Canadian Politics Thread

[Spur1]

4 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Am I supposed to know what PFA stands for?  Professional Footballers Association?

Sorry Plucked from Air. 

[Miss Korea]

36 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Am I supposed to know what PFA stands for?  Professional Footballers Association?

 

poop fart ass

[Elias Pettersson]

48 minutes ago, Spur1 said:

Sorry Plucked from Air. 

 

So our federal budget is simply plucked from the air?  No rhyme or reason for the numbers?  They are just made up fodder?  Interesting.  I'm sure all of the Canadian voters will appreciate that honesty...

[The Lock]

On 3/21/2024 at 5:18 PM, Ricky Ravioli said:

Do you think this hasn't happened on the left? 

 

Honestly, if it has happened, not nearly as much as with the right. Trump had that effect on the right to shit them more right. To think the left would do the same would be to think Biden or Obama would have had the same effect.

 

Do you honestly think Obama or Biden would have had the same effect as Trump? Because I sure don't.

[The Lock]

On 3/21/2024 at 5:24 PM, Master Mind said:

 

I'm not disagreeing with your post, but I've seen many progressives say they feel the same way about the left wing.

 

The divide is quite large, it's a shame.

 

The difference is Trump shifted the right wing farther right. As I mentioned in my post just above this, for this to have happened on the left, Biden or Obama would have had to have had the same effect. Of course, they didn't have the same effect because neither of them really tend to shift the needle.

 

I'm not some leftist claiming it's "all the right wing's fault". I'm more stating an observation and stating why I believe it to be true.

 

And there will be some movement on the left as well; however, I'd argue it's for a different reason: progress in society. Progress doesn't slow down and this is why the right wing will likely find themselves in trouble if they don't perform at least some shifting. A lot of ideas that are currently seen as progressive will become mainstream centrist and eventually will have to be adopted by the right; otherwise, they won't get the votes. For example, their turning of roe vs wade alone could have them lose the upcoming election because it's dealing with an issue that was supposed to have been sorted a long time ago.

Edited March 23 by The Lock

[Smashian Kassian]

3 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

The federal debt was $619 billion when Trudeau took office.  It is now $1.2 trillion and climbing.  So how can you say that debt isn't from the Liberals and why are you still blaming Harper for stuff when he hasn't even been around for almost 9 years?

 

It's the next line in the playbook. When the abortion angle fails to gain support, go back to blaming Harper. 

[Smashian Kassian]

15 hours ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Yes, the federal government does have an assortment of policy tools they can implement to try and influence grocery prices.

 

Strictly talking about this subject, which policies are you dissatisfied with the Liberals over?

 

The carbon tax is a big talking point but ultimately it increases costs of things for every company which gets passed on to the consumer. A rebate (partial repayment) isn't adequate imo as opposed to not having it in the first place.

 

Beyond that I don't think they've done a ton on it since the effects of the covid response (which I was dissatisfied with but that's a whole other matter).

 

I try not to follow politics day-to-day so perhaps I've missed alot. And beyond that, I'd say just general overspending/contribution to the inflationary challenges we faced over the course of their governance, but I guess I don't have a ton for you here. So beyond carbon tax+overspending, you got me.

Edited March 23 by Smashian Kassian

[Smashian Kassian]

On 3/16/2024 at 8:11 AM, Bob Long said:

I don't find it weird that Trump would use it, its weird to me that anti-vaxxers would still like him.

 

First off, "anti-vaxxers" (in this context; covid) more accurately means 'anti-covid responsers' imo. 

 

And I don't think people opposed to the covid response are clearly all just 'MAGA' supporters at all. That Venn Diagram is definitely not a circle. 

 

On 3/16/2024 at 8:11 AM, Bob Long said:

 We also have a Charter that clearly separates religion from state functions. 

 

Im actually talking about the influence of the current evangelical movement in the US, not any founding concepts. 

 

Okay, so, I've seen content from people in the 'current evangelical movement in the US' and from what I've seen they are so far gone its to the point they are literally in-fighting with other prominent names in US conservative circles.

 

Recently, there was a huge social media war over a very modest calendar depicting influential 'right-wing' women in very modest (in almost every case full) clothing, and the further of the 'far right' evangelical/traditionalists were considering it phonography, and fighting over it tooth & nail. ('Conservative Dad' is the name of the company putting out the calendar, if you want to search for more background).

 

From what I've seen these people are not organized themselves - your giving them too much credit - let alone importing there ideology into Canada. Nothing I've seen from PP or any Conservative leadership in nearly a decade is like akin to what/how those people think. And I've heard them talk in long-form situations - the people inciting 'calendar-gate' were absurd to listen too. 

 

 

On 3/16/2024 at 8:11 AM, Bob Long said:

For sure, both ends of the spectrum use US ideas. But the point you're missing is we already have many of the things the US left covets. I don't see where their influence would change any of our laws at this point. 

 

So Americanism in Canadian politics isn't actually a problem? Or is it? That was the whole point originally.

 

In Canada a tried & true leftist move is to attack right wing leaders for 'Americanism', yet they are perfectly fine aligning themselves with the American left wing despite this also being an issue on the other side aswell (crazy right?)

 

'Americanism in Canada' is a talking point invoked as a cheap partisan way to gain support, on both sides (I've seen it with the Cons too). This is never really an issue at the end of the day, as much as leftists love to compare PP to Trump.

 

What the US left covets doesn't mean much. We are entirely different countries with very different circumstances, and some of our left-wing leanings aren't serving us well atm anyways (again, our current healthcare situation is an easy example - not that the idea isn't noble).

 

On 3/16/2024 at 8:11 AM, Bob Long said:

wait times in the US can be nearly as long. You don't have to worry about going bankrupt when you visit ours. 

 

I think there's many people in Canada who would prefer atleast having an opportunity to buck up for quicker care given our current state.

 

Healthcare is hard, and (like many things politically imo) the answer can change across time, but we aren't exactly hot either. 

 

On 3/16/2024 at 8:11 AM, Bob Long said:

you see arbitrary, I see the ability to adapt. 

 

I'm not at all interested in 'adapting' when it comes to human rights.

 

Your basically making my point, if the charter was strong enough there wouldn't be the possibility for governments to enforce 'adaption'.

 

15 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

So basically a blank cheque for Poilievere is better than the current government? man you have more faith than I do. 

 

I was trying to speak more-so analytically. Look I don't have faith PP is turning this ship around tomorrow either, but I think people are tired enough of the current gov't that they are ready for the alternative - which the Cons basically established themselves as with the vote the other day.

 

And my other point was that I think this phenomena is generally how politics work, rather than whatever the utopian idea of democracy is. 

[Miss Korea]

31 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

The carbon tax is a big talking point but ultimately it increases costs of things for every company which gets passed on to the consumer. A rebate (partial repayment) isn't adequate imo as opposed to not having it in the first place.

 

Beyond that I don't think they've done a ton on it since the effects of the covid response (which I was dissatisfied with but that's a whole other matter).

 

I try not to follow politics day-to-day so perhaps I've missed alot. And beyond that, I'd say just general overspending/contribution to the inflationary challenges we faced over the course of their governance, but I guess I don't have a ton for you here. So beyond carbon tax+overspending, you got me.

 

The carbon tax is a fundamentally misunderstood concept by most Canadians because it has largely been demonized by the same group that introduced it into Canadian discourse - the conservatives.  It's a traditional, market-based pollution tax designed to be revenue neutral.  Depending on where you live, the average Canadian absolutely should be getting the same amount of money in return as what they put in.  You are likely getting all of it back through the Climate Action Initiative.  Run your estimated carbon tax expenses through an app and how it matches up with the rebates you've quietly received in your bank account.

 

For what it's worth, the carbon tax is doing exactly what it was designed for.  Industries have made rapid steps toward becoming more energy-efficient, in an effort to avoid paying the tax.  The real critics of this tax believe it is not as effective as it should be... because it's too low and won't help Canada meet its climate goals quickly enough.  So you have the conundrum where the majority of Canadians believe climate change is real and something must be done quickly... but that same majority seem to think they don't have to be the ones to pay for it.

 

Another thing you should note is that economists as well as the Bank of Canada crunched the numbers on the carbon tax.  It has contributed to 0.15% of the inflation rate increase.  It has contributed to around 0.3% of the grocery prices, meaning you're spending 30 more cents per every $100 of groceries.  Ever wonder why the United States has experienced heavier food inflation despite having no federal carbon tax?  That's because global inflation has been the primary driver across the world.  Weather patterns have become more extreme (aka climate change) and have begun to adversely affect crop production everywhere.  Droughts caused India to ban rice exports a year back - prices skyrocketed.  And then the cold snap this January ravaged BC grape crops, so wine drinkers are going to suffer financially come summertime.

