The "LOLCANADA" thread...again
So what's new?
I've noticed the Liberals are now ahead in all major polls and Trudeau hasn't even started to campaign yet
Is the point of the carbon tax to change peoples behavior by making things more expensive? If it was a great thing and working, but also didn't increase cost of living, I'd like to know how?
Is the point of the carbon tax to change peoples behavior by making things more expensive? If it was a great thing and working, but also didn't increase cost of living, I'd like to know how?
Yikes. That people in 2025 still manage to be ignorant about the existence of the rebate that puts 90% of the tax right back in the pockets of people is kinda sad and telling. It did make costs higher for high carbon using people (for example richer people on average) while the net cost reduced for low carbon using people.
Before it was removed, it was easy for Poilievre to point to all those high inflation reports and even though they consistently were blaming other factors you could pretend that the costs were primarily due to the carbon tax. Of course now that it is removed and we didn't have some dramatic reversal on inflation, it should be pretty obvious that the carbon tax wasn't the big driver.
Perhaps the most substantial choice Trudeau made on taxation was to MAINTAIN the harper era corporate tax cuts that exploded the deficit (and a big chunk of our problems today). Rightly or wrongly, this represents economic continuity and similarity with Harper, not the other way around. And this continuity continues to both most of Poilievre's campaign plans and Carney's curren
This I agree with but this shouldn't be used to justify just how awful of a job Trudeau did.
Right. So basically Trudeau did a small tweak to the code. Carney did another small tweak. Poilievre proposed a small tweak. Harper did a small. Personally I like simplifying the tax code and think it's better to have a flatter tax break and remove a smorgasboard of little exemptions you have to keep track of and prove to the CRA each year, maybe you disagree. Additionally, the largest impact exemptions that were removed were things for families, but then Trudeau significantly expanded CCB and daycare to help families so again you have to be careful about which columns you claim are being cancelled. Heck Harper's late income splitting policy was bad imo, but it actually would have personally benefited me. But again the message out of this is continuity with small tweaks, not radical change.
Can you be a bit more specific - as was asked multiple times - what are the policies you are most upset about on the economic front. I might agree or disagree, it really depends.
I agree actually but then don't say ''he reduced taxes for the 2nd bracket'' and not include all the tax credits he removed that resulted in a higher tax burden for the middle class, not lower.
I'm not sure what exercise we're doing by discussing a specific policy when my point is his entire economic track record wasn't good enough. It was 10 years of stagnation under him and the worst economic growth we've seen since the great depression. Cost of living went up, quality of life went down. Does discussing government spending under his reign change any of that? Does it actually matter that 1 or 2 of his policies were good when the overall is awful? No.
In before ''see, you can't name a specific policy blah blah blah''.
Yikes. That people in 2025 still manage to be ignorant about the existence of the rebate that puts 90% of the tax right back in the pockets of people is kinda sad and telling. It did make costs higher for high carbon using people (for example richer people on average) while the net cost reduced for low carbon using people. Before it was removed,
First time he said this and don't remember the quote exactly but he did argue that the carbon tax was a significant driver of rising costs was also the first time I realized I'd never vote for him.
Just like I could never vote for someone who pretends other countries are paying for tariffs he imposes. If you can't even do econ 101 properly you shouldn't be in charge of a country.
Yikes. That people in 2025 still manage to be ignorant about the existence of the rebate that puts 90% of the tax right back in the pockets of people is kinda sad and telling. It did make costs higher for high carbon using people (for example richer people on average) while the net cost reduced for low carbon using people.
Ok, what do the 90% do with the money they get back in their pockets, pay for energy/food? Then the rich 10% don't care anyway so what's the point, how was it working great?
I'm not sure what exercise we're doing by discussing a specific policy when my point is his entire economic track record wasn't good enough. It was 10 years of stagnation under him and the worst economic growth we've seen since the great depression. Cost of living went up, quality of life went down. Does discussing government spending under his reign change any of that? Does it
Ok so we've brought up a couple things that you seem fine with or maybe neutral one. Mostly a similar income tax structure (made flatter, reduced income taxes across the board, cut some parent friendly exemptions while adding parent friendly spending on CCB/daycare), mostly a similar corporate tax structure, federal government has less impact on economy than all the politicians suggest. Doesn't sound yet like we have a specific we radically disagree on at least. So can we try to find some of the specifics we maybe DO disagree on then that you think led to all this general unspecific awfulness?
