# Carbon Tax on Household Nat Gas



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

I have been really busy lately and I haven't looked hard at my Nat Gas bill. So when I looked today I noticed a charge for carbon tax along with the horrific HST. 

What the hell this is nuts because Nat Gas is a cleaner energy and I also do not use very much of it. In the winter I keep my house at about 12 C so I do my part to conserve energy. Anyway the money goes to nothing and it is a fraud as I am hearing from everywhere. The school system I hear has to buy credits and that takes money away from what they really need. 

To bad the people of BC were simply to stupid to see the fraud and went for it. Now they are complaining about it but if serves those idiots right to listen to a bunch of idiots who sold them on this in the first place.

If we really want to make a difference then recycling fees on coffee cups would be a good start. So if you do throw it away bums can make money taking them out of the trash or charities could collect them from people to make money by turning them in. There is so much that can be done instead of some completely useless stupid tax like the one on my heating bill.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

[/ignorant rant]

The BC Carbon tax applies to carbon emissions, unsurprisingly. I won't bore you with the chemistry, but when you burn natural gas, it produces carbon dioxide, among other things. 

The revenues from the carbon tax are used to reduce other taxes. It is revenue neutral. I probably shouldn't bother mentioning this, because you're just going to shout "You lie!" like that congressman. Facts be damned. The BC government has a website explaining all this stuff. Go read it.

You last point about how the price of natural gas has no impact on how much you or others consume boils down to this: you're asserting that the demand for natural gas is perfectly inelastic in price. You're wrong. There have been hundreds of empirical studies that show the contrary.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

I think we have established that taxes are too high, and government needs to reduce spending.

And as the OP had suggested, we have been taxed too much, instead we should tax that fellow behind the tree.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

The carbon tax is revenue neutral. All the revenue raised by the carbon tax is used to reduce other taxes. The carbon tax has no net effect on your taxes.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Sorry andrewf I just had to rant on this one since it ticked me off so bad when I saw it today. I really don't care how the BC government tries to justify it with their stupid revenue neutral shell game which some government in the future can raise back up again and it wouldn't be noticed because of the hidden nature of the tax. I know your not telling a lie it is just not the way to go about things and can open a can of worms for fraud to take place.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

They're being transparent. They could have hidden the carbon tax into the price of the fuel and you'd be none the wiser.

We're just on opposite sides of this issue. I think the carbon tax is an example of really solid government policy, and you hate it. I know I think I'm right, so sorry if I came off harsh. You seem to make mostly appeals to emotion, and that tends to get under my skin.


----------



## Pigzfly (Dec 2, 2010)

As the others have mentioned, the carbon tax (in BC) is revenue neutral. Those who receive GST (HST) cheques are also receiving a credit for the carbon tax. Those of us who do not receive those cheques can find the deduction on our income tax.

This carbon tax is actually one of the most economically efficient and beneficially distorting (as opposed to income tax, capital tax, etc), consumption taxes out there today, yay for BC!

While you may find taxation an affront in general, please research the mathematics and theory of taxation policy (from a qualified source), before railing against what is a very good piece of tax policy. 

Slightly related to the benefits of taxation: I just recently learned that standard maternity leave in the United States is 6 weeks! They think that it is insane that we have the option to take up to a year, including various levels of pay between EI and employers.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Mathematics also destroyed the stock market in 2008. 

I think if you have a problem then tackle the problem head on and not with some mathematical witchcraft. I mentioned coffee cup recycling fee because I know bottle and can returns are very successful. I think a pay more and get a gas credit at the end of the year if you cut down on your consumption. So lets say I spend $100 a month on Nat gas and then manage to cut it to $80 a month then I should be rewarded. I was thinking that everyone should pay a standard fee based on some kind of average consumption each month that gets reduced and even goes farther to give you more money back for going below the average. It would be revenue neutral giving back all the money to those who earned it. 

Andrewf I am different from you because I want things done right with innovative ideas .My ideas may not be the right ones but at least I am trying to directly attack the problem instead of just raising costs and crossing my fingers that people will use less. Trust me people are using less gas for their cars in Greater Vancouver as they cross the line into Washington state and spending their money there. So pigzfly what does your mathematical mumbo jumbo say about that.


----------



## Pigzfly (Dec 2, 2010)

I filled up my car in Montana today. Consumers are price driven. In most circumstances, items are geographically based and unavoidable. I also paid HST to bring back goods into Canada today. Requiring tax on gasoline purchases in the states is one way to combat that, however in practice it is a very difficult thing to administer. (ie, the road trip returning vehicle may have filled their tank 300 kms ago and burned that gas in the US, is it fair to be required to pay tax on the last fill in order to enter Canada?)

There is a lot of information available on things like taxation of carbon-emitting imports and/or exports, which in our context would greatly penalize many consumer goods produced in China; however US perception of things like our softwood lumber supplies and a lack of global competitiveness on exports (already a problem with the dollar and the overall cost of inputs, especially labour, in Canada) leads you down a path to understanding why import-export tariffs for such things have their limits and are general not employed.

Coffee cup recycling fees work fantastically for me! However, did you follow the outcry surrounding the plastic bag usage fee in Ontario? In general, fees which directly generate revenue and apply it to a related place are best; however, in practice it is very difficult to achieve. The general perception for the Coquihalla toll booth was that those funds were applied to road maintenance in BC, while in actual fact they were treated as general revenue. The biggest problem with this is that there are many services provided by our governments which either for social, political, difficult reasons do or cannot themselves directly generate a user fee. The carbon tax is an attempt to generate a user fee for a good that is shared by all, not polluted by all, etc. 

