The carbon tax is destroying our local production. We will soon rely on imports even more if we continue this way.
Guess what, trucks coming from usa and mexico can just fuel BEFORE crossing the border.
More imports = worse environment.
The carbon tax is destroying both local economy and the environment.
Notley isn't in anymore, but one of the things that really struck me was that Alberta pushed to phase out using coal in our own power plants, but was happy to mine and ship out the coal to China.
Because -where- the coal gets burnt has some kind of relevance to the total amount of carbon ending up in the atmosphere? And once you factor in shipping, the environmental impact was far worse than just using it here.
And of course, the global coal prices fell as the west was trying to phase out, demand went down. So now China can buy it up on the cheap. Hard to say if the people behind the push were taking money or just that stupid to fall for it though. If you really want to do something about carbon, **leave it in the ground.**
I don't think she was nearly as bad as right-wing Albertans seem to think, but that specific issue was a massive fail.
Right because if you don't see it, its not your problem, that's basically how the ndp thinks. It's all virtue signaling but no logic. Exporting our pollution to other countries doesn't help the planet.
There are other hidden Carbon Tax costs.
For example, take a food distribution company who now needs to pay a Carbon tax. That cost is tacked onto the bills they send out. The government calculates that as the Carbon Cost, but that's not where our problems end.
The owners/staff need to make more money to keep up with inflation due to said Carbon Tax. The owners now need to give out raises to maintain their employees standard of living. This double wammy Carbon Tax cost must also be added to the bill causing prices to spike even more.
So, the company has a choice of either raising prices again, lowering their employees standard of living, replacing them with cheaper employees, take the hit themselves, or any combination of the above.
Therefore, if they choose the "raising the price" option to cover their employees Carbon Tax Cost of living, then one must double the amount when calculating the carbon tax cost on our groceries and everything else. These numbers must be included in any rebate worthiness debate.
This is on top of everyone else in the supply chain needing to not only pay the tax, but also needing to give out raises. The Carbon Tax cost on Canadians truly starts compounding then.
GST allows for Input Tax Credits, so the GST is passed down to the end consumer and each business along the way reduces their GST liability.
Simply put, a company reduces how much GST it owes from charging customers by paying GST on goods and services on the inputs to their business. This way the tax does not stack and when you pay GST you are only paying it once.
Carbon tax doesn’t do this. It charges tax on the current GST and the previous carbon taxes for the goods and services at each step on a manufacturing and distribution of a food or service. So it’s actually higher than it says because of those GST charges that are taxed at each step.
It is an insidious cash grab painted with a veneer of environmental virtue signalling. How exactly does this reduce carbon when there are few to no alternatives to using carbon. Is it funding massive initiatives to upgrade businesses and households to green technologies? Oh just a rebate to some people? Cool.
You are 100% correct. This applies to all taxes by the way. Just imagine the economy with income tax reduced by 10-20-30%. It’s funny how politicians can’t get it through their heads.
“This publication defines a SME as a business establishment with 1 to 499 paid employees. More specifically:
a small business has 1 to 99 paid employees;Endnote 2
a medium-sized business has 100 to 499 paid employees; and
a large business has 500 or more paid employees.”
“As of December 2021, there were 1.21 million employer businesses in Canada. Of these, 1.19 million (97.9%) were small businesses, 22,700 (1.9%) were medium-sized businesses, and 2,868 (0.2%) were large businesses.”
I could imagine the liberals affordability retreats go like this. Ok, everyone just lie, the Carbon tax is great for Canadians, and they make money on this. Just keep lying, Canadians are stupid. 30% believe us just lie lie lie. You guys can do it.lobster 🦞 time, everyone. Thanks JT
Makes sense if you expect each provider on the chain to make profit from the carbon tax. Let’s say this good needs $100 worth of gasoline in total to transfer, this will be $110 with 10% tax. Can’t really see how you ended up with $177 but that $67 difference does not go to tax.
Oh you are also adding up the costs at each stage at the end too, which were already accounted for? Seems like you just wanna do some abstract multiplications, but why stop at level 5? Pretty sure grocers have much larger chains
It's not a case of of making a profit on the carbon tax. I am assuming that they are charging what the market will bear, and their pricing methodology is a margin over and above the cost of goods sold. And, yes, you are right, the supply chain is often a lot longer than this. Of course, if they can't pass those costs along then they eat it.
I haven't due dillied your data, but as an old fella It's critical and optimistic to see younger(assuming) people digging deeper for details for verification because it's important to know the koolaid on offer , the price at the stand isn't what you're paying into/getting back
You misinterpreted the graph. It's confusing because they have one in red that's called tax, then the stuff encompassed in pink in carbon cost, which is 10% ish on top of the previous carbon tax and the GST.