 

So when someone (ie. Poilievre) tries to convince you that the carbon tax has contributed to inflation and higher grocery prices, understand that it is a blatant lie.  It is doing exactly what it was planned to do, and its inflationary impact is so tiny, you shouldn't be noticing it.  If you do notice a rise in prices, it's probably not the carbon tax.

 

A counterpoint to all this would be... the fact that GST is applied to the carbon tax.  It's a tax on a tax and I think that's wrong in many ways.  But I also think that has nothing to do with the carbon tax itself.

[Chicken.]

49 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

The carbon tax is a fundamentally misunderstood concept by most Canadians because it has largely been demonized by the same group that introduced it into Canadian discourse - the conservatives.  It's a traditional, market-based pollution tax designed to be revenue neutral.  Depending on where you live, the average Canadian absolutely should be getting the same amount of money in return as what they put in.  You are likely getting all of it back through the Climate Action Initiative.  Run your estimated carbon tax expenses through an app and how it matches up with the rebates you've quietly received in your bank account.

 

For what it's worth, the carbon tax is doing exactly what it was designed for.  Industries have made rapid steps toward becoming more energy-efficient, in an effort to avoid paying the tax.  The real critics of this tax believe it is not as effective as it should be... because it's too low and won't help Canada meet its climate goals quickly enough.  So you have the conundrum where the majority of Canadians believe climate change is real and something must be done quickly... but that same majority seem to think they don't have to be the ones to pay for it.

 

Another thing you should note is that economists as well as the Bank of Canada crunched the numbers on the carbon tax.  It has contributed to 0.15% of the inflation rate increase.  It has contributed to around 0.3% of the grocery prices, meaning you're spending 30 more cents per every $100 of groceries.  Ever wonder why the United States has experienced heavier food inflation despite having no federal carbon tax?  That's because global inflation has been the primary driver across the world.  Weather patterns have become more extreme (aka climate change) and have begun to adversely affect crop production everywhere.  Droughts caused India to ban rice exports a year back - prices skyrocketed.  And then the cold snap this January ravaged BC grape crops, so wine drinkers are going to suffer financially come summertime.

 

So when someone (ie. Poilievre) tries to convince you that the carbon tax has contributed to inflation and higher grocery prices, understand that it is a blatant lie.  It is doing exactly what it was planned to do, and its inflationary impact is so tiny, you shouldn't be noticing it.  If you do notice a rise in prices, it's probably not the carbon tax.

 

A counterpoint to all this would be... the fact that GST is applied to the carbon tax.  It's a tax on a tax and I think that's wrong in many ways.  But I also think that has nothing to do with the carbon tax itself.

Aren’t climate action initiative payments only for families 

making less than about $90k combined?  Thats not a lot of moola in todays world and cost of living, basically a couple with two kids making $50k each is ineligible. Middle class gets no quiet rebates.
 

if a single person makes more than $61k then no credit for them either..

[Smashian Kassian]

1 hour ago, Miss Korea said:

 

The carbon tax is a fundamentally misunderstood concept by most Canadians because it has largely been demonized by the same group that introduced it into Canadian discourse - the conservatives.  It's a traditional, market-based pollution tax designed to be revenue neutral.  Depending on where you live, the average Canadian absolutely should be getting the same amount of money in return as what they put in.  You are likely getting all of it back through the Climate Action Initiative.  Run your estimated carbon tax expenses through an app and how it matches up with the rebates you've quietly received in your bank account.

 

The question for me here is definition. What does 'put in' encompass? Is that taxes on gas, is that additional cost of groceries / services that aren't obvious - as its passed along by companies *at their discretion* to consumers - and how does the gov't track this then reimburse (not rebate, completely reimburse) for every individual, given individuals are different in their spending habits.

 

It doesn't seem realistic for the gov't to lose money on this (meaning we pay for it), and if they were to have the formula perfect, there's no way its breaking even (given gov't bureaucracy comes at a cost), and if 'investors'/companies are operating at a loss, they won't be here or operating for long. So where is the financial hit coming from? Even if everything is perfect, in the short term I would assume its coming from the place it always comes from.

 

1 hour ago, Miss Korea said:

For what it's worth, the carbon tax is doing exactly what it was designed for.  Industries have made rapid steps toward becoming more energy-efficient, in an effort to avoid paying the tax.  The real critics of this tax believe it is not as effective as it should be... because it's too low and won't help Canada meet its climate goals quickly enough.  So you have the conundrum where the majority of Canadians believe climate change is real and something must be done quickly... but that same majority seem to think they don't have to be the ones to pay for it.

