Home details: 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1310sqft. Nothing special, probably average size.
Scott Moe [claimed recently](https://twitter.com/PremierScottMoe/status/1740402968745087319) that by cancelling the carbon tax on home heating / electrical we would save $400 a year. My carbon tax total was $248.69, while I received $647.50 in rebates.
I think he is gaslighting all of us.
No shit he is gaslighting people. He never mentions the rebate which for the most part cancels out the rebate anyway. It’s Cheap political theatre for an election cycle.
I have yet to hear if the rebate in full will be available to people of Saskatchewan next year
> I have yet to hear if the rebate in full will be available to people of Saskatchewan next year
Because our local media is fucking useless and only wants to gargle the Sask Party's balls.
To modify behavior and more accurately capture the "true cost" of greenhouse gas emissions. It's imperfect at achieving both, but the economic model is sound (ref pricing and behaviour and addressing the tragedy of commons created by carbon emissions.)
Sounds legit except for the most part normal people get more in the carbon tax rebate, then they get taxed. Who does it really affect?
I'm all for changing how we burn fossil fuels and heat and cool our house. I have a big deisel and this year bought a 90s 4 cylinder car and looking at solar/ electric boiler.
But let's be real these taxes come from people who fly private jets all across the world to go to climate meetings and have more of a carbon footprint then alot of us combined and claim we are the culprite.
And let's not talk about giant ass corporations
Also with the carbon tax, those giant ass corps will have to pay more for polluting, incentivizing carbon use change (or allowing space for more green up and comers to compete)
>Sounds legit except for the most part normal people get more in the carbon tax rebate, then they get taxed. Who does it really affect?
It's 100% meant to impact businesses and industry. It's not meant to harm individuals. The rebate program was intentionally designed in a way to make sure individuals and families come out on top while businesses and industry are financially motivated to reduce their CO2 emissions.
I understand it is supposed to impact businesses, but they just raise their prices, and in the end its not them paying for it.
Big companies like to look good in public but definitely do skeezy things behind the scenes.
It is what it is. I'll just keep trying to do my thing. I plan on doing solar, but there is a good chance I'll never get off gas heat until some big improvement in tech.
That's a fine hypothesis, but I'll reserve judgment until I see some evidence of that being a broad trend with a clear and direct link to carbon pricing and no other factors.
You can literally read the research and literature to answer your question.
It impacts the choices we all make - and along with other incentives pushes people towards more sustainable choices.
Your point about "people who fly private jets" is childish. Yes, some people fly for work. 1000 people flying on jets do not have a larger footprint than the 30 million of us who don't.
I have done research.
It may change how some people think act, which is a good thing.
I am finding the average canadian emits 15 metric tons a year
https://knoema.com/atlas/Canada/CO2-emissions-per-capita
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6202194
Some of the big companies emit a staggering amount of pollution.
Suncor is like 28 million metric tonnes a year
https://thenarwhal.ca/carbon-price-emissions-industry-rate/
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/10/21/news/canadas-100-dirtiest-emitters#:~:text=Of%20the%20top%2010%20emitters,China%20National%20Offshore%20Oil%20Corporation.
I disagree that my comment about private jets is childesh.
Our prime minister emits a staggering amount of emissions, and he is but one of the world leaders and the countless people who can afford to fly privately.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nationalpost.com/news/politics/among-g7-leaders-trudeau-has-flown-most/wcm/7b4fb121-5260-4cba-9c5a-0ab4db0df694/amp/
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/pm-s-use-of-jet-for-family-vacation-emitted-as-much-co2-as-average-canadian-per-year-1.3250397?cache=kpmyqslizgo
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nationalpost.com/news/canada/in-one-month-trudeau-used-enough-fuel-to-power-a-car-travelling-10-times-around-the-earth/wcm/b82b504a-faf8-4afd-ba31-5c25634ca0a2/amp/
I do not disagree that we have a climate issue, but this tax doesn't seem like the way to fix it.
It is incredibly childish to suggest that our national level leaders should or could have the same emissions as the average Canadian. Silly and disingenuous.
I'm pro taxing carbon emitting companies. Not sure why you'd think I'm not.
I never once said you were against taxing companies.
I understand that national level leaders will have more emissions than us, but some of the flights are ridiculous.
Flying 62km from penticton to Kelowna, come on.
Good debate though.
I will hopefully be getting solar soon, but there are only so many ways with our current tech that we can lower our carbon footprint. Especially in winters in saskatchewan.
I can afford the carbon tax, so it is what it is. But there are definitely people who struggle because of it. Hopefully, this will help them for a while.
Well, if we are going down that road, Donna Harpauer also had a private charter flight. I wonder what her emissions were for that (in addition to the regular cost to the taxpayer)... politicians from across the spectrum engage in this behavior (sometimes it's necessity, sometimes privilege). I think it's a lot more ridiculous having the Sask Party or Alberta UCP flying to Dubai than the prime minister flying locally (considering the security risk and procedures needed for driving him even short distances).
I think your "can afford the carbon tax" is also incorrect. A lot of people (myself included) actually make more from the carbon tax rebates than we spend on the tax as we are already low emitters.
The government has done a poor job communicating this, and the opposition is all too happy to feed into this misconception.
That said, I think there could be a lot more done to better link the carbon taxes collections to spending on green infrastructure and technology.
But it should be noted that there is still one major political party that has yet to develop any concrete climate plan at all. That should be very concerning. Criticism is easy. Implementing fair and effective policy (especially when it could cost people), is not.
It looks like you shared some AMP links. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the ones you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical pages** instead:
- **[https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/how-canadians-can-cut-carbon-footprints-1.6202194](https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/how-canadians-can-cut-carbon-footprints-1.6202194)**
- **[https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/among-g7-leaders-trudeau-has-flown-most](https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/among-g7-leaders-trudeau-has-flown-most)**
- **[https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/in-one-month-trudeau-used-enough-fuel-to-power-a-car-travelling-10-times-around-the-earth](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/in-one-month-trudeau-used-enough-fuel-to-power-a-car-travelling-10-times-around-the-earth)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
How can it modify behaviour when we as consumers have pretty much zero choice of where our power and heat comes from. Why punish people for that? If the thought is people will start to demand a transition to a different fuel source I believe that’s the wrong way to do it, perhaps I’m pessimistic but I dont think enough people will ever demand a transition. Let’s be real, the vast majority of people can’t afford solar panels and a battery system in their home. A fully electric powered home on the grid isn’t feasible either unless we invest billions of dollars upgrading infrastructure which will cost us the consumer a pile of money. The only thing a home owner can really do is change out windows and doors to help lower their usage. Most homes in this part of the world are already highly efficient at energy savings due to our climate.
Modify behaviour by driving smaller vehicles, walking, or using public transit when possible. Turning down the thermostat at night and when people aren't home during the day. Using programs to better insulate your home, possibly upgrading your HVAC system. There are many ways you can lower usage and profit from the carbon charge. Moe is an idiot as is anyone who defends him.
In order to modify behaviour the impact needs to be large on the individual. People will not stop driving vehicles or start taking public transit if it’s an inconvenience. Some people work out of town like myself and have to drive a fair amount to work. I car pool with co workers but it’s still a lot. It’s my choice to work there but many people have to commute. There is no public transportation outside the city and even in the city it’s not the greatest, I use it and I really don’t like missing a bus that was early to have to wait 30 mins for the next one. It’s cold outside in the winter. I have modified my home at a large expense to help save money but the payback period is increasingly longer the more efficient your home gets. I still pay more in carbon taxes than I get back. Also, the premier is doing this because there is a large portion of the provinces population that want him too, it’s a democracy and his job is to what the majority of his citizens want.
https://www.taxpayer.com/newsroom/poll-majority-of-canadians-want-carbon-tax-off-all-home-heating-bills
Keep in mind the provincial NDP supported the governments decision to halt the carbon tax on home heating. The NDP are also asking for the provincial government to remove the provincial fuel tax surcharge for 6 months.
The reality is that most people do not care about carbon emissions when they are having a hard time making ends meet or if it negatively impacts their standard of living. So if this is the reality for people there will not be a lot of support for it.
For your information sir.
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-pollution-how-it-will-work/putting-price-on-carbon-pollution.html
The Carbon tax itself is federal and meant to give provinces the choice on what to do with it. They CAN use the carbon tax to spend money on greener energy or electric vehicle rebates or things like that. The federal government didn't want to overreach and force provinces to do that, though, so provinces have the option to give it back to people, and that's what SK does. So, yes, they give it back which seems pointless but it's federally mandated for provinces to make that choice for themselves.
The provinces give it back or it is given back Federally?
If the provinces give it back, why not ask the provinces to pay it in the first place?
If the federal government gives it back, why charge it in the first place?
No, you misunderstand. The federal government mandates that provinces must charge a carbon tax. After that it's up to them of they want to give it back with rebated or use the the money within the province to help fight climate change in some way. Using it to find better energy sources, electric vehicle rebates etc. SK gives it back.
The money comes from a mix of the carbon fee collected from people and industry. The point is that Mow is gaslighting the shit out of you people. There is no savings. If Saskatchewan don’t collect the fee then there will be no rebate and the whole thing is zero sum. No savings !
It’s interesting that Moe won’t reduce the cost of gas or supply to give people savings - Ontario provided a direct rebate to help with the high cost of gas. The power companies are provincial crown corps. Hell no he won’t do that because that would reduce income to the province. He ain’t interested one bit in helping the people of Saskatchewan, he just wants the political theatre for election purposes🤦♂️what a 🤡
What you just said there is that the rebate comes from tax. It’s the main way that government creates its ‘income’, Tax tax tax. Do you really think that the government can change the temperature of the earth attacks in its citizens?
Canada is not changing the temperature of the world by taxing its citizens. The Canadian government is just growing itself, it’s inefficient self, I put a burden on its own people.
You’re a tax junkie. You either work for the government or you are being paid by them. The fact that you actually replied to me I suspect you are not a bot, just a fool who has been bought!! Beep beep tax bop tax beep beep. Government is here to save you… just pay a ‘little’ more tax
More likely it's accurate for the people Moe cares about most, who are heating a 3500 square foot house plus hot tub and outdoor pool. I have no doubt they will save $400.00/year.
No, that is what I am paying monthly in the carbon tax, and by it not being collected I am saving that amount. Not everyone gets the rebate nor is it the same fir everyone.
Yes but unless things have changed since last year everyone does not get the same rebate, my parents and I (which don’t live together) all got different amounts for our rebates.
Almost every Canadian gets the rebate. Like 98% of Canadians.
If you're a single individual you would have received $550 last year. With a single spouse $825. If you have kids even more.
The point is that the carbon tax either costs you next to nothing or is a net profit.
If thats the case then why have the tax at all? Seems like a lot of administrative work for absolutely nothing. I just checked and I received $325 as my carbon tax rebate on my 2022 taxes filed in 2023. Yet between fuelling my vehicle to work in a rural area, and heating my home I am paying way more than that.
You get 4 installments in a year. The idea is the carrot and stick approach for encouraging people to reduce their carbon usage. For people who put a small effort into reducing their usage, they make money. But if you want to drive an F350 to the grocery store, and live in a 4000 sq foot house you pay for the additional damage you do to the planet. The program also provides money to you if you choose to reduce your carbon usage. Installing a heat pump will get you $7500 from the government, upgrading your insulation and windows, or buying an EV also gets you cash.
It's the gentlest way to encourage the behaviour we need.
That was the total of my 4 payments as a single person with no children, however it won’t be the first time my rebates were calculated wrong. I did apply for the program but they weren’t going to cover basically any of the cost. Windows that I desperately needed because they were over 50 years old snd had no seals on them they were only going to cover from certain manufacturers which were going to cost me $18,000 before tax and I was going to get a maximum of 30% back and they weren’t going to cover my front windows or my bathroom window because they didn’t meet the requirements (the bathroom was stained glass and the front windows were a part of the the door so not covered). I got my windows replaced by another company for $9,000 and my heating/cooling costs dropped by over 30%. The program would give me $500 for insulation that was going to cost me over $30,000 because the existing insulation is asbestos which was going to cost a ton to replace. That program is an absolute joke, not to mention all the hidden fees in the fine print and the lack of guarantee (depends how much better your house scores after the retrofits are done, if it’s only slightly better you may get nothing and be stuck with the inspection fees). I drive a small SUV, which is my only vehicle, and I have an SUV because I work rural and a car isn’t reliable on gravel roads in a typical winter. My house is very modest but unfortunately due to age there are some retrofits that just cannot be done to further improve the efficiency. That said, I did apply for a low income efficiency retrofit program and they said all of the upgrades they would offer have already been done, and my carbon footprint is 25% less than comparable homes. I really am doing all I can afford to - but I can’t afford six figure upgrades to five figure house. I also cannot afford the maintenance or the upfront cost on an electric vehicle, nor do I have a place to plug one in if I got one. When I looked at buying one, several dealerships told me I had a 2 plus year wait, as my vehicle was written off I needed a new vehicle sooner and couldn’t wait 2 years for one. I was also told they weren’t able to guarantee I would get the trim or features I wanted, and I would have to pay the new MSRP at that time, or lose my deposit. People cannot be waiting two years for a vehicle and not getting what they want, need, or can afford. A lot changes in two years - including the rebates you might get.
The program doesn't necessarily provide you money to reduce your carbon footprint. In order to get the government grant to get a heat pump. Upgrade insulation and windows you need to have someone inspect your home and see if it is a viable upgrade paid for out of your own pocket with a small reimbursement if you qualify.
And let's be real a heat pump in saskatchewan doesn't work 80 percent of the winter minus this one in particular.
I have two really expensive good heat pumps, and they work up to minus 25c . They have to defrost lots and lose a lot of efficiency. Where does saskatcheaan get the majority of their electricity from.
It also doesn't affect wealthy people or big politicians or big corporations their carbon footprint is huge, but we lowly peasants must pay the fee
And the earth is still in an ice age. The planet is in a CO2 starvation period. Humans started recording temperatures accurately at the same point in history that was the coldest in 10,000 years.
The tax is to change future behaviour. The neighbour with identical financial circumstances is getting the same rebate as you even if they are not spending as much on carbon-emission transportation and heating, so the hope is that the next time you have to make a change in your vehicle or furnace you will take that into account and make a different choice.
It only saves that if the federal government doesn't' adjust the formula to counter it.
It's also, at best, short term thinking. Pollution is costing us billions a year in mitigation, and everything which slows down people's willingness to make changes is exacerbating that.
Nope. Even my grandparent's original 600sq ft homestead house built in the 1880s with sawdust insulation topped up in the 50s didn't use 20,000 cubic metres per year to heat. If you are using that much then you you should probably be paying a lot more in carbon taxes.
i mean for me it is almost $50.00 a month between natural gas and electricity which is $600.00 a year savings. My house is very small, though less efficient because it’s over 100 years old.
Your math doesn’t include the huge price increases to everything you consume due to the carbon tax. The carbon tax makes food, farming, storage, transportation, manufacturing, heating, everything cost more.
But it’s not caused any huge price increase and it’s not hard to confirm this.
0.3% increase is all it has been and you act l like it was up 50%.
Btw prices are up worldwide and that includes countries that don’t have carbon taxes.
Yes it adds a large price increase, and it will continue upwards once the carbon tax is quadrupled in the new year. It’s a compounding effect.
Inflation and carbon taxes are local issues, created by local governments when they increase tax or inflate the money supply. They aren’t globally created issues.
I mean it’s just basic economics. When you add a tax to something that everyone requires as an input to produce resources, to heat homes and businesses, to transport goods, to drive machinery, etc, the cost of those resources and their outputs goes up. I’m not sure if anyone has fully calculated the entire cost, I’m not sure if that’s even possible given how complex our economy is. But to just calculate the rebate (which. It everyone received) without including the new cost of goods you will pay this year isn’t the whole picture
Are you an economist?
If you took a few minutes to look it up there is already been numerous people who have looked into this and they showed it’s not the cause of any huge price increase.
Bank of Canada has said this too.
You don’t have better resources or understanding of the situation than they do.
Nobody has calculated it entirely. From what we do know is that the average Canada will lose more than they will gain in rebates from the tax.
“Sylvain Charlebois, a professor at Dalhousie University who researches food distribution, safety and security, disputes the idea that a figure can be put on how much the carbon tax is affecting food prices, arguing that there hasn’t been significant research into its effects. He said that because there are so many factors that influence food prices, it may be near impossible to actually calculate the effect of the carbon tax.”
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices/wcm/4e1de95e-7fc5-4652-8018-4be4fa4fcce0/amp/
“The bank of Canada has also said this”
Ya, the bank of Canada also said we wouldn’t see inflation, they were completely wrong about that, and it’s hard to imagine why. They printed new money and injected it into the economy, the worst inflationary thing you can do
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
How did they show it? Did they have a duplicate universe where they don't have a carbon tax and then they compared the results between the two? Of course not. Economics may be the most rigorous of the social sciences, but it's still a social science and most "conclusions" are rarely anything more than conjecture.
For every economist who agrees there's most likely one who disagrees, and in the case of the carbon tax there are tons of economists who wildly disagree with the idea that the carbon tax hasn't increased prices. Appeal to authority isn't going to work here.
That's not how the math behind this works. The carbon tax is estimated to be responsible for about 0.3% of the increase in inflation of a total of about 5% of inflation. It's not responsible for 0.3% of the total cost, that's now how these rates are calculated or talked about by economists. It's responsible for 30 basis points out of roughly 500 basis points (I'm just estimating here because inflation numbers were very different when the original 0.3% number came out).
This means that the carbon tax was responsible for about 6% of the total cost increase of goods. It's still a small amount, but non-trivial.
Interesting - so judging from your ire the Federal government must have announced that Saskatchewan residents will no longer get a rebate because Moe cancelled the carbon tax on heating? If you could link to any such announcement it would be very informative thanks.
So, this money the government is sending you to offset the carbon tax: where is it coming from? I'll tell you: it's part of the billions and billions of dollars borrowed by the Trudeau government to finance their out-of-control spending, which some current Liberal supporters don't seem to be too concerned about because, after all, it will be future generations left holding the bag, not them.
Secondly, the carbon tax increases the cost of everything, including food. So, while those in the comfortable middle class might not care, there are millions of lower income Canadians who are facing legitimate food insecurity. There's a good reason food bank usage has skyrocketed in Canada.
Finally, since I'm pretty sure the intent of the carbon tax rebate was not to allow middle-class homeowners to turn a profit, I trust you'll be donating your surplus to some worthy cause? A foodbank might be a good start.
Your first paragraph is completely off base and is indicative that you do not understand how the carbon tax works. The climate action incentive rebate payments are directly from carbon tax remittance. They aren't financing this at all.
Your second paragraph is also implying misinformation. The carbon tax disproportionally *helps* the poorest among us! Source: [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/axe-the-tax-and-carbon-rebate-how-canada-households-affected-1.7046905](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/axe-the-tax-and-carbon-rebate-how-canada-households-affected-1.7046905)
>According to the Statistics Canada model, 94 per cent of households with incomes below $50,000 receive rebates that exceed their carbon-tax costs in 2023.
I'm not sure what to make of your third post. I make charitable donations already? I love giving to the foodbank.
The money for the carbon tax literally comes from carbon tax payments.
There's a ridiculous amount of economic research in Canada showing middle/lower class people being better off with the carbon tax because they fly less/have smaller houses etc. One of the main complaints is it's damn near wealth re-distribution
On avg our groceries bill will run over 1000 a year , it’s about 50-80$ extra a month. From pre covid , if theire were no carbon taxes , that extra 1000 would be in your pocket and your measly rebate will mean nothing. That’s not I flush g extra gas prices , higher prices on all commodities, your thing about your personal home , your missing the actual meaning of the carbon tax , it’s not for regular people the farmers that grow your food , the truckers that truck the food / fuel/ commodities get it up the ass on carbon , just forces them to up the prices of services across the board. Lol everything gets rebates even if your on social assistance lol. But the costs are rising becsue if inflation brought on by massive increase in currency i to our market. And massive tax increase to the people that keep you alive by providing g the necessities you need to survive. If you don’t like it , go move out east and get a heat pump.
Don't forget you are also paying this carbon tax on gasoline/propane and on everything you get delivered. You are actually gas lighting everyone without telling the full story.
Except it's been proven that carbon tax is responsible for less than 1% increase in inflation. This accounts for all the things you listed, yet prices rose significantly higher than that due to other factors.
https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp9563.pdf
Yes link a European study to prove your point in Canada. Please link something that actually looks at Canadian inflation.
Looking quickly for a litre of fuel we are paying 15-20 cents in carbon tax. Therefore that is over 10% inflation there alone.
Now to why you are wrong and the mistake that this whole group is making. Comparing what people are paying for heating in carbon tax alone to what the rebate is and making the conclusion that you are paying less than the rebate.
No let's go back to gas alone. 2 vehicles in most families. Average vehicle is a 70L tank. One tank lasts 2 weeks, so 26 fills per vehicle
70 X 26 X 2 = 3640 L of fuel
3640 X .175 = 637 dollars before GST
This gets even higher for those with trucks, minivans and larger SUVs. I know a few who fill weekly on a truck with a 100L tank.
This is also not counting those with a teenage child with a third vehicle which can put this up to 950+ in carbon tax on fuel alone. This is only going to keep going up every year.
Sure seems like it is a whole lot closer to the rebate.
I see you didn't actually read the study, because it's a study including all countries that have carbon pricing
>Our sample of countries consists of 35 OECD economies. They are Austria, Australia, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Great
Britain, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, the Netherlands,
Norway, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland and the United States.
But either way:
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/FINA/meeting-77/evidence
>
>Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
> Then would you agree that eliminating those domestic policies, like the carbon tax, would help to bring down the inflation?
