# BC Useless Carbon Tax Update



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Now that the carbon tax in BC has been around long enough we are finding out what a failure it really is, but of course I knew that right off the bat. Many here on the forum who trust government and their taxes liked it. Before starting I do realize we need taxes for health care and roads and so on but this tax is not for this and meant to cut emissions. We already have a air care program and that is the one that has taken the gas guzzlers and poorly maintained cars off the road even though I don't like it either but it really has worked. 

First off the NDP love the carbon tax along with the Liberals so you know this can't be good and the Conservatives have claimed to scrap it in their provincial election platform so that is where my vote will probably go next provincial election.

Second when BC elected to tax energy consumption to finance income tax rates, tax burden was shifted from high income persons and corporations to government agencies, schools, hospitals and not-for-profit entities (who never paid income taxes but always paid all energy taxes). So BC has had to increase fees and taxes to cover this new cost of delivering public service. As usual anything the NDP likes when it comes to taxes somehow hits the poor or public sector hardest in the end. This goes in the face of all that the carbon idiots seem to cherish. 

Thirdly many poor people are forced to find homes they can afford farther from the city forcing them to drive farther and pay a very high carbon tax.

Fourth BC's finance department is banking on GHG emissions jumping from 37.4 MM TCO2e in 2009/10 to 42.0 MM TCO2e in 2013/14

Fifth US airports and cross border shopping is becoming big business from people in the Lower Mainland and the Carbon Tax is a huge bonus to Washington State as it gives people another good reason to shop in the US.

So as I fully expected and most on the forum didn't, that a carbon tax would be very bad thing and wouldn't help anyone except maybe the rich and that it now gives governments especially the NDP something to play with to tax and fee the crap out of us. NDP will simply forget the revenue neutral thing and in a sly way put the screws to us as governments will. You guys in Ontario seem to like the Carbon Tax idea so could you please take it from us and thank you in advance.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I'll take your points in order:

1 -- Not a valid argument. Liberals and NDP are both in favour of locking up criminals, therefore locking up criminals is bad. Awesome.

2 -- So BC is collecting taxes from itself when its organization pays carbon tax embedded in products. This was expected. The proceeds of the carbon tax were used to reduce other taxes.

3 -- Low income individuals benefit from other transfers, such as GST/HST rebate, basic personal exemption and lower income tax rates. If you think they are hard done by, you should argue for greater transfers to poor people.

4 -- BC's carbon tax is still fairly low at $25/tonne CO2e, rising to $30 shortly. It has already worked to produce a 15% decline in petroleum-based fuel use in BC since it was introduced. When you compare BC fossil fuel usage to the rest of Canada, it has been a significant improvement. You need to consider the counterfactual. If BC did not implement a carbon tax, what would CO2e be in 2013/14? Higher, undoubtedly.

5 -- You need to use some statistics about the size of the leakage. Undoubtedly there is some. A lot of it is probably due to causes other than the carbon tax, such as more competitive commercial aviation industry in the US (Ontarians drive to Buffalo to fly and get gas, and Ontario doesn't have a carbon tax), better Canadian dollar exchange, etc. How much has the leakage increased relative to other provinces?

So dogcom, are you okay with raising all the taxes that were lowered as part of the carbon tax? If you want to lower taxes in BC, why lower the carbon tax and not sales tax, income tax, etc.? Sales and income taxes cause more economic damage. Seems to me that BC's economy is doing fairly well.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Air Care I believe has done all the most work to cut emissions because it really has taken the cars that used to blow smoke everywhere off the road.

Washington state would do well without the carbon tax but it really has helped them a great deal more then if it wasn't there. 

Low income becomes very low income so when the NDP talks about helping the poor they do not look to helping the working poor but those under that.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

Really all of these programs, are nothing more than window dressing. Canada accounts for less than 2% of the global carbon emissions so we could all stop driving, heating our homes or even breathing tomorrow and it would have almost no impact. Any plan that leaves out serious restrictions by big players such as China is pointless and possibly even counter-productive as it will just shift more industry those countries with poorer environmental restrictions.

