Maybe Uke can let the PBO know about that rebates?

https://nationalpost.com/news/atlant...ral-carbon-tax

Seem to work as it should .
Lower income people gets money while the richer people using energy home pays more .

And that it’s in 2030 and if the economy more sluggish then today .
Lot of thing can happen from here to there .


Yes the principle of a tax is someone will end up paying in the end .
Should the higher income using the most energy pays a little more then the rest of us ?
Pretty much normal if u ask me .
Like good conservative loves to say :
The users that uses the most should pay more then those who don’t ?

Agreed! but I thought it was to save the planet, not socialism.

Well we’ve been waiting the private sector to do something for 30+ years and still they ain’t doing much so …..
Guess society had to take the lead shrug .

Correct, if people keep their carbon behaviours identical when the carbon tax has leveraged to its maximum the combination of rebates being only 90% and debatable economic models means a net loss comparatively smaller than most other taxes for high carbon spenders.

So change your behaviour.

AS our Carbon tax I do believe increased again

This Saskatchewan Farmer nails it and shows How Uke is believing in fairy tales

Well, that dude is as biased as you with his content, so of course you think he "nails" it. To his credit, he is creating content to monetize people like you, and I like that he puts barely any effort into his content in terms of production values (because why bother). All of his stuff is super short, badly lit, poorly shot, but none of that matters as long as he tells his followers what they want to hear. Best part is they will then refer to him as if he is some type of impartial news source when he is just a dude that sings badly standing on the equivalent of the crate on the street corner with an agenda. Still, he has some traction, so that shows the power of that business model. If this guy can do it, then anyone with some degree of talent and charisma can do it. Good for him.

As a source for a political debate he is of course meaningless, because he is extremely biased. However, as a low end YouTube content creator he is fine. He understands his niche and his consumers and delivers what they want in easy to digest pieces.

He quotes facts feel free to discredit anything he says but you never watched the video. He even credits a bill that is passed to help farmers Gee a hardworking farmer from Saskatchewan the folks you hate cause he doesn't look like you or believe what you do

He "quotes" stuff with a hugely biased agenda attached to it. He changes the context and presents it in a way that someone like you wants to hear. He is as relevant a source as you are with regard to things. You are certainly free to believe whatever you like, and I get that you obsessively use whatabouts to try to tone down/ disguise your agendas (though the sheer volume of your whatabouts does the opposite effect). That dude uses a bit more of a snarky form of entertainment to do it, but the results are the same - he is a dude with a clear bias and agenda, and he manipulates information and cherry picked, creatively presented "facts" to support that agenda. His goal is to monetize others that want to hear that messaging (plus he probably believes in the stuff he is saying as a bonus).

He is nowhere close to being a reliable source for anything other than how to achieve low levels of success as a content creator with almost no production values. That is in part due to his target audience which does not care about how his product looks, as they just want to be told what they want to hear, and he does a good job at that. They will even suggest his junky looking content shows how "real" he is. He is as real as Red Green. Anyway, be sure to like, share and subscribe and buy his merch. He earned that from you.

I hate video, but I had a weakness and got about 3 minutes into that glacially slow video that is basically just gasping in shock that the carbon tax does indeed tax all those sources of carbon. But of course it does. And should!

Take a couple minutes more to read the comments section to see one after another of variations of "thanks for telling me what I needed to hear!" Also, the picture icons of the users tend to be old angry looking white dudes, no real shock with that, and being fair that is a great target market to hit as they will have some money and time to spend and they are happy to spend (both time and money) for things that show and tell them what they want to see and be told. Great business model for content creators that get some traction, even a small amount like this farmer dude, who is "keeping it real" and such.

So lozen I watch the video .
What did u learn beside the surprising effect that a tax = paying something ?
And nice to complain and rambling but again , what does he propose beside doing actually nothing about the problem ?


Again …. Where is the problem from a right wing point of view that those who consume more should pay more , shrug ?
Isn’t that the usual whole premise from right wing thinker ?

He doesn't propose anything he is basically detailing how it's a lie that most people get more back than pay which is what Uke claims.

I thought he explains it well

You should post a comment on his video telling him you thank him for telling you what you needed to hear. He has earned that. At least toss a like on his video if nothing else. Dude worked for it.

First of , the paper that he claim people lose money was already said by shifty and it clearly says IF the economy get worst IN 2030 !