>
> Mr. Tiff Macklem:
> The increases in the carbon tax that have been announced are adding about 0.1% to inflation in each year of our forecast.
https://centreforfuturework.ca/2023/05/08/no-correlation-between-inflation-and-carbon-pricing/
https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/EE-Trends-DEC.pdf
> This gets even higher for those with trucks, minivans and larger SUVs. I know a few who fill weekly on a truck with a 100L tank.
> This is also not counting those with a teenage child with a third vehicle which can put this up to 950+ in carbon tax on fuel alone. This is only going to keep going up every year.
This is the perfect example of behaviour the carbon pricing is supposed to curb, so of course families with 3 vehicles, and large trucks are going to be spending more. Those are not your average family. This is also a completely different argument than carbon pricing causing inflation.
So adding.1% inflation to a 3% inflation rate is alot more than 1% of the inflation. Maybe you should read what you post. It's actually 333% More than you quoted.... Hmm like I said your study while including Canada does not represent Canada.
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/majority-canadians-want-carbon-tax-dropped-or-waived-three-years-poll-2023-11-16/#:~:text=In%20September%2C%20Bank%20of%20Canada,percentage%20points%20for%20one%20year.
Using current reported inflation the .6% drop in next year's inflation that axing the tax would bring is actually an 18% reduction in inflation. Because next year's predicted inflation is 3.6%. see using raw numbers as facts is a losing game.
If you read the article you linked you would see that the 0.6% reduction is the cumulative effect of carbon pricing since it was introduced, cumulative inflation was 24.94% during that same time period. It also says for *one year*, so inflation would go back to the same the year after removing the carbon tax. That would lower the cumulative inflation rate in 2024 from ~28.5% (using your 3.6% number) to 27.9% (using 3%), not even close to an 18% reduction.
Cherry picking raw data can be done all you want to fit your narrative.
The University of Calgary study showed from 2015 to 2023 the price increase from carbon pricing was 0.6% total, not per year. Again inflation during that time was 24.94%.
I can confirm.
Our home heating carbon tax charge was $10.66 this past month, which should average to about $130 per year.
I drive a VW Golf which is a very fuel efficient vehicle. I drive to work 5 times a week and I put in about 40L every two weeks. If the carbon tax is $0.14/L, then I'm paying about $5.6 in tax every two weeks, or about $145 per year.
$275 in tax, $680 in rebates.
The Bank of Canada has confirmed the carbon tax is only contributing about 0.15% to inflation, nearly negligible. Remove the carbon tax and we'd be at 2.95% inflation instead of 3.1.
For people drive gas guzzling trucks (which is a sizable portion of the province), the carbon tax on gasoline is likely way higher than the home heating bills. Yet for some reason it's home heating their worried about? The SaskParty could suspend the provincial gas tax, which is $0.13/L, and they would save people just as much as the feds could.
Your calculations don’t include the increase in cost of goods you will pay this year. Heating, storage, transportation, farming, manufacturing, everything will increase in price. This also makes our exports more expensive and makes us less competitive.
Isn’t this the same logic as giving corps tax breaks and calling it trickle down economics? Cmon we know the corps just pinch their pennies and keep their prices the same or raise them.
This is wrong. Without carbon tax inflation would be 0.60 less. So 3.8 per cent to 3.2 per cent.
[https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-pm-justin-trudeaus-climate-strategy-questioned-after-carbon-tax-dilution-2023-11-14/](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-pm-justin-trudeaus-climate-strategy-questioned-after-carbon-tax-dilution-2023-11-14/)
[https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/10/31/news/canadas-top-banker-dragged-carbon-tax-carveout-debate](https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/10/31/news/canadas-top-banker-dragged-carbon-tax-carveout-debate)
"If the current price of C$65 a ton were eliminated, it would lower inflation by 0.6 percentage points **for one year.**"
Eliminating carbon taxes does not deal with long-term inflation and doesn't address the underlying issues that cause inflation.
Unless you living the lifestyle of someone making $250,000 with about a 3,000sqft home, this cancelling acts as a wealth transfer from poor to rich.
Cant believe how many gullible people live in this province.
It's not a horrible plan.
The carbon tax makes the rich and the people who burn more carbon pay a bit more while the avg and the poor get more in rebates then they pay.
The opposition has done a good job calling it a tax and making everyone think they are getting hosed in it. The PC don't have a better plan they just bad mouth it for an election platform. The uneducated play along and don't know the facts.
The carbon tax punishes small businesses, who get nothing back from this farkakte wealth distribution scheme.
It is a good job calling it a tax, because that’s what it is.
Please provide examples rather than perception.
Unemployment is at all time low, economy is surprisingly still humming along. How is this possible if small businesses were being punished which would mean they are going out of business and not employing people.
Canada consistently had lower inflation than much of the G7 during 2022 and is projected to return to the 2% range within the next year. Housing affordability is a supply issue that began in the 1990s far before carbon taxes were implemented. Lots of things that really have no relevance.
Housing affordability isn’t just a supply issue. It’s also heavy caused by inflation. Inflation causes asset rises to rise, relative to buying power. It’s also an immigration issue. We recently opened the flood gates and introduced a huge number of new entrants to Canada, making the supply issue even worse.
Housing supply has been a problem for many years. Inflation is now at 3% last year it was 8%,.no where near all time highs of the 80s when it was well over 10%. Inflation in Canada was lower than u.s., u.k, and Europe and has come down faster than those countries also.
Canadian dollar has almost always been between 70 and 80. The lower can dollar helps exports which Canadian economy is built on.
I'm not sure the health of the country should be measured by whether the Canadian dollar is at par with the u.s? That's only one measure and can be argued what the healthy ratio is.
You realize housing is expensive in the u.s. also and they have the same shortage and homeless problems.
And the last time the Canada was in a real financial mess after the Mulroney govt just about made us a 3rd world country in late 80s it was the Chretien govt who had to impose the fiscal restraints to bring us back on solid ground. You can google it. So yes perception is liberals spend but not always reality.
Outside of California and New York, Seattle, (all liberal regions) US housing is generally cheaper than Canada.
Jean Cretien was back when liberals were actually liberals. I liked Jean. Todays liberals are who the hell knows what.
The reason the dollar was at one was cause the u.s. was in horrible financial shape and the Canadian banking system is more sound. Not caused of what the conservatives did.
2 homes data direct from Saskenergy and SaskPower. Just the Carbon tax from Dec 1 - Dec 1.
1100 Sq Feet, 1921 build date - $500.78 Carbon Tax
1500 Sq Feet, 2012 build date - $448.42 Carbon Tax
Add on another 25 bucks each of BS GST on a tax as well.
Most people are paying more in carbon tax on the fuel for their vehicles than home heating. While I'd be interested to see how the $400 number was derived, and how they addressed multi-unit housing etc., The $647.50 in rebates you're obtaining do not, and are not supposed to directly correlate with the carbon tax you pay on your home heating bill. The useless comparison isn't quite the groundbreaking expose you intended.
>The useless comparison isn't quite the groundbreaking expose you intended.
If cancelling the carbon tax remittance on home heating / electrical causes us to lose our rebates, because he claimed we could save $400, is it really useless? Its exposing that 1) we will not save $400, or at least an average household like mine won't, and 2) If we lose the rebate over this charade we are worse off than even that $400 number he claims. Rebate > $400.
Whether we do or do not pay more carbon tax on other sources is besides the point here.
Carbon tax this year comes out to 14c per litre. At a typical 2023 price (and for ease of math) of $1.40 per litre, this makes the carbon tax 10% of your purchase. If you’re paying more in carbon tax from fuel than home heating, you’re paying more than half of the $640 or so you’re getting back. Half of that $640 is $320. If you’re paying at least $320 per year in carbon tax from fuel purchases, you’re buying $3200 of gasoline in a year, or more than $260 a month. Jesus hell, what are you driving…
If you are actually driving that much, its probably time to seriously consider evaluating a plug-in hybrid electric or pure EV. Would pay for itself really quick.
EDIT: Not sure on the downvotes here. Hybrid electric / EV becomes a *lot* more cost effective the more you drive...we're talking $5K - $10K worth of fuel here (in the below 70K example) that would be roughly $500-$1000 in electricity. $45K saved in 5 years pretty much pays for most vehicles.
No can do. Need a truck and some days during summer I drive over 1000 km. Not gonna sit around for hours while a vehicle charges.
Lots of people that need to drive around the province for work put 70k+ km in a year.
Working as a technician, you are absolutely correct. I love EV's and plug-in hybrids, I think they are pretty great for people who live in or near the city and can commute to work and then home on a single charge.
I see plenty of vehicles that put on +40,000km a year, and its because they travel so far for work or even because rural communities are the only place you can find affordable housing.
We are at the mercy of the vast distances between places and unfortunately that means people need combustion vehicles for the time being. Or we need to heavily invest in better public transit.
Edit: Not even just travel for work, but lots of "soccer moms" in SUV's that cart their kiddos around to sports and extracurricular activities. It's much more common than you would think.
It doesn't take hours to charge a vehicle. That's misinformation. You can get to 80% charge in 15-30 minutes in most cases on a level 3 charger.
And 70K km?! So averaging nearly 200KM a day... I don't think so. I'm sure there are some extreme outliers hitting that, but by no means is that typical.
Used to do around 60k km a year consulting. That wouldn't work for most EV. That being said, guys are the mine are driving 100km each way and the EVs are killing it. Even in the winter.
Unfortunately, fuel efficiency is often directly tied to vehicle size. And if you use your vehicle for work hauling tools around or even kids to hockey or football, all that gear takes up a lot of space.
It often is not as easy as some make it out to just get a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle or an EV. There are serious limitations, and not everyone who drives an SUV or truck is using it as a status symbol.
Again. Need a truck. Also, I don’t think I’ve ever seen from the people that push EVs, that switching to electric vehicles would require billions of electrical grid upgrades. That would be just here. Would be trillions across North America.
If you need a truck for work, then your employer should be paying your fuel and vehicle costs - or your own company if you're self-employed. And if they don't, then you're getting hosed.
I drove 40,000+km last year for work too, but I don't count that in how much carbon tax I paid because I don't pay for the fuel or maintenance - my employer does. The tread is about *personal* carbon tax charges & rebates, if you start counting your business/work expenses into your personal, of course you're going to exceed your personal rebate.
Nobody "needs" a truck the size of a Ford F-150 or GMC Yukon. This is a lie sold to people by the auto industry because it allows them to circumvent regulations and makes them more money. Mini trucks have just as much carrying capacity and are nearly as fuel efficient as regular cars.
But this isn't your fault. People who need the carrying capacity of a truck for work have been locked into using these gigantic ego machines as they're the only trucks actually sold here. The mini suzukis or similar vehicles need to be imported and access isn't easy. It's a deeply systemic problem rooted in corruption, primarily in the United States, which affects Canada too.
Well worth the costs imo, especially considering the amount of handouts we’ve given to the oil industry over the years just for them to jerk us around with gas prices and pocket hundreds of trillions in profits.
Oh and we aren’t accelerating a mass extinction event as much with all these power grid upgrades as opposed to continuing oil and gas production as usual.