That all being said, of all the programs to cut emissions a carbon-tax is probably the most fair and productive.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

dogcom said:


> Air Care I believe has done all the most work to cut emissions because it really has taken the cars that used to blow smoke everywhere off the road.


Smoke is a separate issue from carbon dioxide. Smog/poor air quality is caused by the other gases in exhaust fumes (NOx and sulphur) and fine particles. Carbon dioxide by itself is relatively harmless to humans on a localized level.



> Low income becomes very low income so when the NDP talks about helping the poor they do not look to helping the working poor but those under that.


So?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Spidey said:


> Really all of these programs, are nothing more than window dressing. Canada accounts for less than 2% of the global carbon emissions so we could all stop driving, heating our homes or even breathing tomorrow and it would have almost no impact. Any plan that leaves out serious restrictions by big players such as China is pointless and possibly even counter-productive as it will just shift more industry those countries with poorer environmental restrictions.
> 
> That all being said, of all the programs to cut emissions a carbon-tax is probably the most fair and productive.


This is a bad argument. Canada only produces a small percentage of the world's nuclear waste. Can we start dumping it in the ocean? It's such a small amount relative to the rest of the world.

BC is showing leadership. They are proving that a carbon tax:
i) works. It has reduced emissions relative to what would have happened without one
ii) economically benign, when coupled with cuts to other taxes

BC is doing a great service to the world. I would be strongly supportive of Ontario following BC's lead. I think the rest of the world will get serious about this in time. Really, even if you think global warming is a hoax, a carbon tax is not a big deal. It does not cause much harm to the economy in the short run, and in the long run may provide economic benefits through shifting taxation from inefficient taxes to an efficient one.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

andrewf said:


> This is a bad argument. Canada only produces a small percentage of the world's nuclear waste. Can we start dumping it in the ocean? It's such a small amount relative to the rest of the world.



But the US, China, India, etc. are not dumping nuclear waste into the ocean. If they were, whether we did or not would probably make little difference. Any meaningful difference can only be achieved on in a global scale, otherwise the only benefit, for a tiny player such as ourselves, is our warm fuzzy feelings.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

andrewf said:


> This is a bad argument.


Agreed.

A few oil spills are ok, because we aren't spilling as much as those other guys.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

Sampson said:


> Agreed.
> 
> A few oil spills are ok, because we aren't spilling as much as those other guys.


This type of tactic is common. Those arguing against unilaterally environmental changes taken by Canada or western nations are arguing in favor of oil spills. No we're not. There should be, and are, very tight regulations in Canada regarding most of these issues. I'm sure there are areas with room for improvement. However, the point is that extremely restrictive measures that do not include many of the biggest polluters will only _increase_ the problem by driving more industry to those locations. Any solution has to fully include countries such as China which accounts for 23% of emissions (versus Canada's 1.8%) and is increasing those emissions at breakneck speed.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

I am as capitalist and right wing as anybody, but I think the carbon tax is a fantastic idea, especially when its applied to lower income taxes. That gives people the choice on how to spend their money. Want to pay less tax? Find a more efficient way to travel. And the government doesn't have to legislate a solution or have a massive monitoring program. Let people figure out the best way. You don't even have to employ more bean counters. What a great system. BC has some of the lowest income taxes in the country.

Don't like it? Try moving to Nova Scotia, the land of no carbon tax and regulated gasoline. Oh, if you make $80k a year, you'll probably be paying $6,000 more in taxes, and sales tax is 15% not 12%, and everything costs more, but hey, at least you can save 10 cents a liter on gasoline.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

I agree with you that the Global problem can only be resolved if efforts to curb total emissions are considered.

I just don't agree that it's valid to say that Canadian behaviour is irrelevant and that we don't need to do anything. An extension of your argument would be that in fact, we can afford to and SHOULD increase emissions if it is to our benefit, since we still don't produce as much as the other guy.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Canada has some of the highest per capita emissions in the world. We really have no right to expect other countries to move first. We have a role to play in providing leadership, especially when we can do it with little negative economic impact as we see in BC. The federal Conservatives feed us all the lie that a carbon tax would nuke the economy and turn Canada into a post-apocalyptic wasteland. They are not interested in truth. They are not interested in what is right. They are interested in winning, and that means protecting their paymasters in the oil industry.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

doctrine said:


> I am as capitalist and right wing as anybody, but I think the carbon tax is a fantastic idea, especially when its applied to lower income taxes. That gives people the choice on how to spend their money. Want to pay less tax? Find a more efficient way to travel. And the government doesn't have to legislate a solution or have a massive monitoring program. Let people figure out the best way. You don't even have to employ more bean counters. What a great system. BC has some of the lowest income taxes in the country.
> 
> Don't like it? Try moving to Nova Scotia, the land of no carbon tax and regulated gasoline. Oh, if you make $80k a year, you'll probably be paying $6,000 more in taxes, and sales tax is 15% not 12%, and everything costs more, but hey, at least you can save 10 cents a liter on gasoline.


It all sounds good doctrine but we all know governments can't be trusted and the carbon tax or carbon programs is just a way to suck us in for some new spending pain down the road with little to no upside. We all know that within time the revenue neutral thing will disappear and we will be stuck with even more taxes.

The people of Ontario or from there on this forum seem has a very high trust in government. Look how much your so called green energy programs have cost you over there from what I hear it hasn't gone well and cost a ton, I could be wrong though because I am not from there. I may be wrong about the Ontario gang here as well and maybe many on the forum from Ontario feel as I do.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Maybe this will help.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/08/ontario-companies-straining-under-mcguintys-green-energy-costs


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

dogcom said:


> The people of Ontario or from there on this forum seem has a very high trust in government.


Don't generalize, please 
_Some_ here have a "high trust in government".

There are some of us as well, that consider the present government to be the most lying, cheating, corrupt, shameless, tax grabbing pirates that ever walked the planet.

It is also sad that the present government's 3 consecutive terms were almost guaranteed by the same vote banks that they keep pandering to.
And those same interest groups and vote banks will probably keep ensuring several terms to follow.

Someone above said that the [carbon] tax works.
Of course it does, inasmuch as any punitive tax works.
You can pretty much keep increasing the rate of taxation on anything and sooner or later you will see a reduction in demand.
You could tax bread to a degree where people will start eating less bread.
You could tax milk to a degree where people will start drinking less milk.

The fact that punitive taxation works is not a supporting argument for it.
It is a cover for incompetent fiscal management and profligate public spending.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

dogcom said:


> We all know that within time the revenue neutral thing will disappear and we will be stuck with even more taxes.


Sorry, we don't all know that. And in that case, the problem is the other taxes and not the carbon tax.



> The people of Ontario or from there on this forum seem has a very high trust in government. Look how much your so called green energy programs have cost you over there from what I hear it hasn't gone well and cost a ton, I could be wrong though because I am not from there. I may be wrong about the Ontario gang here as well and maybe many on the forum from Ontario feel as I do.


I never really supported the feed in tariff program. It is trying to achieve something similar to what the BC carbon tax is. I'd rather the carbon tax, myself. Subsidizing clean energy is like pushing on a string. The goal is not necessarily to have solar panels on people's houses, it is to reduce CO2 emissions. The carbon tax achieves that, and it's not clear that the feed in tariff does. 

You may think I have too much trust in government. I think you are irrational when it comes to taxes. I can understand wanting a smaller government. But if we all agree on the size of government we want, it should not be that controversial to come up with a way to pay for it that does the least amount of damage to the economy. Carbon taxes (along with value added taxes like HST) are good ways to fund a government of a given size, while reducing economic harm.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Don't generalize, please
> _Some_ here have a "high trust in government".
> 
> There are some of us as well, that consider the present government to be the most lying, cheating, corrupt, shameless, tax grabbing pirates that ever walked the planet.


And _some_ of us are prone to hyperbole.



