[Admiral Beez]

You get the same cheque no matter what. You keep any money you don't spend on fuel to spend on literally anything else.

I don’t need the cheque to do anything else. Make gas expensive through taxing carbon. Use that money to pay for better transit that I can use instead of driving my car. That’s how you change behaviour. If you give me the money back, I’ll just use it to offset the higher cost of gas and keep driving my car…. because transit remains underfunded. Offer good transit and you don’t even need coercion through punitive taxation.

 

[afransen]

I don’t need the cheque to do anything else. Make gas expensive through taxing carbon. Use that money to pay for better transit that I can use instead of driving my car. That’s how you change behaviour. If you give me the money back, I’ll just use it to offset the higher cost of gas and keep driving my car…. because transit remains underfunded. Offer good transit and you don’t even need coercion through punitive taxation.

There is pretty significant investment in transit in the GTA as it stands. It's not clear we could support a higher rate of infrastructure investment without exacerbating construction inflation even more.

With higher priced fossil fuel, you will use in your investment/consumption decisions. You may choose a more fuel efficient vehicle when you next purchase one, you may choose to get more efficient appliances, or upgrade your windows/building envelope. Higher energy prices help with the ROI on such investments.

 

[kEiThZ]

If you give me the money back, I’ll just use it to offset the higher cost of gas and keep driving my car….

No you won't. Are you suggesting, you drive around aimlessly just to burn gas? At worst, you are driving exactly as you always did and will consider a more fuel efficient vehicle the next time you car shop. And given the fact that you keep thinking about the "punitive" price and not much about the rebate, the price signal is clearly working on you. Your next car most certainly will burn less than your current one.

Now, from a political perspective you may be right. Clearly, beautiful economic ideas don't sell with a voting public built around the lowest common denominator.

…. because transit remains underfunded.

Cars aren't the only emitting device in your home.

Offer good transit and you don’t even need coercion through punitive taxation.

Mostly right. But I guarantee you that if we took away $800+ rebates and redirected to transit construction, there would be substantially more outcry than complaints like yours. Also, a decision like that substantially screws people who live in rural areas, for example, where transit will always be impractical to impossible.

 

[Northern Light]

Mostly right. But I guarantee you that if we took away $800+ rebates and redirected to transit construction, there would be substantially more outcry than complaints like yours. Also, a decision like that substantially screws people who live in rural areas, for example, where transit will always be impractical to impossible.

Accepting the above.

Serious question.

Is the fact that the transportation component of the carbon tax has an effect on rural voters that is perceived to be unfair a policy problem? Given that gas taxes are already much higher in Canada than the U.S. and apply either nationally or province-wide raise a similar issue, with the two together being arguably punitive?

Is the combination above a problem in term of logistics costs in Canada for retailers and for manufacturers which export?

****

If the answer to one or more of the above is yes............. would it make sense to:

Remove the carbon tax from gas (Car/Truck fuel); and even reduce gas tax, and to instead toll urban highways, and/or impose congestion charges?
What about Parking Taxes in urban areas? (Vancouver does this now, Toronto is considering it)

Aside from moving to discourage driving and/or car ownership in areas where there is a viable alternative, but minimally effecting rural voters and trucking..........
This would arguably have a negative effect in respect of fuel efficiency; but might we not tackle that by simply raising minimally acceptable fuel economy standards?

To be clear, I'm not advocating for the above, I'm sincerely asking whether we can achieve the aims of the Carbon Tax, as it pertains to transportation, in a way that would be either more effective or achieve higher buy-in?

****

The above would not imply removing the carbon tax on other products.

Though we could try to be more similarly nuanced (ie. penalize someone using oil to heat their home where there are viable alternatives that are less polluting available), but reduce or eliminate that tax where such alternatives are minimal or non-existent and instead directly subsidize introducing a cleaner alternative.

 

[kEiThZ]

I strongly support tax and rebate as the most economically efficient way to send a price signal. But I gotta admit public support isn't there. So consumer carbon taxes are dead after the next election. Unfortunately, the only way to force change that is politically palatable may be regulation, like the ICEV ban. We'll need to simply ban new gas home heating and offer incentives to replace gas furnaces.