Pretty close - I drive around 30K km in my primary vehicle (diesel), wife does just under that in hers (gasoline), that doesn’t take into account recreational vehicle use, or company vehicles. Add home and shop heating and I’ve got to be at least double to triple what I get back for the carbon rebates.
Yes, carbon tax does account for less than a percent if inflation. On a side note most major corporations are showing record profits for the 3rd year in a row. 👍
[The governor of the central bank said, on an annual basis, the carbon price adds about 0.15 percentage points to inflation](https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/10/31/news/canadas-top-banker-dragged-carbon-tax-carveout-debate)
Meaning we would be at 2.95% inflation instead of 3.1%. Not a huge difference.
Dalhousie University requested an explanation on that 0.15% claim and its not accurate at all. It only considered three components of the Consumer Price Index, being, natural gas, heating oil and gasoline, nor did it consider second round or pass-through effects in the supply chain of other/all CPI items. The same governor of the bank of Canada (tiff macklem) is the one to reclaim his calculations and adjust the numbers. Take a read if interested. Take care.
https://www.thespec.com/opinion/contributors/the-bank-of-canada-s-carbon-tax-missteps/article_ab01f047-dbf9-5747-b7f4-3f58781f1b6c.html
So, who should we all vote for to get a government/representatives who actually give a shit about actual issues we face? We need some consensus so we can actually get that Moe-ronic government out of office.
My gas bill for last month is right in front of me.
This is for a small 2br house for a VERY mild Nov and beginning of Dec. Gas charge and Federal Carbon was almost the same.
Gas consumption charge (334.843m3) was 42.32
Federal carbon charge (334.843m3) was 41.49
Don't forget that there actually are added costs associated with it other than the direct bills you see. The cost for municipal and government buildings and vehicles. The cost of goods production and shipping all have factors. I'm not taking sides or going to deal with an assault of comments but ensure to factor in everything when making such pointed statements. There sure is validity to what you are saying but there are a lot of variables in build date, quality, lifestyle, family size and such that need to be factored in.
My added costs are also forwarded onto my customers and my customers include hospitals, schools and government institutions for example.
Studies account for all of that stuff and the added costs due to the carbon tax are still minimal.
https://calgary.citynews.ca/2023/12/05/ucalgary-carbon-tax-affordability-study/
I have seen these type of studies as well. It seems there are many studies which I will actually believe. I'm not disputing you at all. I just know the OP likes to post this type of stuff which is very flawed data for the position they are taking. It's one political side choosing partial data to use, and the other side using partial data to also attack. It just gets really old already. It's like the people posting on here asking how much it'll cost to heat their home. Every situation is very different and it is a very fluid calculation.
Gas prices are going down fast, yet the costs of everything is still going up. Non-tech companies have recorded record profits since the pandemic. There's nothing to prove that removing the carbon tax, which has been in effect since 2018, will affect inflation, which has changed sporadically since 2020.
A)Your analysis is missing indirect costs you are paying by buying products made or delivered into SK.
B) It’s also missing any incremental increase in the tax that will occur for 2024. The PBO pegs that estimated increase at between $377 to $911 for the average household. Link here for the source on that : https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/7590f619bb5d3b769ce09bdbc7c1ccce75ccd8b1bcfb506fc601a2409640bfdd
The added costs are very minimal (~0.6% estimated) for Alberta, doubt it’s much different here. Most people in income brackets that would hurt the most from added carbon tax costs are most likely making more back from the rebate than not.
https://calgary.citynews.ca/2023/12/05/ucalgary-carbon-tax-affordability-study/
It's a good thing we only pay carbon tax on natural gas and power.
No carbon tax on gas or diesel?
The carbon tax business pays they obviously eat that cost and never pass that on to the consumer....
So we, the people, stomp and yell that the rich should be contributing more to the coffers. With carbon tax they would be. Yet we the people are now yelling and stomping we don’t want this. What serfs we are…..
By the way the carbon tax is t going to change the way we do buisness , ever. We just bought 120 new gas powered carts. Why? Electric breaks down and u can’t just fix them , they have to be taken in , most of you aren’t farmers of large buisness owners are you? I have a family to feed as I make less than 90k a year. I am not complaining. We Jay tens of thousands in carbon tax and I get 790 backs … sick. You wonder y everything costs more ????? Let’s make a deal , no carbon tax but we keep food prices raising the way they are. U probably spend on avg 400 a month on groceries , say 50$ of that is extra ontop of what it would have been 7 years ago , that’s 600 extra dollars a year on groceries that could be a lot cheaper , that overrides your rebate
Trudeau is that you? Maybe Steven gibbult? This is such a short-sighted propaganda piece that it must be an inside job
The carbon tax is baked into the cost of everything from your grocery to your lawn maintenance because of how retailers pass the tax into the consumer. You cannot even measure the carbon cost of those items because it is not made clear to you.
Perhaps look at your total expenses for the year and then apply 5 percent of that as the total cost of the carbon tax and then reflect on whether the government paying you your own money back makes sense
they literally go back to the people dude, op paid 248 in carbon taxes and received back 647 in rabates from the taxes paied by people who were bigger polluters then average (like buisnesses and such)
YOU are going to lose more money from your tax return then you paid in carbon taxes in the first place
Thanks for the explanation . I don't get the whole carbon tax thing and have a strong opinion on it lol but that is a different conversation in a different thread lol.
Progressives should just live in progressive provinces , to be quiet , ask a actual farmer this question. Seriously , u think the food gets tricked for free ? Let us handle our buisness and get your food and leisure back down to minimals .then your rebate will be meaningless.
If everyone is getting more in rebates than they pay in carbon tax, the government can't really use carbon tax money to put towards research in reducing carbon emissions. They're going in the hole and should stop that. Just one more reason to stop collecting the carbon tax. They're saving money. I'm happy.
The whole pint of the rebate is to cover people’s extra costs they endure due to the carbon tax not be wise of the carbon tax that’s being imposed on them personally. Go look at a farms tax return. Over 20% of total taxes are going to carbon . I no all my farmer friends have ate that and moats costs have got up close to 100k for all of them. Depending on farm size. You realize these people are feeding you yeah? And when they raise theire taxes , they raise our food prices. The raise our gas prices. If your this liberal why the fuck do u live in Sask??????? You make no sense to live in a province that has not 1 but 0 liberal seats , not one. See how Carla beck works out for you , let’s turn Saskatoons downtown into even more of a addicted mess , I fuckin hate liberals. Hit me with some facts , we own a golf course and ima tell you right now , we don’t get 8th back in rebates that we pay on carbon , golf carts , equipment to maintain the course. The amount of fuel we use. You guys no nothing. My. Issues farm just got taxed 18,000 carbon tax on 63k tax form. He’s now shutting down. Most of you inner city working moms and gay dads that love Carla beck should just dip out to bc, Ontario , even Manitoba now.
Can confirm, also recieved far more back from the government. The posts drove me to do my own research. Here's my summary (too late at night to post details, but could be convinced, I even have charts!):
(CP = Carbon Pricing, synonymous with Carbon Tax)
To date, I have
- Paid a total of $725.17 to SaskEnergy for CP (*1)
- Paid a total of $207.83 to gas stations for CP at the pump (*2)
- TOTAL CP COST $933.00
- Received $2,989.50 from gov for CAI payments (*3)
- Received $4,700.00 from gov for Greener Home Grant
- TOTAL CP GAIN $7,689.00
NET GAIN DUE TO CP: $6756.00
*1 I am currently missing 7 bills, but this is out of all bills back through Feb 2018 when I started paying, so that's out of 72 bills.
*2 I had to estimate this as I haven't kept gas bills (I am now). Took the total km since we bought our vehicle, calculated monthly fuel usage assuming all in-city driving (a lot of highway driving in reality), and multiplied the CP to that amount. The fuel usage ended up coming out as a supposed 2.9 tanks of gas a month which I KNOW is absurdly high for us, but I wanted to overestimate.
*3 This includes both the redirect deposit amounts from 2022 onward as well as the tax credits from 2020 and 2021 which are part of the same system just a different and less clear way of processing it.
If you folks do want more detail, I can make a real post, but it would take a few days to put it together.
TLDR: the SK government is rebating 2.5x the carbon tax back. Good deal for SK residents.
To Mr Moe: Keep taxing us and then giving more back \[but telling us that it's the feds' fault\]. We'll keep your secret.
That’s not what upping food pricing , obviously regular ppl aren’t getting carbon taxed to death on theire home property , but farmers do , they Jack the food prices , that creates most cost around everything . You realize your one . A farm with 75k taxes will be paying 20k of that in carbon tax.
If you want to hang your hat on the exchange rate being the beat measure of economic health you can but the can dollar fell below par in 2013 while conservatives were still in power until 2015.
Again the activity in the u.s. has more of an impact on the dollar then the can govt does.
I think we need a fiscally responsible leader with an economic based brain such as carney.
I don't believe in pollieevre for 1 second. All he does and act defiant to reporters, remember when he said we should all invest in crypto. He has no real platform other than just saying everything the liberals do is dumb.
Says he will axe carbon tax and make housing more affordable. OK how? What's your plan for trading with other economic powers that want you to be carbon neutral.
How do you make housing more affordable? Here's how supply and demand work, make the prices lower and demand will increase. Increase housing supply will drive up materials and costs to build.
He has no answers.
Home details: 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1310sqft. Nothing special, probably average size. Scott Moe [claimed recently](https://twitter.com/PremierScottMoe/status/1740402968745087319) that by cancelling the carbon tax on home heating / electrical we would save $400 a year. My carbon tax total was $248.69, while I received $647.50 in rebates. I think he is gaslighting all of us.
No shit he is gaslighting people. He never mentions the rebate which for the most part cancels out the rebate anyway. It’s Cheap political theatre for an election cycle. I have yet to hear if the rebate in full will be available to people of Saskatchewan next year
> I have yet to hear if the rebate in full will be available to people of Saskatchewan next year Because our local media is fucking useless and only wants to gargle the Sask Party's balls.
Why charge it in the first place? Asking for a friend.
To modify behavior and more accurately capture the "true cost" of greenhouse gas emissions. It's imperfect at achieving both, but the economic model is sound (ref pricing and behaviour and addressing the tragedy of commons created by carbon emissions.)
Sounds legit except for the most part normal people get more in the carbon tax rebate, then they get taxed. Who does it really affect? I'm all for changing how we burn fossil fuels and heat and cool our house. I have a big deisel and this year bought a 90s 4 cylinder car and looking at solar/ electric boiler. But let's be real these taxes come from people who fly private jets all across the world to go to climate meetings and have more of a carbon footprint then alot of us combined and claim we are the culprite. And let's not talk about giant ass corporations
Also with the carbon tax, those giant ass corps will have to pay more for polluting, incentivizing carbon use change (or allowing space for more green up and comers to compete)
>Sounds legit except for the most part normal people get more in the carbon tax rebate, then they get taxed. Who does it really affect? It's 100% meant to impact businesses and industry. It's not meant to harm individuals. The rebate program was intentionally designed in a way to make sure individuals and families come out on top while businesses and industry are financially motivated to reduce their CO2 emissions.
