2 ms·

Well, in a weird way it does make sense though. As a different example, if you want to cut fuel consumption nationally just double the prices - you will see how

Well, in a weird way it does make sense though. As a different example, if you want to cut fuel consumption nationally just double the prices - you will see how much less fuel people will use because they will just drive less. Will it impact poor people disproportionately? Ensure that some people won't be able to go shopping or to see a doctor? You bet. But the overall green goal will be achieved - the problem isn't the increase in prices(as such), it's the fact that the social safety net wasn't there to help those truly in need. No one in this country should have been choosing between heating or feeding their families - but I know people were.

Scoundreller 4y ago
> Will it impact poor people disproportionately? You bet. Sane countries roll out a mini-UBI to account for this. Canada has a system of quarterly payments for every tax payer to make carbon taxes revenue-neutral (in theory). The belly-aching whining is truly extraordinary. https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-benefits/cai-payment.html https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-famil... Now, if we could convince the government that cutting labour taxes would increase supply of labour during a “labour shortage”, we might be getting somewhere.
- pseudo0 4y ago
  It isn't UBI and it isn't revenue neutral. It's a revenue-generating tax that makes most families poorer. > "When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss,” PBO Yves Giroux said in a statement following release of the report. “Based on our analysis, most households will pay more in fuel charges and GST—as well as receiving slightly lower incomes—than they will receive in Climate Action Incentive payments.” https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/guilbeault-defends-carbon-price-says-on-average-households-will-pay-more-but-rich-will-shoulder-burden-1.6338974 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/guilbeault-defends-carbon-pr... > In provinces where the fee is levied, 90% of the revenues are returned to tax-payers.[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Canada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Canada
  - Scoundreller 4y ago
    Which means the grants should be increased. But for some reason you’ll mostly hear from the anti-carbon-tax lobby. But if you want to see who’s truly a net winner or loser, if the rich lose more than the poor lose, the poor are still be better off if they’re net recipients of government services.
  - iamthemonster 4y ago
    Your quote is referring to modelling from 2030 when the carbon tax rises to $170/tCO2e. That's a reasonably high carbon tax and I'm not surprised that it would be costing households on average. It would be much cheaper to just burn fossil fuels unabated, but only if your modelling doesn't include a dollar figure on the negative externalities of CO2 emissions.

Scoundreller 4y ago

> Will it impact poor people disproportionately? You bet. Sane countries roll out a mini-UBI to account for this. Canada has a system of quarterly payments for every tax payer to make carbon taxes revenue-neutral (in theory). The belly-aching whining is truly extraordinary. https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-benefits/cai-payment.html https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-famil... Now, if we could convince the government that cutting labour taxes would increase supply of labour during a “labour shortage”, we might be getting somewhere.

pseudo0 4y ago
It isn't UBI and it isn't revenue neutral. It's a revenue-generating tax that makes most families poorer. > "When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss,” PBO Yves Giroux said in a statement following release of the report. “Based on our analysis, most households will pay more in fuel charges and GST—as well as receiving slightly lower incomes—than they will receive in Climate Action Incentive payments.” https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/guilbeault-defends-carbon-price-says-on-average-households-will-pay-more-but-rich-will-shoulder-burden-1.6338974 https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/guilbeault-defends-carbon-pr... > In provinces where the fee is levied, 90% of the revenues are returned to tax-payers.[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Canada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Canada
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  Which means the grants should be increased. But for some reason you’ll mostly hear from the anti-carbon-tax lobby. But if you want to see who’s truly a net winner or loser, if the rich lose more than the poor lose, the poor are still be better off if they’re net recipients of government services.
- iamthemonster 4y ago
  Your quote is referring to modelling from 2030 when the carbon tax rises to $170/tCO2e. That's a reasonably high carbon tax and I'm not surprised that it would be costing households on average. It would be much cheaper to just burn fossil fuels unabated, but only if your modelling doesn't include a dollar figure on the negative externalities of CO2 emissions.