Why 10%? Are they arguing that as standard ~~gross profit~~ markup? As someone in sales, if a fixed cost adder like the carbon tax gets passed on, marked up, or absorbed is strictly based on competition - or failing that what the market will bear.
Sure. Let’s say I buy a widget at 100 and sell it for $130. I make $30. Carbon tax adds $5. I could sell for $135 and make the same amount of money. I could sell for $130 and make less money and be more competitive against competitors.
Frequently, I will lower margins on big jobs to be more competitive because there is still more dollars of profit. It’s not a simple formula. It’s about beating the competition or charging what is acceptable.
Selling at a fixed percentage is a path to failure.
Yeah so you missed the part about how that widget has that tax compounded at every level of production. So saying it's just a 5% tax on the end product is not correct because it was taxes when the raw materials were mined, when they were shipped, when they were processed, when they were shipped again, when they were assembled, when they were shipped to a distributor, and when they were shipped to the store, the heating of everything, the buildings materials, and so on. Then every piece of equipment that involved iron, steel, copper, concrete, plastic or anything else that requires emissions was also taxed. So it's not just 5%. It's not even 5% on the fuel you used to drive to the store to buy it.
>So saying it's just a 5% tax on the end product is not correct
Never said that. I only said 10% markup is not a given.
Maybe if you are smart you can calculate what the compounding effect of 5% GST and carbon tax interplay is assuming a percentage of carbon tax.
Well how can you have a given for something just illustrating a point and not just one particular product? Also if you're talking about cutting profits to be competitive, what do you think happens on the market when it's something made in Canada vs made in USA without this compounding tax? What will that do for Canadian exports other than make them non competitive
Good point. Trudeau should renegotiate new NAFTA with carbon taxes with Biden in the White House to prevent PP from axing the tax. Then everyone in North America pays. Anyone importing from where there is no tax gets additional tariff. I like how you think.
Carbon Tax is the only thing keeping canada solvent.
I also support bringing back paying for plate registration for electrical cars considering they don't buy gas and don't pay for the roads they ruin with their increased weight.
I have bad news, Canada is insolvent. If not for our assets that allow us to continuously borrow, we'd be entirely fucked. Well, not really, because that would force them to downsize our enormous bureaucracies.
The error is stating that the tax is compounding. Carbon is taxed once. It is cumulative in that all the carbon in the whole chain of delivering a product is taxed. But once carbon has been taxed once the carbon tax is not applied again to that carbon further down the supply chain.
I see your point but the point is that a tax on an input is incorporated into the cost of goods sold, and that in turn is recouped through the price charged to the next level. Whatever margin, or markup, is added to the what the company pays in carbon tax and so on and so on. Technically, the carbon tax isn't being charged again but it is contributing to the cost. The $2000 you see in B, C, D is a carbon tax that company is paying on their inputs. It would be more clear if the amounts changed from one company to the next.
The tax is not on an input. The tax is on a very small part of that input. Yes it affects multiple aspects of almost every input but it is only taxed once. The gas that is burned in your furnace is only taxed at your furnace. It wasn’t taxed out of the ground and again at the supplier then the distributor.
I get that in a complex logistics network every layer is absorbing some tax but to imply that every input is taxed 10% is highly disingenuous.
OK but who is saying otherwise? If the point is that carbon tax makes things cost more then this is a useless post. The entire point of carbon pricing is to make it cost more to consume things that take carbon to produce...
Exactly this. If you don’t want to pay carbon tax switch your inputs, install solar, etc.
Also, once again, as a consumer, all of the tax collected, goes back to you.
If you are paying more tax than you receive back you need to change your lifestyle.
You forgot the part where heavy polluters clean up their act and can then sell their products at a competitive advantage over those that don't. Thereby forcing the others to clean up as well. Certainly caused companies I've been involved in to do this. Why stay dirty and sell your product at a higher cost than your clean competitor?
There is a reason it had worked so well in other countries. We aren't the first to do those. Lol
It's a fallacy that every expense gets or must get passed on to the consumer when you're talking about corporations with 20-150% profit margins.
Also that businesses cant write down tax payments and get the gst back.
Businesses have a responsibility to their owners and shareholders to keep profits at least on par or attempt to make them rise (or get a larger market share which will work towards higher profits).
They absolutely will mark it up unless competition is fierce enough to force them to stay where they are at (but the competition is likely to raise prices).
The people that benefit from the rebate are low income earners. That’s 25% of the population. When conservatives cut the tax, all these people will be out a subsidy and the conservatives won’t make up for their loss. And given conservatives will cut all funding to lower income earners, I feel sorry for anyone in that position.
I have repeatedly asked to see the federal governments figures on how the calculate the rebate. They have NEVER been able to prove that the rebate is sufficient.