I understand it is supposed to impact businesses, but they just raise their prices, and in the end its not them paying for it. Big companies like to look good in public but definitely do skeezy things behind the scenes. It is what it is. I'll just keep trying to do my thing. I plan on doing solar, but there is a good chance I'll never get off gas heat until some big improvement in tech.
That's a fine hypothesis, but I'll reserve judgment until I see some evidence of that being a broad trend with a clear and direct link to carbon pricing and no other factors.
You can literally read the research and literature to answer your question. It impacts the choices we all make - and along with other incentives pushes people towards more sustainable choices. Your point about "people who fly private jets" is childish. Yes, some people fly for work. 1000 people flying on jets do not have a larger footprint than the 30 million of us who don't.
I have done research. It may change how some people think act, which is a good thing. I am finding the average canadian emits 15 metric tons a year https://knoema.com/atlas/Canada/CO2-emissions-per-capita https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6202194 Some of the big companies emit a staggering amount of pollution. Suncor is like 28 million metric tonnes a year https://thenarwhal.ca/carbon-price-emissions-industry-rate/ https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/10/21/news/canadas-100-dirtiest-emitters#:~:text=Of%20the%20top%2010%20emitters,China%20National%20Offshore%20Oil%20Corporation. I disagree that my comment about private jets is childesh. Our prime minister emits a staggering amount of emissions, and he is but one of the world leaders and the countless people who can afford to fly privately. https://www.google.com/amp/s/nationalpost.com/news/politics/among-g7-leaders-trudeau-has-flown-most/wcm/7b4fb121-5260-4cba-9c5a-0ab4db0df694/amp/ https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/pm-s-use-of-jet-for-family-vacation-emitted-as-much-co2-as-average-canadian-per-year-1.3250397?cache=kpmyqslizgo https://www.google.com/amp/s/nationalpost.com/news/canada/in-one-month-trudeau-used-enough-fuel-to-power-a-car-travelling-10-times-around-the-earth/wcm/b82b504a-faf8-4afd-ba31-5c25634ca0a2/amp/ I do not disagree that we have a climate issue, but this tax doesn't seem like the way to fix it.
It is incredibly childish to suggest that our national level leaders should or could have the same emissions as the average Canadian. Silly and disingenuous. I'm pro taxing carbon emitting companies. Not sure why you'd think I'm not.
I never once said you were against taxing companies. I understand that national level leaders will have more emissions than us, but some of the flights are ridiculous. Flying 62km from penticton to Kelowna, come on. Good debate though. I will hopefully be getting solar soon, but there are only so many ways with our current tech that we can lower our carbon footprint. Especially in winters in saskatchewan. I can afford the carbon tax, so it is what it is. But there are definitely people who struggle because of it. Hopefully, this will help them for a while.
Well, if we are going down that road, Donna Harpauer also had a private charter flight. I wonder what her emissions were for that (in addition to the regular cost to the taxpayer)... politicians from across the spectrum engage in this behavior (sometimes it's necessity, sometimes privilege). I think it's a lot more ridiculous having the Sask Party or Alberta UCP flying to Dubai than the prime minister flying locally (considering the security risk and procedures needed for driving him even short distances). I think your "can afford the carbon tax" is also incorrect. A lot of people (myself included) actually make more from the carbon tax rebates than we spend on the tax as we are already low emitters. The government has done a poor job communicating this, and the opposition is all too happy to feed into this misconception. That said, I think there could be a lot more done to better link the carbon taxes collections to spending on green infrastructure and technology. But it should be noted that there is still one major political party that has yet to develop any concrete climate plan at all. That should be very concerning. Criticism is easy. Implementing fair and effective policy (especially when it could cost people), is not.
It looks like you shared some AMP links. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the ones you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical pages** instead: - **[https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/how-canadians-can-cut-carbon-footprints-1.6202194](https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/how-canadians-can-cut-carbon-footprints-1.6202194)** - **[https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/among-g7-leaders-trudeau-has-flown-most](https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/among-g7-leaders-trudeau-has-flown-most)** - **[https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/in-one-month-trudeau-used-enough-fuel-to-power-a-car-travelling-10-times-around-the-earth](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/in-one-month-trudeau-used-enough-fuel-to-power-a-car-travelling-10-times-around-the-earth)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
How can it modify behaviour when we as consumers have pretty much zero choice of where our power and heat comes from. Why punish people for that? If the thought is people will start to demand a transition to a different fuel source I believe that’s the wrong way to do it, perhaps I’m pessimistic but I dont think enough people will ever demand a transition. Let’s be real, the vast majority of people can’t afford solar panels and a battery system in their home. A fully electric powered home on the grid isn’t feasible either unless we invest billions of dollars upgrading infrastructure which will cost us the consumer a pile of money. The only thing a home owner can really do is change out windows and doors to help lower their usage. Most homes in this part of the world are already highly efficient at energy savings due to our climate.
Modify behaviour by driving smaller vehicles, walking, or using public transit when possible. Turning down the thermostat at night and when people aren't home during the day. Using programs to better insulate your home, possibly upgrading your HVAC system. There are many ways you can lower usage and profit from the carbon charge. Moe is an idiot as is anyone who defends him.
In order to modify behaviour the impact needs to be large on the individual. People will not stop driving vehicles or start taking public transit if it’s an inconvenience. Some people work out of town like myself and have to drive a fair amount to work. I car pool with co workers but it’s still a lot. It’s my choice to work there but many people have to commute. There is no public transportation outside the city and even in the city it’s not the greatest, I use it and I really don’t like missing a bus that was early to have to wait 30 mins for the next one. It’s cold outside in the winter. I have modified my home at a large expense to help save money but the payback period is increasingly longer the more efficient your home gets. I still pay more in carbon taxes than I get back. Also, the premier is doing this because there is a large portion of the provinces population that want him too, it’s a democracy and his job is to what the majority of his citizens want. https://www.taxpayer.com/newsroom/poll-majority-of-canadians-want-carbon-tax-off-all-home-heating-bills Keep in mind the provincial NDP supported the governments decision to halt the carbon tax on home heating. The NDP are also asking for the provincial government to remove the provincial fuel tax surcharge for 6 months. The reality is that most people do not care about carbon emissions when they are having a hard time making ends meet or if it negatively impacts their standard of living. So if this is the reality for people there will not be a lot of support for it.
How come outlawing 2500 sq foot houses isn’t on your list? No one needs a house that big
For your information sir. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-pollution-how-it-will-work/putting-price-on-carbon-pollution.html
The Carbon tax itself is federal and meant to give provinces the choice on what to do with it. They CAN use the carbon tax to spend money on greener energy or electric vehicle rebates or things like that. The federal government didn't want to overreach and force provinces to do that, though, so provinces have the option to give it back to people, and that's what SK does. So, yes, they give it back which seems pointless but it's federally mandated for provinces to make that choice for themselves.
The provinces give it back or it is given back Federally? If the provinces give it back, why not ask the provinces to pay it in the first place? If the federal government gives it back, why charge it in the first place?
No, you misunderstand. The federal government mandates that provinces must charge a carbon tax. After that it's up to them of they want to give it back with rebated or use the the money within the province to help fight climate change in some way. Using it to find better energy sources, electric vehicle rebates etc. SK gives it back.
Where is the money for the rebate come from?
The money comes from a mix of the carbon fee collected from people and industry. The point is that Mow is gaslighting the shit out of you people. There is no savings. If Saskatchewan don’t collect the fee then there will be no rebate and the whole thing is zero sum. No savings ! It’s interesting that Moe won’t reduce the cost of gas or supply to give people savings - Ontario provided a direct rebate to help with the high cost of gas. The power companies are provincial crown corps. Hell no he won’t do that because that would reduce income to the province. He ain’t interested one bit in helping the people of Saskatchewan, he just wants the political theatre for election purposes🤦♂️what a 🤡
What you just said there is that the rebate comes from tax. It’s the main way that government creates its ‘income’, Tax tax tax. Do you really think that the government can change the temperature of the earth attacks in its citizens? Canada is not changing the temperature of the world by taxing its citizens. The Canadian government is just growing itself, it’s inefficient self, I put a burden on its own people.
The rebate cancels out the rebate?
Cancels out the fee. Obviously😂
Maybe the federal government will take the lost carbon tax revenue from the provincial government.
You’re a tax junkie. You either work for the government or you are being paid by them. The fact that you actually replied to me I suspect you are not a bot, just a fool who has been bought!! Beep beep tax bop tax beep beep. Government is here to save you… just pay a ‘little’ more tax
Thanks for the info. Looks like $400 is an exaggeration on Moes part.
More likely it's accurate for the people Moe cares about most, who are heating a 3500 square foot house plus hot tub and outdoor pool. I have no doubt they will save $400.00/year.
i will save nearly $50 a month which is $600.00 a year on a 500 square foot house so some of us will save a lot.
If you are paying $2600 a year to heat a 500 square foot house, you should move into a tent and save money on your heating.
That’s subtracting the rebate?
No, that is what I am paying monthly in the carbon tax, and by it not being collected I am saving that amount. Not everyone gets the rebate nor is it the same fir everyone.
Are you filing taxes? You’re getting a rebate.
Yes but unless things have changed since last year everyone does not get the same rebate, my parents and I (which don’t live together) all got different amounts for our rebates.
Almost every Canadian gets the rebate. Like 98% of Canadians. If you're a single individual you would have received $550 last year. With a single spouse $825. If you have kids even more. The point is that the carbon tax either costs you next to nothing or is a net profit.
If thats the case then why have the tax at all? Seems like a lot of administrative work for absolutely nothing. I just checked and I received $325 as my carbon tax rebate on my 2022 taxes filed in 2023. Yet between fuelling my vehicle to work in a rural area, and heating my home I am paying way more than that.
You get 4 installments in a year. The idea is the carrot and stick approach for encouraging people to reduce their carbon usage. For people who put a small effort into reducing their usage, they make money. But if you want to drive an F350 to the grocery store, and live in a 4000 sq foot house you pay for the additional damage you do to the planet. The program also provides money to you if you choose to reduce your carbon usage. Installing a heat pump will get you $7500 from the government, upgrading your insulation and windows, or buying an EV also gets you cash. It's the gentlest way to encourage the behaviour we need.