Like sure I certainly agree that there is a range of pretty negative economic indicators (not all bad, some quite competitive internationally), but I'd put for instance declining productivity quite far up there. But one can't just point to the existence of a bad economic indicator. Covid, housing, inflation, cost of living, tariffs - most countries have been battered economically these last 5 years and much of the economic response is out of the control of the government. Some of it is influenced by the government. So no, you can't refuse to talk to specifics and just say everything is awful. I'm not even sure we disagree, or to what extent, but we can't know until you do better.
Ok, what do the 90% do with the money they get back in their pockets, pay for energy/food? Then the rich 10% don't care anyway so what's the point, how was it working great?
You're from BC no? BC showed 19% reduction in conventional fuel sales and a 9% reduction in per capita emissions over a four year period. That's why it was working great. Then came all the misinformation and it became a political problem and people like you, uneducated on the subject, started spreading misinformation. One of them being how inflationary it really was.
I was not a fan of it either but for a different reason. In my opinion it was an attempt at solving an international problem with a national tax. I don't like that we're essentially okay with passing up economic growth in the spirit of being more green but other countries will continue to pollute at rates much higher than Canada.
Can't deny that it worked though.
Ok, what do the 90% do with the money they get back in their pockets, pay for energy/food? Then the rich 10% don't care anyway so what's the point, how was it working great?
LOLOL at confusing the basics. Not 90% of people, 90% of the tax revenue collected was returned. But yes, people who use less carbon end up with more money to buy stuff and those who use lots of carbon end up with less money to buy stuff. For instance, if you are debating driving an ebike to work instead of the family suv, that this is going to save you a bunch of money might be an additional incentive. So it helps influence people's behaviours to use less carbon.
You're from BC no? BC showed 19% reduction in conventional fuel sales and a 9% reduction in per capita emissions over a four year period. That's why it was working great. Then came all the misinformation and it became a political problem and people like you, uneducated on the subject, started spreading misinformation. One of them being how inflationary it really was.
I'm not. But way to pick the warmest province, what four year period? Does that include COVID when people were not allowed to leave their homes and everyone was working from home?
LOLOL at confusing the basics. Not 90% of people, 90% of the tax revenue collected was returned. But yes, people who use less carbon end up with more money to buy stuff and those who use lots of carbon end up with less money to buy stuff. For instance, if you are debating driving an ebike to work instead of the family suv, that this is going to save you a bunch of money might b
What kind of stuff? If you don't know this then how do you know it was great? If they were using it to fly to Disneyland wouldn't that offset the use of carbon? Saying 90% of the money was rebated proves nothing.
The amount of people that are debating whether or not to drive their SUV or E-bike to work because of a carbon tax is near zero. What kind of bubble do you live in lol.
I'm not. But way to pick the warmest province, what four year period? Does that include COVID when people were not allowed to leave their homes and everyone was working from home?
No it was the four years after BC introduced it. They were the first to do so if I remember correctly. 2008 to 2012 maybe?
But way to pick the warmest province
You realize we're comparing BC to BC right? So you saying ''But way to pick the warmest province'' means nothing lol.
What kind of stuff? If you don't know this then how do you know it was great? If they were using it to fly to Disneyland wouldn't that offset the use of carbon? Saying 90% of the money was rebated proves nothing. .
Lol I hadn't realized how poor your economic basics were. Money is fungible. It is ALL kind of stuff - whatever people want to buy. The point is that by taxing high carbon goods and rebating the money, this over time shifts people's behavioural buying patterns to reduce the amount of high carbon goods they buy.
The amount of people that are debating whether or not to drive their SUV or E-bike to work because of a carbon tax is near zero. What kind of bubble do you live in lol.
Lol more economic ineptitude. It's kind of hilarious because the carbon tax was always intended as the more conservative, market-based approach because it uses normal market pricing mechanisms. Like everyone and their dog should realize that when you increase the price of something, you lower the demand for it, and that these changes happen on the margin. So you might be right that a lot of people might be firmly on one side (will never bike) or the other (will always bike regardless), but the point of price sensitivity is that it happens on the margin. So just like for every other good and for every other price, when you raise the price you will find people on the margin who change their behaviour.
No it was the four years after BC introduced it. They were the first to do so if I remember correctly. 2008 to 2012 maybe?
Ok, can you provide the link.
You realize we're comparing BC to BC right? So you saying ''But way to pick the warmest province'' means nothing lol.
Yes it does, reliable energy is a lot more important at -20.
Google can. As per usual.
Yes it does, reliable energy is a lot more important at -20.
We're talking the influence carbon tax had on consumer behavior over a 4 year span in 1 province. Did people actively make more ''green'' choices? Yes.
So again. Saying BC is the warmest province means absolutely nothing.
Lol I hadn't realized how poor your economic basics were. Money is fungible. It is ALL kind of stuff - whatever people want to buy. The point is that by taxing high carbon goods and rebating the money, this over time shifts people's behavioural buying patterns to reduce the amount of high carbon goods they buy.
Why wouldn't people just use their rebates to buy the "high carbon goods".
Lol more economic ineptitude. It's kind of hilarious because the carbon tax was always intended as the more conservative, market-based approach because it uses normal market pricing mechanisms. Like everyone and their dog should realize that when you increase the price of something, you lower the demand for it, and that these changes happen on the margin. So you might be right
That's quite the word salad.
I'd say people make their decisions based on convience a lot more than pricing mechanisms, a market based approach would be to make it better and compete, not make people poor so they have to. People with iPhones continue paying a premium for iPhones because it's convenient. Do you have any examples where behavior changed because of the carbon tax?
Share it so I know it's the same one, I prefer to compare Apple to apples.
We're talking the influence carbon tax had on consumer behavior over a 4 year span in 1 province. Did people actively make more ''green'' choices? Yes.
So again. Saying BC is the warmest province means absolutely nothing.
Lol the green choices you claimed was fuel sales!! Do you not understand it's easier to drive an EV in rain and not -20 snow storms?
Why wouldn't people just use their rebates to buy the "high carbon goods".That's quite the word salad. I'd say people make their decisions based on convience a lot more than pricing mechanisms, a market based approach would be to make it better and compete, not make people poor so they have to. People with iPhones continue paying a premium for iPhones because it's convenient.
Lets be real. Even when shown facts you still wont change your mind. Why continue asking for examples that you'll just dismiss?
Lol, the carbon tax was working so great! We know this from a study that can't be produced and because Karen took an E-Bike to work instead of the SUV one day.
No it was the four years after BC introduced it. They were the first to do so if I remember correctly. 2008 to 2012 maybe?
You realize we're comparing BC to BC right? So you saying ''But way to pick the warmest province'' means nothing lol.
Let’s be honest one province reduced emissions but let’s also note the province has declared war on Natural Gas as well and pushing folks to electric heat which reduces emissions . Yes electric cars seem to be doing well in Vancouver but for many BC folks it’s not an option Shifty is right electric cars performance is reduced by cold weather
The study can be produced, you're apparently just too mentally challenged to actually use google.
Ditto.
I'm sure the most liberal, hippie, warmest province during time when oil was ~100$/bbl and EV's were just hitting the market had nothing to do with the lower fuel consumption it was just the great carbon tax.
You're not smart enough to do this. Read the article and debunk it. Or, do what people like you should do and say ''I dont know'' and be quiet.
Let’s be honest one province reduced emissions but let’s also note the province has declared war on Natural Gas as well and pushing folks to electric heat which reduces emissions . Yes electric cars seem to be doing well in Vancouver but for many BC folks it’s not an option Shifty is right electric cars performance is reduced by cold weather
I'm all for you and Lozen denying studies showing the carbon tax worked, can you at least read them?
Shifty doesn't even understand the very basics of carbon tax in what world does this dumbass know it did or didnt work.
Amazing that econ 101 is such a big struggle. Here, I'll simplify it as much as possible, let me know where you get confused: Cost is big big make people no buy buy. Cost go small small make people buy more more!
I'd say people make their decisions based on convience a lot more than pricing mechanisms, a market based approach would be to make it better and compete, not make people poor so they have to. People with iPhones continue paying a premium for iPhones because it's convenient. ?
If you can't understand why people would buy less when the price is more I don't think you get to call yourself a conservative who advocates market based approaches. But I'd take your "convenience over price" theory to apple and let them know they can double their prices!
