay for streetlights?

Exactly, you shouldn't. The people who drive should (which is precisely what I was trying to argue).

If I never take the metro, why should I pay for public transport?

I'll throw in an exception. I believe that services which are "essential" should be paid for by the government for those who can not afford it. I would consider transportation to be essential. Polluting the environment more than the average person is not something I would consider essential.

I still think that environmental taxes, royalties and congestion fees can accomplish two goals: ensure we pay for the use of the environment (that we collectively all own) and such revenues will more or less pay for the government services we want.

Hehe, I don't understand you. First you disagree with what I say, and then you say exactly what I was trying to argue for.

[gc1765]

gc1765, your logic is that if I want a chocolate bar, I pay for it - and the same logic should apply to government. If government were so simple, we wouldn't have need for government.

I would say that the same logic applies to non-essential services, yes. That doesn't mean that we don't need a government.

[Wilber]

QUOTE

If I don't own a car, why should I pay for streetlights?

Exactly, you shouldn't. The people who drive should (which is precisely what I was trying to argue).

Cars don't need streetlights, they have headlights. Pedestrians need streetlights.

QUOTE

If I never take the metro, why should I pay for public transport?

I'll throw in an exception. I believe that services which are "essential" should be paid for by the government for those who can not afford it. I would consider transportation to be essential. Polluting the environment more than the average person is not something I would consider essential.

Spoken like true city dwellers.

Edited April 12, 2008 by Wilber

[August1991]

Should non-drivers pay for streetlights?

Exactly, you shouldn't. The people who drive should (which is precisely what I was trying to argue).

Common sense says that both drivers and pedestrians should pay for streetlights. But gc1765, here's the problem: who should pay more? Using common sense, a streetlight (and a traffic light) benefit both car drivers and pedestrians.

When two cities separated by a river build a bridge to make it easier for people to cross, who should pay for the bridge construction cost? If one city is small and the other large, who benefits most? The big city? If I live in the small city and my husband's family lives in the large city, how do I feel about this new bridge?

Good government is about one thing for all people, and that's tough to decide how to pay. (Bad government is about one thing for one person - paid by us all.)

Edited April 12, 2008 by August1991

[gc1765]

Should non-drivers pay for streetlights?Common sense says that both drivers and pedestrians should pay for streetlights. But gc1765, here's the problem: who should pay more? Using common sense, a streetlight (and a traffic light) benefit both car drivers and pedestrians.

If everyone walked, we wouldn't need streetlights. We need streetlights because people drive.

Errr, are you talking about traffic lights or street lamps?

When two cities separated by a river build a bridge to make it easier for people to cross, who should pay for the bridge construction cost? If one city is small and the other large, who benefits most? The big city? If I live in the small city and my husband's family lives in the large city, how do I feel about this new bridge?

I suppose we could quibble about the details, but I'd say if both sides benefit from the bridge, then both should pay for it.

Edited April 12, 2008 by gc1765

[August1991]

If everyone walked, we wouldn't need streetlights. We need streetlights because people drive.

Errr, are you talking about traffic lights or street lamps?

Both.

I suppose we could quibble about the details, but I'd say if both sides benefit from the bridge, then both should pay for it.

As usual in such negotiations, who should pay more?

To throw in a wrinkle, what if the pedestrians are blind? (We once discussed this very point.)

----

I don't mean to hijack a thread (of my own making). To get back to my OP, I think we should all pay for our use of the environment. At present, we pay nothing and that's wrong. The environment is our slave. A federal carbon tax would be a price on our use of the environment - just as my fees are a price on the use of my time. Neither the environment nor a person should be a slave. Neither should work without compensation.

[gc1765]

Both.

For traffic lights, my earlier (now crossed out) comments apply. Drivers should pay for them.

For street lamps, everyone should pay because everyone uses it.

As usual in such negotiations, who should pay more?

Obviously it's impossible to say exactly how much each side should pay, especially for a hypothetical situation.

But let me point out that I'm talking about an ideal situation where people would pay for what they use. That's not practical (we don't charge tolls for people walking down the sidewalk, which is paid for by taxpayers - but since we pretty much all use sidewalks, we all pay for them). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards that goal. Making people who drive pay for the roads that they use, and the pollution that they cause is more practical (by charging a gas tax & carbon tax, respectively). It's not perfect, but I've yet to hear a better and more practical way for people to pay for what they use.

To throw in a wrinkle, what if the pedestrians are blind? (We once discussed this very point.)

I think this ties in to my points above.

[Wilber]

Making people who drive pay for the roads that they use, and the pollution that they cause is more practical (by charging a gas tax & carbon tax, respectively).

But if you do, you can't ignore the taxes they already pay that others don't. They have to be part of the equation.

Even if you don't drive yourself, just about everything you use gets to you over a road.

[gc1765]

Even if you don't drive yourself, just about everything you use gets to you over a road.

Yep, and I'm happy to pay for it through increased costs...especially since I will have more money in my pocket from paying less income tax.

[August1991]

For traffic lights, my earlier (now crossed out) comments apply. Drivers should pay for them.

For street lamps, everyone should pay because everyone uses it.

Really?

gc1765, I suggest you take a look at this post in another thread.

[gc1765]

Really?

gc1765, I suggest you take a look at this post in another thread.

So what do you suggest? Who do you think should be paying for traffic lights and street lamps?

[Wilber]

Yep, and I'm happy to pay for it through increased costs...especially since I will have more money in my pocket from paying less income tax.

But who will build the roads? If you want everything to be user pay, you won't have transit either. One of the reasons the Roman Empire lasted so long or even existed at all was because of its roads. They were not privately built and they were not user pay.

[gc1765]

But who will build the roads? If you want everything to be user pay, you won't have transit either. One of the reasons the Roman Empire lasted so long or even existed at all was because of its roads. They were not privately built and they were not user pay.

Transit riders would still pay for roads indirectly, since the costs would be passed onto the consumer.

This is of course assuming that a person can easily afford public transit, but since public transit is mostly used by the poor then my earlier arguments would apply.

[Wilber]

Transit riders would still pay for roads indirectly, since the costs would be passed onto the consumer.

This is of course assuming that a person can easily afford public transit, but since public transit is mostly used by the poor then my earlier arguments would apply.

But who would pay for the roads and transit up front?