> The fact that punitive taxation works is not a supporting argument for it.
> It is a cover for incompetent fiscal management and profligate public spending.


Aren't all taxes 'punitive' then? Why should we punish income rather than punish carbon dioxide emissions?

And the carbon tax is _not_ a cover for poor fiscal management. They used the proceeds to cut other taxes. In fact, they cut taxes by more than the amount the carbon tax raises. So, how does a change in taxes that leaves the government with less revenue 'cover' poor fiscal management. Not a very cogent argument.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

The only thing that is hyper-anything are the taxes that we have to pay to support nincompoop governments like the one presently in Ontario.
And no, we don't all agree on the size of government. That is the core issue.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Aren't all taxes 'punitive' then? Why should we punish income rather than punish carbon dioxide emissions?


I am saying we need less aggregate government tax collections i.e. less overall taxation.
Either by reducing the tax rate for all types of taxes across the board, or by eliminating certain taxes altogether while keeping other taxes.
You can have your precious carbon tax, the eco fee, the health tax, the HST and all the other types of tax grabs that you like.

IMO what has been happening for years now is that the various levels of governments have already pushed the envelope on a particular given type of tax.
Therefore, the only way to increase tax receipts is by dreaming up more innovative ways to tax people.
Enter, the eco fee, the FIT program, the HST harmonization, etc.

The overall tax receipts needs to be lower, much lower.

Within that, you can have your precious revenue neutrality all you like.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

I don't think many people realize the magnitude of changes that would be required to make the kinds of emissions cuts that environmentalists such as David Suzuki are asking for. We're not talking about tossing up the odd windmill, putting some solar panels on the roof or raising the price of gas a couple of cents a litre. Those types of changes are window-dressing and will make no meaningful difference. The types of changes that would be required would be along the magnitude of:

- probably at least tripling the cost of all fuel, and even that would not likely be enough
- banning all air-travel for pleasure (so long "travel stories" thread)
- greatly restricting any further building of single-family dwellings in favor of multi-family dwellings. 
- building a rapid transit system in every city in Canada (have to admit that this one has a certain appeal but we will also have to add more taxes to pay for it)
- greatly curtail or potentially halt oil-sands development (so long Alberta transfer payments and the social programs they support, but not to worry, Dalton McGuinty promises plenty of green jobs to make up the difference)

And even after accomplishing all this we may only get our 1.8% of global carbon emissions down to perhaps 1.3% especially when projected Canadian population increases are factored in. But the real payoff will come when countries such as China will be so touched by our efforts that, with their eyes welled up by emotion, they will halt growth and end any further increases in their emissions.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Sorry Andrewf but I do believe we all know somewhere down the line that the carbon tax will be just another tax revenue as the revenue neutral thing slowly disappears, it is just the way government works.

Harloldcrump it is good to see someone represent Ontario here because from what I hear taxes, spending, and crap of all kinds is out of control there. In fact I hear it is worse in Ontario then it is in California, again I could be wrong here. 

Spidey you are correct we need more mass transit like sky train in Vancouver but paying for it is of course the hard part. We also have a lot of Nat Gas in North America and now may be the time to put in the infrastructure in conjunction with the US so we can make most trucks and buses on Nat Gas and they can fill up all over North America.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

The funny thing is that a carbon tax wouldn't be necessary if people and businesses acted according to economic theory.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions saves money; I've yet to see a single example of a company that lost money by reducing greenhouse gas emisisons, while there are thousands of examples of companies that saved money by doing so. DuPont, for example, reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent between 1990 and 2004, while increasing its production by 33 percent and saving more than $2 billion through its efforts to reduce emissions.

In the United States, EPA's Energy Star program saves Americans $18 billion a year in energy costs, which is something like twice the entire operating budget of EPA.

There are dozens if not hundreds of studies exploring why households and businesses don't take better advantage of these cost-saving opportunities; it's like everyone's walking past $100 bills lying on the street. There are many reasons why it doesn't happen, but the carbon tax is designed to address one of them: energy prices are too low to motivate people to improve energy efficiency.