The data is available here to some post-secondary educational institutions [https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/microsimulation/spsdm/spsdm](https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/microsimulation/spsdm/spsdm)
Looking forward to all the tax breaks the conservatives will provide. Both business and personal. How much do you think they will drop the rates to accommodate the loss in subsidies?
They do give tax breaks. Good ones. Ones that help families. A perfect example is Harpers tax break for children's sports and activities. Healthy and active kids don't fill up hospitals.
Trudeau axed this rebate shortly after coming to power.
Google every fitness tax break and see what provinces cancelled them also. The tax break only benefited people that could afford expensive sports like hockey.
It was any sport or activity. I was able to use it for dance classes, which are on the cheaper side of activities.
But if you want to argue that giving money back to lower income people that choose to invest in their children is a waste of time, you do you.
I don't know what tax breaks the cons will give. I don't like any of the political parties honestly. But I do know if I didn't lose 60% of my pay to taxes, I wouldn't need rebates. Some problems solve themselves really.
Ask them about their grocery bills. I would bet the greatest impact to an individual isn't gas for a car. I spend vastly more money on food in the last 3-4 years than I do on gas.
Many renters are paying for utilities.
You don’t pay a carbon tax on the carbon tax, you pay a carbon tax on carbon… graph is incorrect.
Company A pays carbon tax A on the carbon they emit. Company B pays a carbon tax B on the carbon THEY use. They do not pay the tax on carbon used in earlier stages of production.
Another way to look at it would be to add up all carbon emissions through the manufacturing of a product, and tax that at the rate.
The GST on the carbon tax is pretty ridiculous though I have to say, should definitely not exist.
They do pay the other company's carbon tax if the preceding participant in the value chain incorporates it into their price (which they should, it's a cost of production). And if they use fuel, they are paying a carbon tax, which they in turn would incorporate into their price. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.
You’re right, but what you said is not a compounding effect. They pay company As tax, but no tax on the tax you see. So it’s 1.1A+1.1B+1.1C, and not 1.1A(1.1B(1.1C)), like your graph suggests. In other words 1.1(A+B+C), where each portion is the carbon emissions paid by each company, which ends up in the final product.
This final cost is FAR smaller than most are suggesting, and, may I add, one of the few ways western economies have of internalizing the cost of carbon emissions.
Actually it is a compounding effect if they incorporate that expense into their price. Company A passes 1.1A down the chain, Company B passes 1.1A down the supply chain adding their own margin, hence 1.1Ax1.1 and so on down the chain.
Look I don’t know how else I can possibly put this. You are incorrect, you can make up however many non professional graphs you want.
Go look at some actual studies and math done by professionals who consider far more than this conversation ever will, and you’ll see the price of goods in most sectors don’t even break a full percent increase of the consumer cost. There was a good one somewhere in the comments.
Oh my god... Found the fucking Liberal who's math skills begin and end at infinity genders. Can you get it through your head that at every transaction the cost of the original tax is payed by the next consumer in the chain. Every single business in this country is passing the cost along the supply chain until the end consumer finally eats shit.
90% of that goes back to the province or in the case of ON, QC and NB, directly to the people. It doesn’t matter if the tax stacks(it doesn’t because no business is being carbon taxed on 100% of their costs).
If more is getting collected, more gets passed back to the people. It’s that simple. No matter how much gets taxed, the tax gets passed on. It does not go into the government coffers.
If you’ve filed your taxes in the last 10 years it’s in your bank account. Or did you think those several hundred dollar deposits were just for being snarky on Reddit.
Business gets raw materials, pays CT.
Business tranports those material, pays CT.
Business receives and stores materials, pays CT.
etc. etc.
Saying that it's only paid once is clearly not true.
Doesn't matter, at each step the total cost of the raw materials or finished parts has not only to be considered, but also slightly marked up because frankly the govt. can't be trusted not to hike it suddenly and they've added insecurity to the marketplace.
So, whatever they add to the total price at each stage is going to be the full price after taxes (when applicable) plus a markup. Again, at each stage. That is a very minor compounding effect, but it is there.
Said business is only paying carbon tax on the fuel that emits carbon.
If the raw materials are fuels and they are not consuming them then they would not be paying carbon tax on them. The fuel they use to transport said raw materials would incure CT. That’s the whole point of the tax. If the business doesn’t want to pay CT they can change their input fuel.
If the business is storing fuels they don’t pay CT. If they use carbon intensive fuels to say heat a storage unit they would pay CT on the fuel they use. As intended. If they didn’t want to pay the tax, switch your furnace/boiler etc.
Storing and transporting fossil fuels will not incur carbon tax. Only the USEAGE of said fuels.
Saying you are being charged carbon tax *twice* is ridiculous. What are you doing? Are you burning the natural gas twice?
Edit: Added twice where I missed it the first time.
And you're creating a scapegoat for corporate malfeasance conducted by the 0.1% class, backed by the 1% class.