 

[Admiral Beez]

We'll need to simply ban new gas home heating and offer incentives to replace gas furnaces.

Alberta is not going to like that. Oil and gas is what they do. Did Alberta even have a non-agrarian economy before fossil fuels and mining?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Looks like Freeland is lining us up for another huge deficit.

Budget 2024 prioritizes housing while taxing highest earners, deficit projected at $39.8B

In an effort to level the playing field for young people, in the 2024 federal budget, the government is targeting Canada's highest earners with new taxes in order to help offset billions in new spending to enhance the country's housing supply and social supports.

www.ctvnews.ca

Is there anyone who can run the country within its means and without increasing spending? King got us through WW2 and spent less than Justin on Covid. I was a newly-graduated working adult when Chretien was PM and as far as I can recall I did not want for more federal programs. What could Justin possibly be spending it all on?

 

[kEiThZ]

Alberta is not going to like that. Oil and gas is what they do.

Alberta not being supportive of climate policy isn't exactly surprising information. If we don't want to do squat on climate, sure we can cater to Alberta. If we want to do something, and it can't be consumer price signals, then incentives and regulations are the way.

In the long run, Alberta will have trouble. Oil demand is going to peak at some point. And on the downslope, the high cost producers will be the first to lose sales. Denial of this reality is only going to make their future worse. Bitumen isn't great to burn. It's great as feedstock for materials manufacturing though. If the Albertans had any sense they'd be pivoting towards carbon fibre manufacturing.

Broadly too, as an Ontarian, I have less sympathy. What were their views when Ontario was deindustrializing with the petrodollar? Now Ontario is gaining from manufacturing cleantech and they complain?

 

[kEiThZ]

What could Justin possibly be spending it all on?

As discussed already. Most of the deficit is being driven by OAS growth ($69B last year) and healthcare support for Boomers. Gen Squeeze says those two things account for 84% of the deficit.

 

[kEiThZ]

Baby boomers have won the generational war. Was it worth young Canadians' future? - The Hub

In their wake, boomers have set policy traps that have systematically kneecapped future generations' prospects, leaving behind a country of systems littered with economic landmines and lower living standards.

thehub.ca

 

[Northern Light]

The link to the federal budget is here:

I will post various segments as I wander my way through w/observations from time to time.

Table of contents | Budget 2024

budget.canada.ca

Lets start here:

I can tell you right now that 121M in in 2025-2026 is not 50% federal funding of the 2 pharmacare segments already announced. (Contraception and Diabetes meds/devices)

I modeled BC's program of free contraception and I get a national cost ~330M per year so that alone would be 165M in federal funding at 50%.....

Hmmm..

I notice the new disability benefit is backend loaded. I also work out the math, based on the number of Ontarians on ODSP as ~ $1,600 per person, per year, or about $133 per month when fully delivered. That is so absurdly low.

Edit to add:

From the media who had the technical briefing, we get that the maximum disability benefit will be $200 per month, but there will be a sliding scale of some kind, so my average is probably about right:

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-budget-2024-highlights-need-to-know-1.7175062

 

[Northern Light]

As discussed already. Most of the deficit is being driven by OAS growth ($69B last year) and healthcare support for Boomers. Gen Squeeze says those two things account for 84% of the deficit.

This comment, pairs well w/this chart in the budget:

 

[Northern Light]

Here's the first of the tax hikes, Capital Gains...

But they've done this in a bit of an oddball way.

This is not the way I would have done this..........


****

Interesting assertion below; I haven't verified the truth of the backpatting so I leave it here w/o comment:

 

[Northern Light]

Next Tax Hike:

Global Minimum Corporate Tax - This is the international treaty that sets a minimum corporate tax rate of 15% (already the Canadian Rate) but says that rate must be paid in the country in which it is earned, as opposed to being repatriated or offshored.

The treaty has yet to be ratified, but the Feds say this will deliver unilateral implementation legislation here, which they estimate will generated ~2.2B annually *

* beginning in fiscal 2026-27

***

Additional tobacco tax and vaping tax

 

[Northern Light]

Now this is a very culture-specific promise: