What if ‘Axe the Tax’ leaves most Canadians worse off?

[Hamloc]

Say what you will Chuck2, what matters is at the end of the day when all costs and benefits are taken into account the carbon tax is a net Cost not a net benefit!! That simple.

[chuckChuck]

But you and Crypto don't tell the whole story.

Any measures to reduce emissions will have a cost to the economy.

And climate change is also already a cost to the economy. The increase in floods, droughts and forest fires all produce increased costs.

But when it comes to the carbon tax 80% of households are getting the actual tax back.

[Guest]

But you and Crypto don't tell the whole story.

Any measures to reduce emissions will have a cost to the economy.

And climate change is also already a cost to the economy. The increase in floods, droughts and forest fires all produce increased costs.

But when it comes to the carbon tax 80% of households are getting the actual tax back.

You do realize we share the same air as China and India ? Don’t you ?……

[cropgrower]

and canada makes 1.5% of the worlds emissions ! madness suported be simpeltons

[Hamloc]

But you and Crypto don't tell the whole story.

Any measures to reduce emissions will have a cost to the economy.

And climate change is also already a cost to the economy. The increase in floods, droughts and forest fires all produce increased costs.

But when it comes to the carbon tax 80% of households are getting the actual tax back.

Chuck2, the title of your thread is “What if ‘Axe the tax’ leaves Canadians worse off.” So now your saying “any measure to reduce emissions will have a cost to the economy.” And instead of saying Canadians are worse off your changing your statement to 80% of households are getting the actual tax back. I thought the premise was low income households got more than what they payed back? How does the carbon tax incentivize change if 80% get the tax back or for that matter lower income Canadians who benefit from the rebates according to the PBO? Are only 20% of Canadians supposed to change what they do? Are the carbon tax incentives just a low income subsidy not a climate policy? What if the tax wasn’t charged 80% wouldn’t need the tax back because they wouldn’t have payed it!!

As for your opinion that any reduction in emissions costs money. Hmmm, now your admitting utilizing solar and wind generation increases costs as AB5 has maintained all along? I thought electric cars were going to save us money. But of course they cost more to buy, they weigh on average at 30% more than their ICE equivalents and then there is all those government subsidies. Curious we don’t have to pay companies to build gas stations but some reason electric car chargers must be built or subsidized by government. I could go on but why bother, your opinion won’t change and neither will mine. Curious though, I wrote all that without insults or name calling, imagine.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck2, the title of your thread is “What if ‘Axe the tax’ leaves Canadians worse off.” So now your saying “any measure to reduce emissions will have a cost to the economy.” And instead of saying Canadians are worse off your changing your statement to 80% of households are getting the actual tax back. I thought the premise was low income households got more than what they payed back? How does the carbon tax incentivize change if 80% get the tax back or for that matter lower income Canadians who benefit from the rebates according to the PBO? Are only 20% of Canadians supposed to change what they do? Are the carbon tax incentives just a low income subsidy not a climate policy? What if the tax wasn’t charged 80% wouldn’t need the tax back because they wouldn’t have payed it!!

As for your opinion that any reduction in emissions costs money. Hmmm, now your admitting utilizing solar and wind generation increases costs as AB5 has maintained all along? I thought electric cars were going to save us money. But of course they cost more to buy, they weigh on average at 30% more than their ICE equivalents and then there is all those government subsidies. Curious we don’t have to pay companies to build gas stations but some reason electric car chargers must be built or subsidized by government. I could go on but why bother, your opinion won’t change and neither will mine. Curious though, I wrote all that without insults or name calling, imagine.

I find that if you want to get a response from Chuck, then the post has to be inflammatory enough to appeal to someone of his intellectual immaturity. Polite, considerate, well reasoned posts tend to go unanswered. He is here for a brawl, playground style, not an adult intellectual debate.

[fjlip]

Excellent counter arguments guys!

[chuckChuck]

Chuck2, the title of your thread is “What if ‘Axe the tax’ leaves Canadians worse off.” So now your saying “any measure to reduce emissions will have a cost to the economy.” And instead of saying Canadians are worse off your changing your statement to 80% of households are getting the actual tax back. I thought the premise was low income households got more than what they payed back? How does the carbon tax incentivize change if 80% get the tax back or for that matter lower income Canadians who benefit from the rebates according to the PBO? Are only 20% of Canadians supposed to change what they do? Are the carbon tax incentives just a low income subsidy not a climate policy? What if the tax wasn’t charged 80% wouldn’t need the tax back because they wouldn’t have payed it!!

As for your opinion that any reduction in emissions costs money. Hmmm, now your admitting utilizing solar and wind generation increases costs as AB5 has maintained all along? I thought electric cars were going to save us money. But of course they cost more to buy, they weigh on average at 30% more than their ICE equivalents and then there is all those government subsidies. Curious we don’t have to pay companies to build gas stations but some reason electric car chargers must be built or subsidized by government. I could go on but why bother, your opinion won’t change and neither will mine. Curious though, I wrote all that without insults or name calling, imagine.

The real reason why electricity is higher priced in Alberta is because of intentional market supply reductions so the utilities can charge more. Several economists have explained this but you wont admit it! In fact because solar and wind are priced lower the increased supply helps keep prices lower.

And Alberta has been subsidizing the oil and gas industry with reduced royalty rates until the capital costs are paid back. But you won't admit that either.

There is a lot of denial in Alberta!

[furrowtickler]

The real reason why electricity is higher priced in Alberta is because of intentional market supply reductions so the utilities can charge more. Several economists have explained this but you wont admit it! In fact because solar and wind are priced lower the increased supply helps keep prices lower.

And Alberta has been subsidizing the oil and gas industry with reduced royalty rates until the capital costs are paid back. But you won't admit that either.

There is a lot of denial in Alberta!

So you see Alberta as a poster child for wind and solar , but still show huge disdain for Albertans
that’s unfortunate, but not surprising from you .

[chuckChuck]

Only some Albertans. The rest are fine.

The free market embraces solar and wind. I thought the free market is always right!