There are of course people like Harold Crump who have already done everything they can to improve their energy efficiency, leaving them with few cost-effective alternatives to improve further. But those people represent about 0.1% of the population. To encourage the other 99.9% to improve their efficiency you have to do something, because current market signals are not strong enough. Whether a carbon tax is the right approach is debatable, but education doesn't seem to work. Tightening efficiency standards helps (appliances on the market today are much more efficient than those even 10 years ago), as do feebate-style programs that provide rebates for energy-efficient equipment, funded by fees for energy-guzzling equipment.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Harold, I think you need to read what I write more carefully. We should argue about on what and how much we spend. Agreeing to how to fund it through taxation should be the easy part.


You are out of your mind if you think the last couple of decades have been a period of rising taxes. Size of government and tax rates have fallen since the 1980s. You may want it to shrink further, but let's get real about what has happened. I think there are plenty of decent ways to cut spending. We could eliminate OAS, for one. We should also put all highways on user fees. Bottom line is you need to take a deep breath and calm down. No one takes Tea Party types seriously.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Spidey said:


> And even after accomplishing all this we may only get our 1.8% of global carbon emissions down to perhaps 1.3% especially when projected Canadian population increases are factored in. But the real payoff will come when countries such as China will be so touched by our efforts that, with their eyes welled up by emotion, they will halt growth and end any further increases in their emissions.


China is already putting more effort into curbing its CO2 emissions than Canada. And their per capita emissions are still much lower than ours. 

I don't think we should go to extremes before other countries start moving in the right direction. I think BC is justified in putting a pause on the rise in the carbon tax at $30 per tonne, although that amounts to ~6.67 cents per litre of gasoline.

You made up a bunch of things that would be necessary to achieve a significant reduction in CO2 emissions. Environment Canada estimates that a carbon tax of $65/tonne would be needed to reduce emissions by 20%, which Stephen Harper committed to. He intends to achieve that goal (if he's not a liar, that is) by imposing new costs on the economy by regulating industry by industry. And tens of thousands of new regulations is definitely the way to go over a simple new tax, with revenues used to cut other taxes, right?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

It's also worth noting that the majority of British Columbians agree with me. 58% support the BC carbon tax (a figure that has risen since it was introduced), while those strongly opposed has fallen from 38% to 23%. British Columbians get it. I am sure you guys will eventually, too.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

I agree that if we are going to impose incentives to conserve energy that a carbon tax is the most fair way to do it - particularly if an attempt is made to counter those carbon-tax increases with a reduction in income tax. The trouble is, I don't see it happening that way because it is a too honest and transparent way of doing things. Despite their purported worries about emission levels, we already see the federal NDP scream every time the price of gasoline increases even slightly and they have been pushing for rebates on home heating oil. So what we will likely be left with is a cap-and-trade system because even though it is less effective and less fair, it also has the political advantage of being grossly confusing. Such a system would result in money transfers from Alberta to hydro-electric rich Quebec on a national scale and from western nations like Canada to developing countries such as China and India on an international scale. Raise your hands everyone in Alberta who wish to transfer more money to Quebec. How about all Canadians who would like to see their tax money go to carbon credits to be sent to China?


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I am in favour of more consumption taxes and less income taxes too. I am in BC now but I favoured them when I lived in Toronto too. At least carbon tax and gasoline taxes are in the same spirit...


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

I agree that a consumption tax is the best option as long as you did away with income tax all together. Do not give government more tools to tax us with because it just brings us more spending until they must raise the tax back to where it was before and worse.

So all tax would be collected through consumption and a certain amount would be collected through a payment fee we would all pay each month so that roads and health care for example are certain to have funding. So we would eliminate capitol gain and dividend taxes as well so we wouldn't have to even submit income tax anymore each year except to submit an employer slip saying what we earn. Poor people who do not earn enough money wouldn't have to pay the consumption tax through an official government slip or card or something. Tourists also wouldn't pay when they send in their receipts to earn a tax rebate.


----------