While your suggestion does make sense, there are some limitations to its implementation that I can identify at the moment:
You have a baseline of $100/month for your gas consumption, you are financially rewarded for reducing this to $80. Where does the financial reward come from? Also, if everyone achieves the goal of reduced consumption, the total income generated from this (assuming this is where the funds come from) and then redirected to provide cash incentives is reduced permanently.
There is a cost associated with the administration of such a program, the user will pay for this.
There will be arguments that while for you it is feasible to maintain a 12 degree temperature and reduced use of natural gas to generate a cash reward, this will not be feasible for some people. The Enron tag line was always about freezing grandma out in California. It will negatively affect the poor if there is an unseasonably cold winter and not only do they have to pay more for their heating, they also lose their cash reward, so those least able to afford it are now "paying twice." 


I am playing devil's advocate. Original ideas are great. All taxation ideas have their flaws. It was a miracle that such an efficient tax as the BC carbon tax came into existence, especially with room to adjust the price of carbon.

PS - sorry if this is difficult to read. I have consumed more than one alcoholic beverage this evening, on which I paid an eco fee, a recycling deposit, an exise tax, HST (I think) and it was potentially provided by a government controlled corporation. Or, I may have had the option to illegally cross a provincial border to reduce these taxes, as consumers are price driven. Quebec to Ontario, Alberta to Everywhere... Anywhere else to the NWT.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

I'd much rather costs present themselves in the form of greater inequality, lower quality of life, less purchasing power, a more polluted environment, and greater climate crisis to future generations, then have them show up explicitly immediately.

It's called externality. Look it up people, it's outside of the scope of economics.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

dogcom said:


> Mathematics also destroyed the stock market in 2008.
> 
> I think if you have a problem then tackle the problem head on and not with some mathematical witchcraft.


Too bad we can't embed youtube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU6xPxrEhyU


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Dogcom, if people are willing to kill 3-6 hours of their weekend going to the US for fuel, food, etc., I suppose that is their prerogative. One option would be a tax on short visits. An $8 fee for single day trips? Realistically, very little of the carbon tax is evaded this way, so I don't see any need to put in place additional measures. My proof? The BC government collects over a billion in revenue each year from the carbon tax, money that is used to reduce other taxes in BC.

There's no crossing of fingers and hoping that people will reduce consumption. If you raise the price, consumption will fall. The finger crossing comes in when you hope that cutting personal and corporate income taxes will stimulate economic activity. That is a much more complex issue.


----------



## omegacanuck (Jun 16, 2011)

dogcom said:


> In the winter I keep my house at about 12 C so I do my part to conserve energy.


Just had to chuckle and jump in here. Remind me not to visit you in January 

Additionally, I guess by keeping your house that cold, you are indeed paying less carbon tax than the average person because you are using less gas.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Actually to tell the truth omegacanuck, nobody in my house likes the heat very much. In fact even with the temperature at 12 C we still use a fan in the bedroom. On a side note andrewf I have never seen the need to waste more energy when the price is cheap. This one boggles my mind why anybody would only care when the price goes up, I care regardless, even if gas was 20 cents a liter.

Thats a good link andrewf I never seen that episode before.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

dogcom said:


> So when I looked today I noticed a charge for carbon tax along with the horrific HST.
> 
> What the hell this is nuts because Nat Gas is a cleaner energy and I also do not use very much of it. In the winter I keep my house at about 12 C so I do my part to conserve energy. Anyway the money goes to nothing and it is a fraud as I am hearing from everywhere.


The carbon tax is supposed to reduce the carbon footprint. The amount of 
energy that everyone uses increases the carbon footprint and carbon dioxide
is known to contribute to global warming. The gov't of BC has decided to
do their part by taxing you energy consumers, collecting the tax and using
it for other purposes..although they claim that it is "revenue neutral"..
in other words..a new tax collected on this..offsets a tax reduction on 
something else...well as least in principle.
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/carbon_tax.htm

In practice, it is just another tax grab that is quite popular with provincial
gov'ts these days. Here in Ont, we have an "eco fee", disguised "recycling tax" 
that is collected separately at time of sale, which *supposed* to go back to the recyclers, but who knows what happens to that, maybe it just goes into
general gov't revenue as there is never any accountability on how that money
collected is distributed.

You keep your house at 12C in the winter months? That's only 53 degrees vs the
normal 70 that most people are comfortable with! 



> Too bad the people of BC were simply to stupid to see the fraud and went for it. Now they are complaining about it but if serves those idiots right to listen to a bunch of idiots who sold them on this in the first place.


All politicians mean well when they are running for office. David Suzuki provided some
input on the global warming, the droughts in BC, the constant forest fires burning
up natural resources and costing hundreds of millions to fight, the nasty bugs,
the pine mountain beetle killing the conifers..all that has been linked to you people
in BC burning up all that carbon based fuel..so decisions were made for the good of
BC which now you have to "suck it up!"




> If we really want to make a difference then recycling fees on coffee cups would be a good start. So if you do throw it away bums can make money taking them out of the trash or charities could collect them from people to make money by turning them in.


You mean like charging a "eco fee" on each Tim Horton's coffee cup? 
Interesting concept..BUT a recycling fee would just end up in the gov't "coffers" 
again, and coffee drinkers would just have to shell out extra for their morning
"fix". The bums/bag ladies would not be able to make any money on that,
because the gov't isn't going to give back any money to them they collected already. Now if you are referring to a "deposit on each paper coffee cup", that's another matter entire..this is like the bottle deposit that retailers charger (or the LCBO in Ontario). The collector of the bottles get some cash at the local beer store when they turn them in.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Very good post carverman you said pretty much what I was thinking and that is you can't trust the money in the hands of the government putting it into general revenue and then getting very little done on the environmental front.

And to the other point yes I was referring to a deposit on coffee cups that you get most of your deposit back when you turn them back in. Bottle deposits have worked out great n BC.


----------