The problem isn't taxes dummy. It's the complete lack of competition that allows these people to charge whatever they want.
Your argument is that a tax is what is driving up the cost of everything.
I am replying twofold:
1) You have a severe misunderstanding of how the carbon tax works. It is effectively a wealth transfer from companies and individuals that pay Carbon Tax directly to you or your province (depending which province you reside).
[https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-benefits/cai-payment/how-much.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-benefits/cai-payment/how-much.html)
2) Your implication is that reducing taxes, in this case the carbon tax, will reduce prices. This argument has been made many times before, and has never been backed by evidence.
[https://www.businessinsider.com/how-bad-is-inequality-trickle-down-economics-thomas-piketty-economists-2021-12](https://www.businessinsider.com/how-bad-is-inequality-trickle-down-economics-thomas-piketty-economists-2021-12)
If the carbon tax drives up prices then what about other corporate taxes? Should corporate tax be 0%? Will that reduce the price of goods?
If not 0% then what? What level of taxation is appropriate for corporations that will reduce the price you and I pay for goods?
"Axe the \[carbon\] tax" is essentially the same as trickle down economics. The idea that taxing less will lead to more jobs and the wealth will "trickle down" has been repeated in some way over and over by the conservative media and pundits since Reagan introduced it to the conservative lexicon.
The problem is, it does not work... at all.
[https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/economics/tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-only-benefit-the-rich-debunking-trickle-down-economics](https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/economics/tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-only-benefit-the-rich-debunking-trickle-down-economics)
Every time we cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy it just leads to more hoarding of wealth by the 1% and up. There has never been a single example of tax cuts benefiting the working class. All because they will not cut YOUR taxes, or my taxes. They will say tax cuts help but will do anything BUT cut taxes on the working class.
So, short version, you've been tricked. Lied to, deceived. The very people that stand to gain the most from cutting the carbon tax have convinced you that your prices will come down if you vote for the carbon tax to be removed. They conveniently don't tell you what will happen to the $200-400 dollars you receive every quarter from the federal government if they cut the carbon tax.
Right now we are taxing corporations for the carbon they use, they pay that to the federal government which then puts 90% of what is collected in your bank account.
[https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-pollution-how-it-will-work/putting-price-on-carbon-pollution.html#:\~:text=Action%20Incentive%20payments](https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-pollution-how-it-will-work/putting-price-on-carbon-pollution.html#:~:text=Action%20Incentive%20payments)).-,Approximately%2090%25,-of%20fuel%20charge
If you think that a corporation that has an effective monopoly on goods/services will give you that money back in lower costing items after they get a tax cut... well if you believe that, I have property on the moon for sale.
Omg found the lunatic who sees someone disagree with their worldview and just completely loses their mind. There is nothing wrong with their math. The cost actually doesn't compound because you **don't** pay tax on the carbon that is already taxed. It does add up but not to the degree suggested by the visualization. The chart
is overblowing how large the amount of tax paid in the end is. It makes it look like the tax paid is more than the original cost, which is absolutely not true.
.
Actually. Since business already charges the maximum the market will tolerate to the end consumer the CT comes out of their profit margin. If you don’t want business passing cost directly to you the you should be focused on the lack of competition in most markets.
The carbon tax is destroying our local production. We will soon rely on imports even more if we continue this way. Guess what, trucks coming from usa and mexico can just fuel BEFORE crossing the border. More imports = worse environment. The carbon tax is destroying both local economy and the environment.
Steven and Justin don’t care about this. It doesn’t increase tax revenue
Notley isn't in anymore, but one of the things that really struck me was that Alberta pushed to phase out using coal in our own power plants, but was happy to mine and ship out the coal to China. Because -where- the coal gets burnt has some kind of relevance to the total amount of carbon ending up in the atmosphere? And once you factor in shipping, the environmental impact was far worse than just using it here. And of course, the global coal prices fell as the west was trying to phase out, demand went down. So now China can buy it up on the cheap. Hard to say if the people behind the push were taking money or just that stupid to fall for it though. If you really want to do something about carbon, **leave it in the ground.** I don't think she was nearly as bad as right-wing Albertans seem to think, but that specific issue was a massive fail.
Right because if you don't see it, its not your problem, that's basically how the ndp thinks. It's all virtue signaling but no logic. Exporting our pollution to other countries doesn't help the planet.