 

Another thing you should note is that economists as well as the Bank of Canada crunched the numbers on the carbon tax.  It has contributed to 0.15% of the inflation rate increase.  It has contributed to around 0.3% of the grocery prices, meaning you're spending 30 more cents per every $100 of groceries.  Ever wonder why the United States has experienced heavier food inflation despite having no federal carbon tax?  That's because global inflation has been the primary driver across the world.  Weather patterns have become more extreme (aka climate change) and have begun to adversely affect crop production everywhere.  Droughts caused India to ban rice exports a year back - prices skyrocketed.  And then the cold snap this January ravaged BC grape crops, so wine drinkers are going to suffer financially come summertime.

 

So when someone (ie. Poilievre) tries to convince you that the carbon tax has contributed to inflation and higher grocery prices, understand that it is a blatant lie.  It is doing exactly what it was planned to do, and its inflationary impact is so tiny, you shouldn't be noticing it.  If you do notice a rise in prices, it's probably not the carbon tax.

 

A counterpoint to all this would be... the fact that GST is applied to the carbon tax.  It's a tax on a tax and I think that's wrong in many ways.  But I also think that has nothing to do with the carbon tax itself.

 

I understand the logic of the carbon tax, it makes total sense, its the stick incentive. But if we're getting down to brass tax, the ultimate problem here imo is the realistic end.

 

If everyone in Canada, and just Canada - including not only individuals but also companies investing/operating here - ceased to exist tomorrow (we all die), what would be the resulting change in regards to the climate? (This is basically a question on the expected benefit in the absolute best case Canadian scenario for the climate)

 

And then the other big question is, whats the cost of this policy in regards to foreign investment. I mean production has been made in China for a long time for a reason - its very cheap. The stick can work, but if the party receiving it has an alternative it can backfire. There was the whole recent Volkswagon EV plant deal afterall - which didn't get the best reviews. 

 

And I'll also add, Hip made a great point on this earlier about the gas companies; any inch given by the gov't means the corporations are going to take a mile. Any excuse or opportunity for them to raise prices/profit they will take, and there's definitely times the Gov't gives them the opportunity to do so. (For some reason this is often posited as a left/right thing, yet these entities work hand in hand, on one hand I get it but on the other its odd). 

 

Edited March 23 by Smashian Kassian

[Gnarcore]

9 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

The federal debt was $619 billion when Trudeau took office.  It is now $1.2 trillion and climbing.  So how can you say that debt isn't from the Liberals and why are you still blaming Harper for stuff when he hasn't even been around for almost 9 years?

Why bring up Harper? Because every government pretty much runs a deficit and you gave an overall number and not a specific amount attributed to Trudeau. I knew what it was but did you use the overall total to make it sound worse when it was already rather bad? Doubling it in 9 years is one of my gripes with the current party in charge no doubt. 

There are actually several things we can blame on Harper 9 years on like his destruction of the rehabilitation potential of our prison systems. Just like I'll blame Trudeau's govt for not dealing with that situation. 

[The Lock]

@Master Mind @Ricky Ravioli

 

I forgot this wasn't the US politics thread. lol

 

However, a lot of what I've said still stands with some differences. The Liberal party itself has shifted left though and I'm not going to argue against that if that's what you were implying. Poilievre though does seem intent on at least shifting the Conservatives a little to the right and the PPC is  pretty active at the same time and they didn't exist before Trump..

[Bob Long]

6 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

First off, "anti-vaxxers" (in this context; covid) more accurately means 'anti-covid responsers' imo. 

 

And I don't think people opposed to the covid response are clearly all just 'MAGA' supporters at all. That Venn Diagram is definitely not a circle. 

 

 

sorry Smash, the anti-vaxxers clearly are in that camp on this issue. 

 

6 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

Okay, so, I've seen content from people in the 'current evangelical movement in the US' and from what I've seen they are so far gone its to the point they are literally in-fighting with other prominent names in US conservative circles.

 

Recently, there was a huge social media war over a very modest calendar depicting influential 'right-wing' women in very modest (in almost every case full) clothing, and the further of the 'far right' evangelical/traditionalists were considering it phonography, and fighting over it tooth & nail. ('Conservative Dad' is the name of the company putting out the calendar, if you want to search for more background).

 

From what I've seen these people are not organized themselves - your giving them too much credit - let alone importing there ideology into Canada. Nothing I've seen from PP or any Conservative leadership in nearly a decade is like akin to what/how those people think. And I've heard them talk in long-form situations - the people inciting 'calendar-gate' were absurd to listen too. 