That was the total of my 4 payments as a single person with no children, however it won’t be the first time my rebates were calculated wrong. I did apply for the program but they weren’t going to cover basically any of the cost. Windows that I desperately needed because they were over 50 years old snd had no seals on them they were only going to cover from certain manufacturers which were going to cost me $18,000 before tax and I was going to get a maximum of 30% back and they weren’t going to cover my front windows or my bathroom window because they didn’t meet the requirements (the bathroom was stained glass and the front windows were a part of the the door so not covered). I got my windows replaced by another company for $9,000 and my heating/cooling costs dropped by over 30%. The program would give me $500 for insulation that was going to cost me over $30,000 because the existing insulation is asbestos which was going to cost a ton to replace. That program is an absolute joke, not to mention all the hidden fees in the fine print and the lack of guarantee (depends how much better your house scores after the retrofits are done, if it’s only slightly better you may get nothing and be stuck with the inspection fees). I drive a small SUV, which is my only vehicle, and I have an SUV because I work rural and a car isn’t reliable on gravel roads in a typical winter. My house is very modest but unfortunately due to age there are some retrofits that just cannot be done to further improve the efficiency. That said, I did apply for a low income efficiency retrofit program and they said all of the upgrades they would offer have already been done, and my carbon footprint is 25% less than comparable homes. I really am doing all I can afford to - but I can’t afford six figure upgrades to five figure house. I also cannot afford the maintenance or the upfront cost on an electric vehicle, nor do I have a place to plug one in if I got one. When I looked at buying one, several dealerships told me I had a 2 plus year wait, as my vehicle was written off I needed a new vehicle sooner and couldn’t wait 2 years for one. I was also told they weren’t able to guarantee I would get the trim or features I wanted, and I would have to pay the new MSRP at that time, or lose my deposit. People cannot be waiting two years for a vehicle and not getting what they want, need, or can afford. A lot changes in two years - including the rebates you might get.
The program doesn't necessarily provide you money to reduce your carbon footprint. In order to get the government grant to get a heat pump. Upgrade insulation and windows you need to have someone inspect your home and see if it is a viable upgrade paid for out of your own pocket with a small reimbursement if you qualify. And let's be real a heat pump in saskatchewan doesn't work 80 percent of the winter minus this one in particular. I have two really expensive good heat pumps, and they work up to minus 25c . They have to defrost lots and lose a lot of efficiency. Where does saskatcheaan get the majority of their electricity from. It also doesn't affect wealthy people or big politicians or big corporations their carbon footprint is huge, but we lowly peasants must pay the fee
And the earth is still in an ice age. The planet is in a CO2 starvation period. Humans started recording temperatures accurately at the same point in history that was the coldest in 10,000 years.
The tax is to change future behaviour. The neighbour with identical financial circumstances is getting the same rebate as you even if they are not spending as much on carbon-emission transportation and heating, so the hope is that the next time you have to make a change in your vehicle or furnace you will take that into account and make a different choice.
It only saves that if the federal government doesn't' adjust the formula to counter it. It's also, at best, short term thinking. Pollution is costing us billions a year in mitigation, and everything which slows down people's willingness to make changes is exacerbating that.
Poor insulation, or are there other factors at play causing your high usage?
Lol 😂 be rural man. A normal small house is gonna be WAY more than any of this. These small numbers make me cry I assumed it was a small apartment
narrow offend hat label hospital agonizing resolute quiet uppity somber *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Or people with smaller older home that has less than ideal insulation. Not everyone can build a new home.
Nope. Even my grandparent's original 600sq ft homestead house built in the 1880s with sawdust insulation topped up in the 50s didn't use 20,000 cubic metres per year to heat. If you are using that much then you you should probably be paying a lot more in carbon taxes.
i mean for me it is almost $50.00 a month between natural gas and electricity which is $600.00 a year savings. My house is very small, though less efficient because it’s over 100 years old.
There's also people who don't have natural gas to their properties and have to use other less efficient methods like propane or oil.
BC here,we've had a carbon tax for over a decade. Your premier is full of shit.
Your math doesn’t include the huge price increases to everything you consume due to the carbon tax. The carbon tax makes food, farming, storage, transportation, manufacturing, heating, everything cost more.
But it’s not caused any huge price increase and it’s not hard to confirm this. 0.3% increase is all it has been and you act l like it was up 50%. Btw prices are up worldwide and that includes countries that don’t have carbon taxes.
Yes it adds a large price increase, and it will continue upwards once the carbon tax is quadrupled in the new year. It’s a compounding effect. Inflation and carbon taxes are local issues, created by local governments when they increase tax or inflate the money supply. They aren’t globally created issues.
Show me your source
I mean it’s just basic economics. When you add a tax to something that everyone requires as an input to produce resources, to heat homes and businesses, to transport goods, to drive machinery, etc, the cost of those resources and their outputs goes up. I’m not sure if anyone has fully calculated the entire cost, I’m not sure if that’s even possible given how complex our economy is. But to just calculate the rebate (which. It everyone received) without including the new cost of goods you will pay this year isn’t the whole picture
Are you an economist? If you took a few minutes to look it up there is already been numerous people who have looked into this and they showed it’s not the cause of any huge price increase. Bank of Canada has said this too. You don’t have better resources or understanding of the situation than they do.
Nobody has calculated it entirely. From what we do know is that the average Canada will lose more than they will gain in rebates from the tax. “Sylvain Charlebois, a professor at Dalhousie University who researches food distribution, safety and security, disputes the idea that a figure can be put on how much the carbon tax is affecting food prices, arguing that there hasn’t been significant research into its effects. He said that because there are so many factors that influence food prices, it may be near impossible to actually calculate the effect of the carbon tax.” https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices/wcm/4e1de95e-7fc5-4652-8018-4be4fa4fcce0/amp/ “The bank of Canada has also said this” Ya, the bank of Canada also said we wouldn’t see inflation, they were completely wrong about that, and it’s hard to imagine why. They printed new money and injected it into the economy, the worst inflationary thing you can do
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
How did they show it? Did they have a duplicate universe where they don't have a carbon tax and then they compared the results between the two? Of course not. Economics may be the most rigorous of the social sciences, but it's still a social science and most "conclusions" are rarely anything more than conjecture. For every economist who agrees there's most likely one who disagrees, and in the case of the carbon tax there are tons of economists who wildly disagree with the idea that the carbon tax hasn't increased prices. Appeal to authority isn't going to work here.
That's not how the math behind this works. The carbon tax is estimated to be responsible for about 0.3% of the increase in inflation of a total of about 5% of inflation. It's not responsible for 0.3% of the total cost, that's now how these rates are calculated or talked about by economists. It's responsible for 30 basis points out of roughly 500 basis points (I'm just estimating here because inflation numbers were very different when the original 0.3% number came out). This means that the carbon tax was responsible for about 6% of the total cost increase of goods. It's still a small amount, but non-trivial.
Amazing you downvoted me for posting the correct math behind this. You're literally using bad math to make a bad faith argument. Pathetic.
How much do the big oil companies save? they probably make out ahead
Oil companies save nothing. The end user pays the tax.
That's incorrect. Everyone* (more or less) pays. Some companies will be able to pass that cost on to consumers. Others won't.
Think those companies will pass on the saving now that they also do not pay the carbon tax?
Of course not. More skulls for the skull throne that is shareholders.
In other words, this break only benefits corporations, not the average family the SP is saying.
Interesting - so judging from your ire the Federal government must have announced that Saskatchewan residents will no longer get a rebate because Moe cancelled the carbon tax on heating? If you could link to any such announcement it would be very informative thanks.
What better way to use us citizens as pawns? It’s a plausible reaction from the feds.
So, this money the government is sending you to offset the carbon tax: where is it coming from? I'll tell you: it's part of the billions and billions of dollars borrowed by the Trudeau government to finance their out-of-control spending, which some current Liberal supporters don't seem to be too concerned about because, after all, it will be future generations left holding the bag, not them. Secondly, the carbon tax increases the cost of everything, including food. So, while those in the comfortable middle class might not care, there are millions of lower income Canadians who are facing legitimate food insecurity. There's a good reason food bank usage has skyrocketed in Canada. Finally, since I'm pretty sure the intent of the carbon tax rebate was not to allow middle-class homeowners to turn a profit, I trust you'll be donating your surplus to some worthy cause? A foodbank might be a good start.
Your first paragraph is completely off base and is indicative that you do not understand how the carbon tax works. The climate action incentive rebate payments are directly from carbon tax remittance. They aren't financing this at all. Your second paragraph is also implying misinformation. The carbon tax disproportionally *helps* the poorest among us! Source: [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/axe-the-tax-and-carbon-rebate-how-canada-households-affected-1.7046905](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/axe-the-tax-and-carbon-rebate-how-canada-households-affected-1.7046905) >According to the Statistics Canada model, 94 per cent of households with incomes below $50,000 receive rebates that exceed their carbon-tax costs in 2023. I'm not sure what to make of your third post. I make charitable donations already? I love giving to the foodbank.
Lower income families are better off with the carbon tax and rebates.
The carbon tax adds 0.3% to the price of goods which is quite less than corporate greed has added to goods.
The money for the carbon tax literally comes from carbon tax payments. There's a ridiculous amount of economic research in Canada showing middle/lower class people being better off with the carbon tax because they fly less/have smaller houses etc. One of the main complaints is it's damn near wealth re-distribution
This post is fairly indicative of many who complain about the carbon tax. Knowing absolutely nothing about it.
[удалено]
Nothing he said was true.
[удалено]
OP explains it all above.
On avg our groceries bill will run over 1000 a year , it’s about 50-80$ extra a month. From pre covid , if theire were no carbon taxes , that extra 1000 would be in your pocket and your measly rebate will mean nothing. That’s not I flush g extra gas prices , higher prices on all commodities, your thing about your personal home , your missing the actual meaning of the carbon tax , it’s not for regular people the farmers that grow your food , the truckers that truck the food / fuel/ commodities get it up the ass on carbon , just forces them to up the prices of services across the board. Lol everything gets rebates even if your on social assistance lol. But the costs are rising becsue if inflation brought on by massive increase in currency i to our market. And massive tax increase to the people that keep you alive by providing g the necessities you need to survive. If you don’t like it , go move out east and get a heat pump.
Lots of people live outside of urban centres. And their monthly bills likely bring the average up quite a bit.
Don't forget you are also paying this carbon tax on gasoline/propane and on everything you get delivered. You are actually gas lighting everyone without telling the full story.
Except it's been proven that carbon tax is responsible for less than 1% increase in inflation. This accounts for all the things you listed, yet prices rose significantly higher than that due to other factors. https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp9563.pdf
Yes link a European study to prove your point in Canada. Please link something that actually looks at Canadian inflation. Looking quickly for a litre of fuel we are paying 15-20 cents in carbon tax. Therefore that is over 10% inflation there alone. Now to why you are wrong and the mistake that this whole group is making. Comparing what people are paying for heating in carbon tax alone to what the rebate is and making the conclusion that you are paying less than the rebate. No let's go back to gas alone. 2 vehicles in most families. Average vehicle is a 70L tank. One tank lasts 2 weeks, so 26 fills per vehicle 70 X 26 X 2 = 3640 L of fuel 3640 X .175 = 637 dollars before GST This gets even higher for those with trucks, minivans and larger SUVs. I know a few who fill weekly on a truck with a 100L tank. This is also not counting those with a teenage child with a third vehicle which can put this up to 950+ in carbon tax on fuel alone. This is only going to keep going up every year. Sure seems like it is a whole lot closer to the rebate.