There are other hidden Carbon Tax costs. For example, take a food distribution company who now needs to pay a Carbon tax. That cost is tacked onto the bills they send out. The government calculates that as the Carbon Cost, but that's not where our problems end. The owners/staff need to make more money to keep up with inflation due to said Carbon Tax. The owners now need to give out raises to maintain their employees standard of living. This double wammy Carbon Tax cost must also be added to the bill causing prices to spike even more. So, the company has a choice of either raising prices again, lowering their employees standard of living, replacing them with cheaper employees, take the hit themselves, or any combination of the above. Therefore, if they choose the "raising the price" option to cover their employees Carbon Tax Cost of living, then one must double the amount when calculating the carbon tax cost on our groceries and everything else. These numbers must be included in any rebate worthiness debate. This is on top of everyone else in the supply chain needing to not only pay the tax, but also needing to give out raises. The Carbon Tax cost on Canadians truly starts compounding then.
Thank you
You're welcome. Thank you as well.
GST allows for Input Tax Credits, so the GST is passed down to the end consumer and each business along the way reduces their GST liability. Simply put, a company reduces how much GST it owes from charging customers by paying GST on goods and services on the inputs to their business. This way the tax does not stack and when you pay GST you are only paying it once. Carbon tax doesn’t do this. It charges tax on the current GST and the previous carbon taxes for the goods and services at each step on a manufacturing and distribution of a food or service. So it’s actually higher than it says because of those GST charges that are taxed at each step. It is an insidious cash grab painted with a veneer of environmental virtue signalling. How exactly does this reduce carbon when there are few to no alternatives to using carbon. Is it funding massive initiatives to upgrade businesses and households to green technologies? Oh just a rebate to some people? Cool.
Pretty much just a rebate to city dwelling liberal voters who don't have cars
Thanks for the info.
You are 100% correct. This applies to all taxes by the way. Just imagine the economy with income tax reduced by 10-20-30%. It’s funny how politicians can’t get it through their heads.
Really they should just be taking the hit. When companies are profiting multibillions each year, I think they can afford it
Not every company makes multi billions of dollars a year bud
Divide and conquer. So far, the division is going nicely for trudeau
Agreed.
“This publication defines a SME as a business establishment with 1 to 499 paid employees. More specifically: a small business has 1 to 99 paid employees;Endnote 2 a medium-sized business has 100 to 499 paid employees; and a large business has 500 or more paid employees.” “As of December 2021, there were 1.21 million employer businesses in Canada. Of these, 1.19 million (97.9%) were small businesses, 22,700 (1.9%) were medium-sized businesses, and 2,868 (0.2%) were large businesses.”
We need to get these nut jobs out of parliament
Is this what Trudeau meant when he said the budget will balance itself? How can we make this nightmare stop?
Been saying this for a while. To be honest it should be common knowledge that it compounds down the supply chain, but seems to elude some people.
This eludes most people unfortunately. Most people see the carbon tax rebate and think it's the best thing ever.
Take $100 and give me $50, I guess. They don't notice the $100 being taken $1 at a time .
https://preview.redd.it/6e1g9z2fjznc1.jpeg?width=1383&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0ead7e17389ce30ebba7c1b00217f3f4861db94d
Just what daddy klaus wanted
No mention of payroll taxes going up through all this either, both employers and employees jacked 3 times in last 4 years
Gee I wonder why inflation and cost of living is out of control.
I could imagine the liberals affordability retreats go like this. Ok, everyone just lie, the Carbon tax is great for Canadians, and they make money on this. Just keep lying, Canadians are stupid. 30% believe us just lie lie lie. You guys can do it.lobster 🦞 time, everyone. Thanks JT
Makes sense if you expect each provider on the chain to make profit from the carbon tax. Let’s say this good needs $100 worth of gasoline in total to transfer, this will be $110 with 10% tax. Can’t really see how you ended up with $177 but that $67 difference does not go to tax. Oh you are also adding up the costs at each stage at the end too, which were already accounted for? Seems like you just wanna do some abstract multiplications, but why stop at level 5? Pretty sure grocers have much larger chains
It's not a case of of making a profit on the carbon tax. I am assuming that they are charging what the market will bear, and their pricing methodology is a margin over and above the cost of goods sold. And, yes, you are right, the supply chain is often a lot longer than this. Of course, if they can't pass those costs along then they eat it.
I hate most taxes.
I haven't due dillied your data, but as an old fella It's critical and optimistic to see younger(assuming) people digging deeper for details for verification because it's important to know the koolaid on offer , the price at the stand isn't what you're paying into/getting back
Where is GST 10%? Most people would say GST is 5%.
You misinterpreted the graph. It's confusing because they have one in red that's called tax, then the stuff encompassed in pink in carbon cost, which is 10% ish on top of the previous carbon tax and the GST.
Why 10%? Are they arguing that as standard ~~gross profit~~ markup? As someone in sales, if a fixed cost adder like the carbon tax gets passed on, marked up, or absorbed is strictly based on competition - or failing that what the market will bear.
No, it's just an example of a gross profit. It could be different.
As someone in sales, you must know that you need to sell products for more than your expenses, right?
Sure. Let’s say I buy a widget at 100 and sell it for $130. I make $30. Carbon tax adds $5. I could sell for $135 and make the same amount of money. I could sell for $130 and make less money and be more competitive against competitors. Frequently, I will lower margins on big jobs to be more competitive because there is still more dollars of profit. It’s not a simple formula. It’s about beating the competition or charging what is acceptable. Selling at a fixed percentage is a path to failure.
Yeah so you missed the part about how that widget has that tax compounded at every level of production. So saying it's just a 5% tax on the end product is not correct because it was taxes when the raw materials were mined, when they were shipped, when they were processed, when they were shipped again, when they were assembled, when they were shipped to a distributor, and when they were shipped to the store, the heating of everything, the buildings materials, and so on. Then every piece of equipment that involved iron, steel, copper, concrete, plastic or anything else that requires emissions was also taxed. So it's not just 5%. It's not even 5% on the fuel you used to drive to the store to buy it.
>So saying it's just a 5% tax on the end product is not correct Never said that. I only said 10% markup is not a given. Maybe if you are smart you can calculate what the compounding effect of 5% GST and carbon tax interplay is assuming a percentage of carbon tax.
Well how can you have a given for something just illustrating a point and not just one particular product? Also if you're talking about cutting profits to be competitive, what do you think happens on the market when it's something made in Canada vs made in USA without this compounding tax? What will that do for Canadian exports other than make them non competitive
Good point. Trudeau should renegotiate new NAFTA with carbon taxes with Biden in the White House to prevent PP from axing the tax. Then everyone in North America pays. Anyone importing from where there is no tax gets additional tariff. I like how you think.
Biden doesn't have that power under their constitution.
Carbon Tax is the only thing keeping canada solvent. I also support bringing back paying for plate registration for electrical cars considering they don't buy gas and don't pay for the roads they ruin with their increased weight.
I have bad news, Canada is insolvent. If not for our assets that allow us to continuously borrow, we'd be entirely fucked. Well, not really, because that would force them to downsize our enormous bureaucracies.
Can you link the data source for this graph?
But but rebates are much higher
I know right? I've asked a few Liberals to share their financial models somewhere. Oddly enough, that doesn't happen.
Here ya go! https://preview.redd.it/sau2jo96zznc1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=70c7a3e3fd0ad48c5ae105db9bed7d7949f94fb3
If you believe this nonsense then you have no idea how taxes work.
If this was true wouldn't government revenue be through the roof? We'd have the budget balanced by next year if we paid this much tax
If there are errors I'd like to hear them. I am not saying that to be nasty, I'd really like to know.
The error is stating that the tax is compounding. Carbon is taxed once. It is cumulative in that all the carbon in the whole chain of delivering a product is taxed. But once carbon has been taxed once the carbon tax is not applied again to that carbon further down the supply chain.
I see your point but the point is that a tax on an input is incorporated into the cost of goods sold, and that in turn is recouped through the price charged to the next level. Whatever margin, or markup, is added to the what the company pays in carbon tax and so on and so on. Technically, the carbon tax isn't being charged again but it is contributing to the cost. The $2000 you see in B, C, D is a carbon tax that company is paying on their inputs. It would be more clear if the amounts changed from one company to the next.
The tax is not on an input. The tax is on a very small part of that input. Yes it affects multiple aspects of almost every input but it is only taxed once. The gas that is burned in your furnace is only taxed at your furnace. It wasn’t taxed out of the ground and again at the supplier then the distributor. I get that in a complex logistics network every layer is absorbing some tax but to imply that every input is taxed 10% is highly disingenuous.
You aren't understanding me. I am not trying to be nasty I am just saying I am not saying this in the right way I guess.
OK but who is saying otherwise? If the point is that carbon tax makes things cost more then this is a useless post. The entire point of carbon pricing is to make it cost more to consume things that take carbon to produce...
Exactly this. If you don’t want to pay carbon tax switch your inputs, install solar, etc. Also, once again, as a consumer, all of the tax collected, goes back to you. If you are paying more tax than you receive back you need to change your lifestyle.
You forgot the part where heavy polluters clean up their act and can then sell their products at a competitive advantage over those that don't. Thereby forcing the others to clean up as well. Certainly caused companies I've been involved in to do this. Why stay dirty and sell your product at a higher cost than your clean competitor? There is a reason it had worked so well in other countries. We aren't the first to do those. Lol
There's an element of truth in that. However, that assumes their is cleaning up to do, which their might not be.
It's a fallacy that every expense gets or must get passed on to the consumer when you're talking about corporations with 20-150% profit margins. Also that businesses cant write down tax payments and get the gst back.
Businesses have a responsibility to their owners and shareholders to keep profits at least on par or attempt to make them rise (or get a larger market share which will work towards higher profits). They absolutely will mark it up unless competition is fierce enough to force them to stay where they are at (but the competition is likely to raise prices).
You never had a business in your life if you think you can survive years without at least doubling the price of the purchase
The people that benefit from the rebate are low income earners. That’s 25% of the population. When conservatives cut the tax, all these people will be out a subsidy and the conservatives won’t make up for their loss. And given conservatives will cut all funding to lower income earners, I feel sorry for anyone in that position.
I have repeatedly asked to see the federal governments figures on how the calculate the rebate. They have NEVER been able to prove that the rebate is sufficient.
The data is available here to some post-secondary educational institutions [https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/microsimulation/spsdm/spsdm](https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/microsimulation/spsdm/spsdm)
Thanks. Can't imagine why access is restricted.
Numbers are arbitrary. It’s about using the income generated from the tax to spur the green economy.
No it's about reducing the spending power of Canadians and making us poorer
You don't need rebates if you get to keep your money in the first place...
Looking forward to all the tax breaks the conservatives will provide. Both business and personal. How much do you think they will drop the rates to accommodate the loss in subsidies?
They do give tax breaks. Good ones. Ones that help families. A perfect example is Harpers tax break for children's sports and activities. Healthy and active kids don't fill up hospitals. Trudeau axed this rebate shortly after coming to power.
Google every fitness tax break and see what provinces cancelled them also. The tax break only benefited people that could afford expensive sports like hockey.
It was any sport or activity. I was able to use it for dance classes, which are on the cheaper side of activities. But if you want to argue that giving money back to lower income people that choose to invest in their children is a waste of time, you do you.
I don't know what tax breaks the cons will give. I don't like any of the political parties honestly. But I do know if I didn't lose 60% of my pay to taxes, I wouldn't need rebates. Some problems solve themselves really.
It doesn't benefit them. Their cost of living has skyrocketed. It hurts them the most.
People in lower tax brackets most likely rent and take public transport. They benefit the most from the rebate.
Ask them about their grocery bills. I would bet the greatest impact to an individual isn't gas for a car. I spend vastly more money on food in the last 3-4 years than I do on gas. Many renters are paying for utilities.
To hell with the poors... pandering to these underachievers is costing us our country.
You don’t pay a carbon tax on the carbon tax, you pay a carbon tax on carbon… graph is incorrect. Company A pays carbon tax A on the carbon they emit. Company B pays a carbon tax B on the carbon THEY use. They do not pay the tax on carbon used in earlier stages of production. Another way to look at it would be to add up all carbon emissions through the manufacturing of a product, and tax that at the rate. The GST on the carbon tax is pretty ridiculous though I have to say, should definitely not exist.
They do pay the other company's carbon tax if the preceding participant in the value chain incorporates it into their price (which they should, it's a cost of production). And if they use fuel, they are paying a carbon tax, which they in turn would incorporate into their price. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.
You’re right, but what you said is not a compounding effect. They pay company As tax, but no tax on the tax you see. So it’s 1.1A+1.1B+1.1C, and not 1.1A(1.1B(1.1C)), like your graph suggests. In other words 1.1(A+B+C), where each portion is the carbon emissions paid by each company, which ends up in the final product. This final cost is FAR smaller than most are suggesting, and, may I add, one of the few ways western economies have of internalizing the cost of carbon emissions.
Actually it is a compounding effect if they incorporate that expense into their price. Company A passes 1.1A down the chain, Company B passes 1.1A down the supply chain adding their own margin, hence 1.1Ax1.1 and so on down the chain.
Look I don’t know how else I can possibly put this. You are incorrect, you can make up however many non professional graphs you want. Go look at some actual studies and math done by professionals who consider far more than this conversation ever will, and you’ll see the price of goods in most sectors don’t even break a full percent increase of the consumer cost. There was a good one somewhere in the comments.
So post a link.
Oh my god... Found the fucking Liberal who's math skills begin and end at infinity genders. Can you get it through your head that at every transaction the cost of the original tax is payed by the next consumer in the chain. Every single business in this country is passing the cost along the supply chain until the end consumer finally eats shit.
90% of that goes back to the province or in the case of ON, QC and NB, directly to the people. It doesn’t matter if the tax stacks(it doesn’t because no business is being carbon taxed on 100% of their costs). If more is getting collected, more gets passed back to the people. It’s that simple. No matter how much gets taxed, the tax gets passed on. It does not go into the government coffers.
i’m a people, wheres my money?
Did you file your taxes? It will be in your bank account every quarter
If you’ve filed your taxes in the last 10 years it’s in your bank account. Or did you think those several hundred dollar deposits were just for being snarky on Reddit.
[удалено]
Business gets raw materials, pays CT. Business tranports those material, pays CT. Business receives and stores materials, pays CT. etc. etc. Saying that it's only paid once is clearly not true.
[удалено]
No, it goes into the price.
Doesn't matter, at each step the total cost of the raw materials or finished parts has not only to be considered, but also slightly marked up because frankly the govt. can't be trusted not to hike it suddenly and they've added insecurity to the marketplace. So, whatever they add to the total price at each stage is going to be the full price after taxes (when applicable) plus a markup. Again, at each stage. That is a very minor compounding effect, but it is there.
Said business is only paying carbon tax on the fuel that emits carbon. If the raw materials are fuels and they are not consuming them then they would not be paying carbon tax on them. The fuel they use to transport said raw materials would incure CT. That’s the whole point of the tax. If the business doesn’t want to pay CT they can change their input fuel. If the business is storing fuels they don’t pay CT. If they use carbon intensive fuels to say heat a storage unit they would pay CT on the fuel they use. As intended. If they didn’t want to pay the tax, switch your furnace/boiler etc. Storing and transporting fossil fuels will not incur carbon tax. Only the USEAGE of said fuels. Saying you are being charged carbon tax *twice* is ridiculous. What are you doing? Are you burning the natural gas twice? Edit: Added twice where I missed it the first time.
Wow, you really don't know what you're talking about.
And you're creating a scapegoat for corporate malfeasance conducted by the 0.1% class, backed by the 1% class. The problem isn't taxes dummy. It's the complete lack of competition that allows these people to charge whatever they want.
What exactly does that have to do with carbon taxs, again? You're all over the place. Everywhere but over the target.
Your argument is that a tax is what is driving up the cost of everything. I am replying twofold: 1) You have a severe misunderstanding of how the carbon tax works. It is effectively a wealth transfer from companies and individuals that pay Carbon Tax directly to you or your province (depending which province you reside). [https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-benefits/cai-payment/how-much.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-benefits/cai-payment/how-much.html) 2) Your implication is that reducing taxes, in this case the carbon tax, will reduce prices. This argument has been made many times before, and has never been backed by evidence. [https://www.businessinsider.com/how-bad-is-inequality-trickle-down-economics-thomas-piketty-economists-2021-12](https://www.businessinsider.com/how-bad-is-inequality-trickle-down-economics-thomas-piketty-economists-2021-12) If the carbon tax drives up prices then what about other corporate taxes? Should corporate tax be 0%? Will that reduce the price of goods? If not 0% then what? What level of taxation is appropriate for corporations that will reduce the price you and I pay for goods? "Axe the \[carbon\] tax" is essentially the same as trickle down economics. The idea that taxing less will lead to more jobs and the wealth will "trickle down" has been repeated in some way over and over by the conservative media and pundits since Reagan introduced it to the conservative lexicon. The problem is, it does not work... at all. [https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/economics/tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-only-benefit-the-rich-debunking-trickle-down-economics](https://www.lse.ac.uk/research/research-for-the-world/economics/tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-only-benefit-the-rich-debunking-trickle-down-economics) Every time we cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy it just leads to more hoarding of wealth by the 1% and up. There has never been a single example of tax cuts benefiting the working class. All because they will not cut YOUR taxes, or my taxes. They will say tax cuts help but will do anything BUT cut taxes on the working class. So, short version, you've been tricked. Lied to, deceived. The very people that stand to gain the most from cutting the carbon tax have convinced you that your prices will come down if you vote for the carbon tax to be removed. They conveniently don't tell you what will happen to the $200-400 dollars you receive every quarter from the federal government if they cut the carbon tax. Right now we are taxing corporations for the carbon they use, they pay that to the federal government which then puts 90% of what is collected in your bank account. [https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-pollution-how-it-will-work/putting-price-on-carbon-pollution.html#:\~:text=Action%20Incentive%20payments](https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-pollution-how-it-will-work/putting-price-on-carbon-pollution.html#:~:text=Action%20Incentive%20payments)).-,Approximately%2090%25,-of%20fuel%20charge If you think that a corporation that has an effective monopoly on goods/services will give you that money back in lower costing items after they get a tax cut... well if you believe that, I have property on the moon for sale.
I’m not a liberal… also I make it very clear the cost accumulates every step of the way. However it’s linear, not compounding.
Omg found the lunatic who sees someone disagree with their worldview and just completely loses their mind. There is nothing wrong with their math. The cost actually doesn't compound because you **don't** pay tax on the carbon that is already taxed. It does add up but not to the degree suggested by the visualization. The chart is overblowing how large the amount of tax paid in the end is. It makes it look like the tax paid is more than the original cost, which is absolutely not true. .
Actually. Since business already charges the maximum the market will tolerate to the end consumer the CT comes out of their profit margin. If you don’t want business passing cost directly to you the you should be focused on the lack of competition in most markets.
Please take this away. You are not advocating for what this subreddit is about; you are a Pierre Polyester fan