 

 

the US evangelical movement is highly politicized: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/us/religion-politics-evangelicals.html

 

6 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

So Americanism in Canadian politics isn't actually a problem? Or is it? That was the whole point originally.

 

In Canada a tried & true leftist move is to attack right wing leaders for 'Americanism', yet they are perfectly fine aligning themselves with the American left wing despite this also being an issue on the other side aswell (crazy right?)

 

'Americanism in Canada' is a talking point invoked as a cheap partisan way to gain support, on both sides (I've seen it with the Cons too). This is never really an issue at the end of the day, as much as leftists love to compare PP to Trump.

 

What the US left covets doesn't mean much. We are entirely different countries with very different circumstances, and some of our left-wing leanings aren't serving us well atm anyways (again, our current healthcare situation is an easy example - not that the idea isn't noble).

 

 

its about the type of influence. Right wingers are pushing to take rights away from people. 

 

6 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

I think there's many people in Canada who would prefer atleast having an opportunity to buck up for quicker care given our current state.

 

Healthcare is hard, and (like many things politically imo) the answer can change across time, but we aren't exactly hot either. 

 

 

I'm not at all interested in 'adapting' when it comes to human rights.

 

Your basically making my point, if the charter was strong enough there wouldn't be the possibility for governments to enforce 'adaption'.

 

 

I'm not making your point at all. Our constitution protects Canadians far more than the US protects the rights of its citizens. 

 

6 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

I was trying to speak more-so analytically. Look I don't have faith PP is turning this ship around tomorrow either, but I think people are tired enough of the current gov't that they are ready for the alternative - which the Cons basically established themselves as with the vote the other day.

 

And my other point was that I think this phenomena is generally how politics work, rather than whatever the utopian idea of democracy is. 

 

everyone gets tired of the government of the day eventually. It comes for all of them.

 

[Chicken.]

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

@Master Mind @Ricky Ravioli

 

I forgot this wasn't the US politics thread. lol

 

However, a lot of what I've said still stands with some differences. The Liberal party itself has shifted left though and I'm not going to argue against that if that's what you were implying. Poilievre though does seem intent on at least shifting the Conservatives a little to the right and the PPC is  pretty active at the same time and they didn't exist before Trump..

At the end of the day both sides have drifted further to their respective ends, to varying degrees on various topics, making it difficult to actually have an ‘adult conversation’ about meat and potato issues instead of focusing in on the polarizing topics that divide the country. Its a sad state of affairs in politics now.

[Miss Korea]

5 hours ago, Chicken. said:

Aren’t climate action initiative payments only for families 

making less than about $90k combined?  Thats not a lot of moola in todays world and cost of living, basically a couple with two kids making $50k each is ineligible. Middle class gets no quiet rebates.
 

if a single person makes more than $61k then no credit for them either..

 

Right - so the carbon tax in BC is remarkably different to what's been implemented federally.  It was introduced in 2008 by Gordon Campbell's BC Liberals alongside income tax cuts for the higher income earners to offset the tax.  This was actually unfairly targeting lower income earners, and the NDP eventually introduced a rebate to that group receiving no benefits from those tax cuts.

 

It's definitely a messier tax here in BC, with a longer legacy and more complications.  One concern about the BC carbon tax is that it gets put into general revenue, and not a dedicated climate action fund.  But... our carbon tax is also the most popular one among the provinces.  

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

The question for me here is definition. What does 'put in' encompass? Is that taxes on gas, is that additional cost of groceries / services that aren't obvious - as its passed along by companies *at their discretion* to consumers - and how does the gov't track this then reimburse (not rebate, completely reimburse) for every individual, given individuals are different in their spending habits.

 

It doesn't seem realistic for the gov't to lose money on this (meaning we pay for it), and if they were to have the formula perfect, there's no way its breaking even (given gov't bureaucracy comes at a cost), and if 'investors'/companies are operating at a loss, they won't be here or operating for long. So where is the financial hit coming from? Even if everything is perfect, in the short term I would assume its coming from the place it always comes from.

 

 

I understand the logic of the carbon tax, it makes total sense, its the stick incentive. But if we're getting down to brass tax, the ultimate problem here imo is the realistic end.