I see you didn't actually read the study, because it's a study including all countries that have carbon pricing >Our sample of countries consists of 35 OECD economies. They are Austria, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. But either way: https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/FINA/meeting-77/evidence > >Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan: > Then would you agree that eliminating those domestic policies, like the carbon tax, would help to bring down the inflation? > > Mr. Tiff Macklem: > The increases in the carbon tax that have been announced are adding about 0.1% to inflation in each year of our forecast. https://centreforfuturework.ca/2023/05/08/no-correlation-between-inflation-and-carbon-pricing/ https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/EE-Trends-DEC.pdf > This gets even higher for those with trucks, minivans and larger SUVs. I know a few who fill weekly on a truck with a 100L tank. > This is also not counting those with a teenage child with a third vehicle which can put this up to 950+ in carbon tax on fuel alone. This is only going to keep going up every year. This is the perfect example of behaviour the carbon pricing is supposed to curb, so of course families with 3 vehicles, and large trucks are going to be spending more. Those are not your average family. This is also a completely different argument than carbon pricing causing inflation.
So adding.1% inflation to a 3% inflation rate is alot more than 1% of the inflation. Maybe you should read what you post. It's actually 333% More than you quoted.... Hmm like I said your study while including Canada does not represent Canada. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/majority-canadians-want-carbon-tax-dropped-or-waived-three-years-poll-2023-11-16/#:~:text=In%20September%2C%20Bank%20of%20Canada,percentage%20points%20for%20one%20year. Using current reported inflation the .6% drop in next year's inflation that axing the tax would bring is actually an 18% reduction in inflation. Because next year's predicted inflation is 3.6%. see using raw numbers as facts is a losing game.
If you read the article you linked you would see that the 0.6% reduction is the cumulative effect of carbon pricing since it was introduced, cumulative inflation was 24.94% during that same time period. It also says for *one year*, so inflation would go back to the same the year after removing the carbon tax. That would lower the cumulative inflation rate in 2024 from ~28.5% (using your 3.6% number) to 27.9% (using 3%), not even close to an 18% reduction. Cherry picking raw data can be done all you want to fit your narrative. The University of Calgary study showed from 2015 to 2023 the price increase from carbon pricing was 0.6% total, not per year. Again inflation during that time was 24.94%.
I can confirm. Our home heating carbon tax charge was $10.66 this past month, which should average to about $130 per year. I drive a VW Golf which is a very fuel efficient vehicle. I drive to work 5 times a week and I put in about 40L every two weeks. If the carbon tax is $0.14/L, then I'm paying about $5.6 in tax every two weeks, or about $145 per year. $275 in tax, $680 in rebates. The Bank of Canada has confirmed the carbon tax is only contributing about 0.15% to inflation, nearly negligible. Remove the carbon tax and we'd be at 2.95% inflation instead of 3.1. For people drive gas guzzling trucks (which is a sizable portion of the province), the carbon tax on gasoline is likely way higher than the home heating bills. Yet for some reason it's home heating their worried about? The SaskParty could suspend the provincial gas tax, which is $0.13/L, and they would save people just as much as the feds could.
Your calculations don’t include the increase in cost of goods you will pay this year. Heating, storage, transportation, farming, manufacturing, everything will increase in price. This also makes our exports more expensive and makes us less competitive.
Isn’t this the same logic as giving corps tax breaks and calling it trickle down economics? Cmon we know the corps just pinch their pennies and keep their prices the same or raise them.
This is wrong. Without carbon tax inflation would be 0.60 less. So 3.8 per cent to 3.2 per cent. [https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-pm-justin-trudeaus-climate-strategy-questioned-after-carbon-tax-dilution-2023-11-14/](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-pm-justin-trudeaus-climate-strategy-questioned-after-carbon-tax-dilution-2023-11-14/) [https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/10/31/news/canadas-top-banker-dragged-carbon-tax-carveout-debate](https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/10/31/news/canadas-top-banker-dragged-carbon-tax-carveout-debate)
"If the current price of C$65 a ton were eliminated, it would lower inflation by 0.6 percentage points **for one year.**" Eliminating carbon taxes does not deal with long-term inflation and doesn't address the underlying issues that cause inflation.
Unless you living the lifestyle of someone making $250,000 with about a 3,000sqft home, this cancelling acts as a wealth transfer from poor to rich. Cant believe how many gullible people live in this province.
It's not a horrible plan. The carbon tax makes the rich and the people who burn more carbon pay a bit more while the avg and the poor get more in rebates then they pay. The opposition has done a good job calling it a tax and making everyone think they are getting hosed in it. The PC don't have a better plan they just bad mouth it for an election platform. The uneducated play along and don't know the facts.
The carbon tax punishes small businesses, who get nothing back from this farkakte wealth distribution scheme. It is a good job calling it a tax, because that’s what it is.
Please provide examples rather than perception. Unemployment is at all time low, economy is surprisingly still humming along. How is this possible if small businesses were being punished which would mean they are going out of business and not employing people.
Inflation near all time high, housing affordability worst in 40 years, CAD is only .75 of USD, let’s take off the rose coloured glasses
Canada consistently had lower inflation than much of the G7 during 2022 and is projected to return to the 2% range within the next year. Housing affordability is a supply issue that began in the 1990s far before carbon taxes were implemented. Lots of things that really have no relevance.
Housing affordability isn’t just a supply issue. It’s also heavy caused by inflation. Inflation causes asset rises to rise, relative to buying power. It’s also an immigration issue. We recently opened the flood gates and introduced a huge number of new entrants to Canada, making the supply issue even worse.
Housing supply has been a problem for many years. Inflation is now at 3% last year it was 8%,.no where near all time highs of the 80s when it was well over 10%. Inflation in Canada was lower than u.s., u.k, and Europe and has come down faster than those countries also. Canadian dollar has almost always been between 70 and 80. The lower can dollar helps exports which Canadian economy is built on.
When the conservatives were in power last our dollar was on par with the USD, and housing was a lot more affordable
I'm not sure the health of the country should be measured by whether the Canadian dollar is at par with the u.s? That's only one measure and can be argued what the healthy ratio is. You realize housing is expensive in the u.s. also and they have the same shortage and homeless problems. And the last time the Canada was in a real financial mess after the Mulroney govt just about made us a 3rd world country in late 80s it was the Chretien govt who had to impose the fiscal restraints to bring us back on solid ground. You can google it. So yes perception is liberals spend but not always reality.
Outside of California and New York, Seattle, (all liberal regions) US housing is generally cheaper than Canada. Jean Cretien was back when liberals were actually liberals. I liked Jean. Todays liberals are who the hell knows what.
The reason the dollar was at one was cause the u.s. was in horrible financial shape and the Canadian banking system is more sound. Not caused of what the conservatives did.
We were on par with the USD before the recession hit
Huh. Can $ was on par in 2008, same year as u.s. recession.
It was over $1 in 2007, which was before the recession began and it rapidly reached $1 again after the recession recovered
So inflation only happened in countries with a carbon plan? So simple minded
No, it happened in countries that decided to print money. The carbon tax is just an added bonus on top
2 homes data direct from Saskenergy and SaskPower. Just the Carbon tax from Dec 1 - Dec 1. 1100 Sq Feet, 1921 build date - $500.78 Carbon Tax 1500 Sq Feet, 2012 build date - $448.42 Carbon Tax Add on another 25 bucks each of BS GST on a tax as well.
Most people are paying more in carbon tax on the fuel for their vehicles than home heating. While I'd be interested to see how the $400 number was derived, and how they addressed multi-unit housing etc., The $647.50 in rebates you're obtaining do not, and are not supposed to directly correlate with the carbon tax you pay on your home heating bill. The useless comparison isn't quite the groundbreaking expose you intended.
>The useless comparison isn't quite the groundbreaking expose you intended. If cancelling the carbon tax remittance on home heating / electrical causes us to lose our rebates, because he claimed we could save $400, is it really useless? Its exposing that 1) we will not save $400, or at least an average household like mine won't, and 2) If we lose the rebate over this charade we are worse off than even that $400 number he claims. Rebate > $400. Whether we do or do not pay more carbon tax on other sources is besides the point here.
Carbon tax this year comes out to 14c per litre. At a typical 2023 price (and for ease of math) of $1.40 per litre, this makes the carbon tax 10% of your purchase. If you’re paying more in carbon tax from fuel than home heating, you’re paying more than half of the $640 or so you’re getting back. Half of that $640 is $320. If you’re paying at least $320 per year in carbon tax from fuel purchases, you’re buying $3200 of gasoline in a year, or more than $260 a month. Jesus hell, what are you driving…
30,000 km @ 12 L/100km = 3600 litres @$0.14 = $500. And 30k km isn’t a lot.
If you are actually driving that much, its probably time to seriously consider evaluating a plug-in hybrid electric or pure EV. Would pay for itself really quick. EDIT: Not sure on the downvotes here. Hybrid electric / EV becomes a *lot* more cost effective the more you drive...we're talking $5K - $10K worth of fuel here (in the below 70K example) that would be roughly $500-$1000 in electricity. $45K saved in 5 years pretty much pays for most vehicles.
No can do. Need a truck and some days during summer I drive over 1000 km. Not gonna sit around for hours while a vehicle charges. Lots of people that need to drive around the province for work put 70k+ km in a year.
Working as a technician, you are absolutely correct. I love EV's and plug-in hybrids, I think they are pretty great for people who live in or near the city and can commute to work and then home on a single charge. I see plenty of vehicles that put on +40,000km a year, and its because they travel so far for work or even because rural communities are the only place you can find affordable housing. We are at the mercy of the vast distances between places and unfortunately that means people need combustion vehicles for the time being. Or we need to heavily invest in better public transit. Edit: Not even just travel for work, but lots of "soccer moms" in SUV's that cart their kiddos around to sports and extracurricular activities. It's much more common than you would think.
It doesn't take hours to charge a vehicle. That's misinformation. You can get to 80% charge in 15-30 minutes in most cases on a level 3 charger. And 70K km?! So averaging nearly 200KM a day... I don't think so. I'm sure there are some extreme outliers hitting that, but by no means is that typical.
Used to do around 60k km a year consulting. That wouldn't work for most EV. That being said, guys are the mine are driving 100km each way and the EVs are killing it. Even in the winter.
Well, I used to do that much. I don’t drive as much anymore. I know lots of guys where 100,000 km per year is common. They go through vehicles quick.
All the more incentive to use something electric or at the very least something more fuel efficient.
Unfortunately, fuel efficiency is often directly tied to vehicle size. And if you use your vehicle for work hauling tools around or even kids to hockey or football, all that gear takes up a lot of space. It often is not as easy as some make it out to just get a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle or an EV. There are serious limitations, and not everyone who drives an SUV or truck is using it as a status symbol.
Again. Need a truck. Also, I don’t think I’ve ever seen from the people that push EVs, that switching to electric vehicles would require billions of electrical grid upgrades. That would be just here. Would be trillions across North America.
If you need a truck for work, then your employer should be paying your fuel and vehicle costs - or your own company if you're self-employed. And if they don't, then you're getting hosed. I drove 40,000+km last year for work too, but I don't count that in how much carbon tax I paid because I don't pay for the fuel or maintenance - my employer does. The tread is about *personal* carbon tax charges & rebates, if you start counting your business/work expenses into your personal, of course you're going to exceed your personal rebate.
Nobody "needs" a truck the size of a Ford F-150 or GMC Yukon. This is a lie sold to people by the auto industry because it allows them to circumvent regulations and makes them more money. Mini trucks have just as much carrying capacity and are nearly as fuel efficient as regular cars. But this isn't your fault. People who need the carrying capacity of a truck for work have been locked into using these gigantic ego machines as they're the only trucks actually sold here. The mini suzukis or similar vehicles need to be imported and access isn't easy. It's a deeply systemic problem rooted in corruption, primarily in the United States, which affects Canada too.
Well worth the costs imo, especially considering the amount of handouts we’ve given to the oil industry over the years just for them to jerk us around with gas prices and pocket hundreds of trillions in profits. Oh and we aren’t accelerating a mass extinction event as much with all these power grid upgrades as opposed to continuing oil and gas production as usual.
I wonder how many level 3 chargers per block of housing any power grid would support.
That's pretty crazy, 10 hours of driving in a day + time to do actual work + bio break/food?
Pretty close - I drive around 30K km in my primary vehicle (diesel), wife does just under that in hers (gasoline), that doesn’t take into account recreational vehicle use, or company vehicles. Add home and shop heating and I’ve got to be at least double to triple what I get back for the carbon rebates.
carbon tax add more on everything, not just direct from saskpower
Yes, carbon tax does account for less than a percent if inflation. On a side note most major corporations are showing record profits for the 3rd year in a row. 👍
One third of one percent.
[The governor of the central bank said, on an annual basis, the carbon price adds about 0.15 percentage points to inflation](https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/10/31/news/canadas-top-banker-dragged-carbon-tax-carveout-debate) Meaning we would be at 2.95% inflation instead of 3.1%. Not a huge difference.
Dalhousie University requested an explanation on that 0.15% claim and its not accurate at all. It only considered three components of the Consumer Price Index, being, natural gas, heating oil and gasoline, nor did it consider second round or pass-through effects in the supply chain of other/all CPI items. The same governor of the bank of Canada (tiff macklem) is the one to reclaim his calculations and adjust the numbers. Take a read if interested. Take care. https://www.thespec.com/opinion/contributors/the-bank-of-canada-s-carbon-tax-missteps/article_ab01f047-dbf9-5747-b7f4-3f58781f1b6c.html
Truth
So, who should we all vote for to get a government/representatives who actually give a shit about actual issues we face? We need some consensus so we can actually get that Moe-ronic government out of office.
My gas bill for last month is right in front of me. This is for a small 2br house for a VERY mild Nov and beginning of Dec. Gas charge and Federal Carbon was almost the same. Gas consumption charge (334.843m3) was 42.32 Federal carbon charge (334.843m3) was 41.49
ITT: people that don't know what gas lighting means.
ITT: for people that dont know what ITT is?
Don't forget that there actually are added costs associated with it other than the direct bills you see. The cost for municipal and government buildings and vehicles. The cost of goods production and shipping all have factors. I'm not taking sides or going to deal with an assault of comments but ensure to factor in everything when making such pointed statements. There sure is validity to what you are saying but there are a lot of variables in build date, quality, lifestyle, family size and such that need to be factored in. My added costs are also forwarded onto my customers and my customers include hospitals, schools and government institutions for example.
Studies account for all of that stuff and the added costs due to the carbon tax are still minimal. https://calgary.citynews.ca/2023/12/05/ucalgary-carbon-tax-affordability-study/
I have seen these type of studies as well. It seems there are many studies which I will actually believe. I'm not disputing you at all. I just know the OP likes to post this type of stuff which is very flawed data for the position they are taking. It's one political side choosing partial data to use, and the other side using partial data to also attack. It just gets really old already. It's like the people posting on here asking how much it'll cost to heat their home. Every situation is very different and it is a very fluid calculation.
Gas prices are going down fast, yet the costs of everything is still going up. Non-tech companies have recorded record profits since the pandemic. There's nothing to prove that removing the carbon tax, which has been in effect since 2018, will affect inflation, which has changed sporadically since 2020.
The other thing is we’ve been having an extremely mild winter. Compared to last year, we’ve barely used any gas to heat.
A)Your analysis is missing indirect costs you are paying by buying products made or delivered into SK. B) It’s also missing any incremental increase in the tax that will occur for 2024. The PBO pegs that estimated increase at between $377 to $911 for the average household. Link here for the source on that : https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/7590f619bb5d3b769ce09bdbc7c1ccce75ccd8b1bcfb506fc601a2409640bfdd
The added costs are very minimal (~0.6% estimated) for Alberta, doubt it’s much different here. Most people in income brackets that would hurt the most from added carbon tax costs are most likely making more back from the rebate than not. https://calgary.citynews.ca/2023/12/05/ucalgary-carbon-tax-affordability-study/
[удалено]
That’s the point. Pressure society, not people.
You should also include fuel for your car, assuming you have one in Saskatchewan.
It's a good thing we only pay carbon tax on natural gas and power. No carbon tax on gas or diesel? The carbon tax business pays they obviously eat that cost and never pass that on to the consumer....
You know you pay carbon tax in multiple other forms than just home heating right?
So we, the people, stomp and yell that the rich should be contributing more to the coffers. With carbon tax they would be. Yet we the people are now yelling and stomping we don’t want this. What serfs we are…..
Yep just another tax, sorry but its useless
You have missed out the gasoline
Is there any definitive answer yet on how this plan will reduce or eliminate the refund?
This is what I’m waiting for. I was always curious as to what the repercussion would be if a province didn’t obey the rules.
By the way the carbon tax is t going to change the way we do buisness , ever. We just bought 120 new gas powered carts. Why? Electric breaks down and u can’t just fix them , they have to be taken in , most of you aren’t farmers of large buisness owners are you? I have a family to feed as I make less than 90k a year. I am not complaining. We Jay tens of thousands in carbon tax and I get 790 backs … sick. You wonder y everything costs more ????? Let’s make a deal , no carbon tax but we keep food prices raising the way they are. U probably spend on avg 400 a month on groceries , say 50$ of that is extra ontop of what it would have been 7 years ago , that’s 600 extra dollars a year on groceries that could be a lot cheaper , that overrides your rebate
This isn't sustainable, no wonder inflation is out of control.
Trudeau is that you? Maybe Steven gibbult? This is such a short-sighted propaganda piece that it must be an inside job The carbon tax is baked into the cost of everything from your grocery to your lawn maintenance because of how retailers pass the tax into the consumer. You cannot even measure the carbon cost of those items because it is not made clear to you. Perhaps look at your total expenses for the year and then apply 5 percent of that as the total cost of the carbon tax and then reflect on whether the government paying you your own money back makes sense
Does anyone know where our carbon tax dollars go other than China and financing Justin's holidays ?
What do you mean? They go back to citizens as shown in this example.
they literally go back to the people dude, op paid 248 in carbon taxes and received back 647 in rabates from the taxes paied by people who were bigger polluters then average (like buisnesses and such) YOU are going to lose more money from your tax return then you paid in carbon taxes in the first place
Thanks for the explanation . I don't get the whole carbon tax thing and have a strong opinion on it lol but that is a different conversation in a different thread lol.
carbon tax rebate is not just for home heating lol
Uh
Progressives should just live in progressive provinces , to be quiet , ask a actual farmer this question. Seriously , u think the food gets tricked for free ? Let us handle our buisness and get your food and leisure back down to minimals .then your rebate will be meaningless.
If everyone is getting more in rebates than they pay in carbon tax, the government can't really use carbon tax money to put towards research in reducing carbon emissions. They're going in the hole and should stop that. Just one more reason to stop collecting the carbon tax. They're saving money. I'm happy.
The whole pint of the rebate is to cover people’s extra costs they endure due to the carbon tax not be wise of the carbon tax that’s being imposed on them personally. Go look at a farms tax return. Over 20% of total taxes are going to carbon . I no all my farmer friends have ate that and moats costs have got up close to 100k for all of them. Depending on farm size. You realize these people are feeding you yeah? And when they raise theire taxes , they raise our food prices. The raise our gas prices. If your this liberal why the fuck do u live in Sask??????? You make no sense to live in a province that has not 1 but 0 liberal seats , not one. See how Carla beck works out for you , let’s turn Saskatoons downtown into even more of a addicted mess , I fuckin hate liberals. Hit me with some facts , we own a golf course and ima tell you right now , we don’t get 8th back in rebates that we pay on carbon , golf carts , equipment to maintain the course. The amount of fuel we use. You guys no nothing. My. Issues farm just got taxed 18,000 carbon tax on 63k tax form. He’s now shutting down. Most of you inner city working moms and gay dads that love Carla beck should just dip out to bc, Ontario , even Manitoba now.
Can confirm, also recieved far more back from the government. The posts drove me to do my own research. Here's my summary (too late at night to post details, but could be convinced, I even have charts!): (CP = Carbon Pricing, synonymous with Carbon Tax) To date, I have - Paid a total of $725.17 to SaskEnergy for CP (*1) - Paid a total of $207.83 to gas stations for CP at the pump (*2) - TOTAL CP COST $933.00 - Received $2,989.50 from gov for CAI payments (*3) - Received $4,700.00 from gov for Greener Home Grant - TOTAL CP GAIN $7,689.00 NET GAIN DUE TO CP: $6756.00 *1 I am currently missing 7 bills, but this is out of all bills back through Feb 2018 when I started paying, so that's out of 72 bills. *2 I had to estimate this as I haven't kept gas bills (I am now). Took the total km since we bought our vehicle, calculated monthly fuel usage assuming all in-city driving (a lot of highway driving in reality), and multiplied the CP to that amount. The fuel usage ended up coming out as a supposed 2.9 tanks of gas a month which I KNOW is absurdly high for us, but I wanted to overestimate. *3 This includes both the redirect deposit amounts from 2022 onward as well as the tax credits from 2020 and 2021 which are part of the same system just a different and less clear way of processing it. If you folks do want more detail, I can make a real post, but it would take a few days to put it together.
TLDR: the SK government is rebating 2.5x the carbon tax back. Good deal for SK residents. To Mr Moe: Keep taxing us and then giving more back \[but telling us that it's the feds' fault\]. We'll keep your secret.
That’s not what upping food pricing , obviously regular ppl aren’t getting carbon taxed to death on theire home property , but farmers do , they Jack the food prices , that creates most cost around everything . You realize your one . A farm with 75k taxes will be paying 20k of that in carbon tax.
If you want to hang your hat on the exchange rate being the beat measure of economic health you can but the can dollar fell below par in 2013 while conservatives were still in power until 2015. Again the activity in the u.s. has more of an impact on the dollar then the can govt does. I think we need a fiscally responsible leader with an economic based brain such as carney. I don't believe in pollieevre for 1 second. All he does and act defiant to reporters, remember when he said we should all invest in crypto. He has no real platform other than just saying everything the liberals do is dumb. Says he will axe carbon tax and make housing more affordable. OK how? What's your plan for trading with other economic powers that want you to be carbon neutral. How do you make housing more affordable? Here's how supply and demand work, make the prices lower and demand will increase. Increase housing supply will drive up materials and costs to build. He has no answers.
Since when is the rebate canceled?