 

If everyone in Canada, and just Canada - including not only individuals but also companies investing/operating here - ceased to exist tomorrow (we all die), what would be the resulting change in regards to the climate? (This is basically a question on the expected benefit in the absolute best case Canadian scenario for the climate)

 

And then the other big question is, whats the cost of this policy in regards to foreign investment. I mean production has been made in China for a long time for a reason - its very cheap. The stick can work, but if the party receiving it has an alternative it can backfire. There was the whole recent Volkswagon EV plant deal afterall - which didn't get the best reviews. 

 

And I'll also add, Hip made a great point on this earlier about the gas companies; any inch given by the gov't means the corporations are going to take a mile. Any excuse or opportunity for them to raise prices/profit they will take, and there's definitely times the Gov't gives them the opportunity to do so. (For some reason this is often posited as a left/right thing, yet these entities work hand in hand, on one hand I get it but on the other its odd). 

 

 

I'll try to tackle all your points - let me know if I missed anything.

 

The carbon tax is a standard Pigouvian tax (or sin tax) introduced to offset/correct any negative externalities in the market.  In the case of tobacco, Canadians are taxed 40%, primarily for the adverse health effects and overall burden on the healthcare system, but also the nastiness when you smoke indoors.  Same thing for alcohol, and of course, pollution. 

 

If you factor out the GST on the carbon levy, the federal government really shouldn't be losing any money, nor should they be profiting off it.  90% of the revenue is given back in rebates, and the other 10% is put towards various businesses/schools/institutions to reduce carbon consumption.  

 

Climate change has already resulted in billions of dollars of damage in the Canadian economy, from forest fires to floods to droughts to heat domes to cold snaps.  The biggest contributor to climate change here in Canada is burning fossil fuels, and that's what gets taxed.

 

As for your last comment, I didn't pull those inflation numbers from thin air.  UCalgary economist Trevor Tombe crunched the numbers from Statistics Canada and estimated the inflationary impact of carbon taxes on groceries to be 0.3% in Alberta, and 0.4% in Ontario.  The Governor of the Bank of Canada has calculated the overall impact of the tax to add 0.15 points to the current inflation rate.  That's it.  

 

Canadians are full of shit.  They pretend to care about the environment, but get upset when any measures have a financial impact on them.  What's worse is that approximately 40% of Canadians don't even realize they're getting rebates from the federal government.

[Chicken.]

13 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Right - so the carbon tax in BC is remarkably different to what's been implemented federally.  It was introduced in 2008 by Gordon Campbell's BC Liberals alongside income tax cuts for the higher income earners to offset the tax.  This was actually unfairly targeting lower income earners, and the NDP eventually introduced a rebate to that group receiving no benefits from those tax cuts.

 

It's definitely a messier tax here in BC, with a longer legacy and more complications.  One concern about the BC carbon tax is that it gets put into general revenue, and not a dedicated climate action fund.  But... our carbon tax is also the most popular one among the provinces.  

 

 

 

 

I'll try to tackle all your points - let me know if I missed anything.

 

The carbon tax is a standard Pigouvian tax (or sin tax) introduced to offset/correct any negative externalities in the market.  In the case of tobacco, Canadians are taxed 40%, primarily for the adverse health effects and overall burden on the healthcare system, but also the nastiness when you smoke indoors.  Same thing for alcohol, and of course, pollution. 

 

If you factor out the GST on the carbon levy, the federal government really shouldn't be losing any money, nor should they be profiting off it.  90% of the revenue is given back in rebates, and the other 10% is put towards various businesses/schools/institutions to reduce carbon consumption.  

 

Climate change has already resulted in billions of dollars of damage in the Canadian economy, from forest fires to floods to droughts to heat domes to cold snaps.  The biggest contributor to climate change here in Canada is burning fossil fuels, and that's what gets taxed.

 

As for your last comment, I didn't pull those inflation numbers from thin air.  UCalgary economist Trevor Tombe crunched the numbers from Statistics Canada and estimated the inflationary impact of carbon taxes on groceries to be 0.3% in Alberta, and 0.4% in Ontario.  The Governor of the Bank of Canada has calculated the overall impact of the tax to add 0.15 points to the current inflation rate.  That's it.  

 

Canadians are full of shit.  They pretend to care about the environment, but get upset when any measures have a financial impact on them.  What's worse is that approximately 40% of Canadians don't even realize they're getting rebates from the federal government.

Yeah so most average middle class folks here in BC are not getting anything back, and the revenue just get lumped in with the rest instead of specifically being put towards initiatives to improve the environment, lovely. 

 

The most popular? Popular with whom? The public? I don't think we had a choice and as you mention its been around since 2008. Personally not a big fan of using that stick as an incentive this way. For many people driving is essential they cannot just change their habits.

[Sapper]

The reality of it is ... It is the cons that have and continue to devide us... Them alone

 

Before MAGA infected Canada and PP embraced it we had those on the right , those on left and those in the middle with a foot in either left or right and one in the middle

In Canada that largest group by far for most of our history is the middle.

 

Conservatives have now beaten to death that message that your either a conservative supporter or your a radicalized lefty ... The cons have destroyed and eliminated the middle 

 

I have always stood in the middle..... Socially a foot to the left and on many economic issues a foot in the right.

 

PP has turned Canada into a burn it all to the ground with no compromise permitted.

The best governments we have had were ones forced.to compromise and forced to stay close to the middle.

 

Kenny , Mulroney and OToole all.warned about taking the conservative tent lock stock and barrel and moving it far to the right.

 

It is what it is , but this notion that the left is radicalized is false ...... They have always had extremists as did the right ..... Just now they have refined radicalized left as anyone not supporting PP and every single position of the new conservative social agenda 

 

And as for some posters comments about jailing Trudeau ..... That's some hard core communist beliefs. In countries like China , North Korea ,Russia you find political opponents jailed and killed..... In Democracies we un elect bad politicians ....... This jail him nonsense is exactly what people fought to keep our of Canada. 

 

Political are like a pendulum swinging ...... If you keep the sways mild it stays close to the middle ..... If you bend it far far to the right it only has one way to go when it snaps and that's far far to the left 

 

Harper began that stretch to the right ... Trudeau to the left and now PP.wants to go further to the right 

 

By letting PP do so means it's a guarantee that after PP is un elected we are heading further left that ever ......

 

How about we vote out both PP and Trudeau and nail that pendulum to the wall in the middle ?

[Sapper]

11 minutes ago, Chicken. said:

Yeah so most average middle class folks here in BC are not getting anything back, and the revenue just get lumped in with the rest instead of specifically being put towards initiatives to improve the environment, lovely. 

 

The most popular? Popular with whom? The public? I don't think we had a choice and as you mention its been around since 2008. Personally not a big fan of using that stick as an incentive this way. For many people driving is essential they cannot just change their habits.

Family's over 100k I think receive zip back .... I know I've never gotten a rebate 

 

What I hate about it isn't the actual carbon tax or rebates to people .... It's that there isn't decent rebates for replacing my furnace or going to a heat pump .... I'd like to see home owners who don't qualify for a carbon rebate still be qualified for big incentives to upgrade to a new furnace or heat pump

 

Could be as simple as zero carbon tax for any home with a 5 year old or newer efficient furnace ... A tax deduction equal to 50% of the cost of replacing a 5 yr or older furnace with a heat pump 

[Miss Korea]

23 minutes ago, Chicken. said:

Yeah so most average middle class folks here in BC are not getting anything back, and the revenue just get lumped in with the rest instead of specifically being put towards initiatives to improve the environment, lovely. 

 

The most popular? Popular with whom? The public? I don't think we had a choice and as you mention its been around since 2008. Personally not a big fan of using that stick as an incentive this way. For many people driving is essential they cannot just change their habits.

 

I dont buy that last argument of yours.  Polluters must pay the price in some way and the carbon tax is the MOST market-based, fiscally conservative form of offsetting that negative externality.  People have had 16 years to make changes to their habits.  There is no excuse for such a long period of time.  They can buy more fuel-efficient vehicles.  They can improve the heating efficiency of their home or even downsize.  

[Miss Korea]

11 minutes ago, Sapper said:

Family's over 100k I think receive zip back .... I know I've never gotten a rebate 

 

What I hate about it isn't the actual carbon tax or rebates to people .... It's that there isn't decent rebates for replacing my furnace or going to a heat pump .... I'd like to see home owners who don't qualify for a carbon rebate still be qualified for big incentives to upgrade to a new furnace or heat pump

 

Could be as simple as zero carbon tax for any home with a 5 year old or newer efficient furnace ... A tax deduction equal to 50% of the cost of replacing a 5 yr or older furnace with a heat pump 

 

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if some kind of measure like that was promised next election.  The weather patterns are getting more extreme.  Summers are hotter and winters are colder.  That means more energy used to heat/cool homes.  Already BC Hydro needs to rapidly increase its infrastructure because of the population influx.

 

They did it for EVs.  They can do it for other things too.  But I also don't want an initiative that seems to only benefit richer families.

[Optimist Prime]

11 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

I dont buy that last argument of yours.  Polluters must pay the price in some way and the carbon tax is the MOST market-based, fiscally conservative form of offsetting that negative externality.  People have had 16 years to make changes to their habits.  There is no excuse for such a long period of time.  They can buy more fuel-efficient vehicles.  They can improve the heating efficiency of their home or even downsize.  

I got rid of my oil furnace very late in 2022, when i bought my latest house. Heat Pump ever since: I got a 5k rebate at the time federally and another thousand or so provincially, and then a surprise additional grant of 6k that was authorized retroactively early this year, going back to when i did my thing. So my 18.5 thousand costs of the job, including removing old ductwork covered in asbestos and installing new ductwork was covered with rebates and grants totalling 11k: so my out of pocket costs are now just 7ish thousand on the job. I have no idea yet how much I am saving vs oil but my total electrical costs and my only energy costs are electrical now, for the entire year of 2023 was $1815.43 or 150 a month. roughly 5 bucks a day.  Oil heating this place over winter would have been insane as per this article linked and quoted below:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-heating-oil-cost-1.6627175

Quote

According to Kenmac Energy, a three-bedroom bungalow will burn about 3,000 litres of fuel a year for heat and hot water.

So that three-bedroom bungalow will cost roughly $5,625 to heat this year — that's $2,000 more than last year's price of $3,603, and $2,500 more than it would have cost a decade ago.

Assuming you turn heat on November 1 and turn it off March 31, that averages around $37 a day, compared to $21 a day in 2013.

Granted these numbers are for PEI, not Vancouver Island, so it is probably double what my numbers would have been, but even at half these numbers, I am saving HUGE, considering my 5 bucks a day is total energy used: lights, hot water, dryer, AND heat. 

 

I would do this a thousand times over again if i had to as I am convinced I made the right choice. 

[Chicken.]

4 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

I dont buy that last argument of yours.  Polluters must pay the price in some way and the carbon tax is the MOST market-based, fiscally conservative form of offsetting that negative externality.  People have had 16 years to make changes to their habits.  There is no excuse for such a long period of time.  They can buy more fuel-efficient vehicles.  They can improve the heating efficiency of their home or even downsize.  

wealthy polluters have too much money to care

 

low income polluters get rebates, as you say likely get as much back as they pay in the tax

 

middle income polluters get squeezed and screwed in yet another avenue of ever increasing costs amid stagnant wages. Perhaps if the economy was doing fabulous and so many people weren't struggling to stay afloat i could justify the pollution payments for average joes but it just fucking sucks these days to see middle class earners get fucked by the annually increasing carbon tax when in the grand scheme of things globally Canada is a minuscule contributor to climate change and the little effect the incentive may have to change our behaviours isn't going to stop forest fires and the like from continuing.

[Warhippy]

15 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Yes, you are correct.  The federal debt is $1.2 trillion.  It was $619 billion in 2015 when Trudeau took over, so it has doubled in 8 years.

 

The federal debt has doubled from $619.3 billion in 2015-16, the first year of Trudeau's government, to $1.2 trillion last year.

 

 

Ok so you admit that the federal deficit is not $2.1 trillion and is not the fault of Trudeau entirely?

 

 

16 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

$2.1 trillion is the national debt, it has nothing to do with the provinces.  You can continue to blame COVID and everything else under the sun for this massive debt that will never be paid off, but there is ample evidence of Trudeau's overspending during this time period that was completely unnecessary.

 

42% of the population who are going to vote for the Conservative party as of today aren't stupid either, even though some posters in here make them out to be that way.  

Bu you still intentionally write the stuff above and below this comment?

 

22 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

So Trudeau finally figured out that bringing in 1 million immigrants per year is not sustainable so he’s changing course. And you think the average person is just going to along with it like no big deal?  He literally has screwed up our housing crisis and made it 20x worse. 
 

Thank God the average Canadian understands this and will vote him out of power soon enough before he does irreparable damage to this country. $2.1 trillion debt with $50 billion interest payment. He’s lucky the people don’t throw him in jail for ruining their future. 

 

This indicates you are not ignorant so that would mean you are lying to and intentionally misleading people.

 

Maybe I was wrong.  Maybe you are not better than this.

[Optimist Prime]

Just had time to check on Peter Poutine's attempt to force a Non-Confidence vote: 204 MP's voted to keep the Trudeau Government. 116 voted Non-Confidence. 

 

For the record there are 118 conservatives MP's. lol. 

 

What a massive fail.