Yeah those who will be over consuming will pay and those that are poor won’t pay more .

For now the cost in negligent for pretty much anyone .


Another article :

https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/calgar...37642.amp.html



“So if we just look at the sticker price and the rebate, the majority of households are still going to get a larger rebate than they’re going to pay in cost,” he said.
“But when we start factoring in those income effects, the economic effect, that’s when the math gets harder and the math doesn’t work out quite as nicely. Important to realize that this report is looking towards the 2030 date, not necessarily next year but it is the path that we’re on and I think it should raise some important questions for the federal government’s policies.”


So yeah if people don’t do **** in the next 10 year they will pay more as they should since it’s a tax to change behavior …..

Lol. No, this is neither what he did nor have I said what you suggest. This has all been explained to you before, but it seems like you need a reminder since clearly watching that YouTube video wasn't going to help you out. The basic structure of the carbon tax is that 90% of what is collected is rebated. That remains true. Because of income inequities this means a majority of people are rebated a higher proportion than what is collected. The PBO doesn't dispute this (and labels this "fiscal" costs).

The thing that the conservatives have seized on is that the PBO also uses various economic models to project a separate economic effect on top of the direct fiscal effect, and basically the way these work is they presume static behaviours. And so you get dramatic results like IF people maintain their carbon usage in 2030 as they do today, THEN the economic effects will be what these models claims. So for instance, the model doesn't consider any economic growth that comes from embracing green technologies, it's an isolationist model that doesn't consider any other factors.

Exactly. The easy way to win under the carbon tax is to lower your carbon usage and then when the tax is really high and the rebates are really high you are a net winner. If you are going to buy a gas guzzler to a house you buy that is an hour long commute because you want the big square footage your gas furnace needs to heat, well you are going to be a net loser. And appropriately so.

Well another quote from an article in the Sun

It might be the case that talking about the direct fiscal impact - most people get more directly back from the rebates than they directly pay - because it doesn't include the nebulous economic modelling on top of that is somewhat misleading. But acting like the carbon tax's revenue isn't 90% rebated - ie what poilievre does - is a bold faced direct lie.

And your editorials final sentence is just stupid: of course some people end up richer.

Finally, it's worth noting how irrelevant all of this is. The exact debate of whether the fiscal+economic impacts are slightly positive or slightly negative for which people are utterly dwarfed by the simple reality that if you want to win with the carbon tax, then live a low carbon lifestyle. Drop the big house with a long gas commute out in the burbs.

He is citing another opinion piece from a person that has a history of posting anti-Liberal/Trudeau opinions and claiming it is a news article. Here are some of his other recent "unbiased" opinions...

"PM in a tailspin, feigned outrage over questions and a pompous-sounding new bureaucrat"

" Ignoring the Chinese ghost at Trudeau and Biden's banquet"

"Who needs a public inquiry when you have a 'special' rapporteur? We do"

"Each Trudeau Liberal scandal is worse than the one before"

"China's interference is an outrage. Trudeau dismissing it, an even greater outrage"

and so on and so on...

Lozen, we get it - you like reading opinion based content from those who have opinions you want to hear about Trudeau. Maybe call it what it is in future - opinion pieces. They are not news articles.

First off the PBO is the Parliamentary Budget Officer and they are not opinion journalists. But you are correct its very easy to find opinion pieces trashing Justin Trudeau .

The bottom line is Uke does not understand or just does not want to acknowledge that when a farmer has to pay more because of Carbon tax he passes those costs on to the consumer and when the trucker hauling the goods the farmer grew or raised to market the carbon tax he pays on the fuel gets passed on to the consumer. So everything we consume has a higher cost because of carbon tax. Of course Justin does not use that in his calculations
As well much of the green energy we are expected to shift to is manufactured in China were they don't care about climate change and we become more reliable on China ..

Reality is we have a great chance at a new leader in 18 months that will scrap the carbon tax and than it will be you guys posting CBC opinion pieces how bad Pierre is


Even the Convicted Criminal Environment Minister has agreed folks will pay more

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/guil...rden-1.6338974

No one said the contrary .

From your own link.
2030 is very far.
but i promise u this -> every freakn thing u expect to buy today will cost more in 2030.....-> every freakn thing !
So yes i guess will pay more tax , including carbon tax in 2030....

Yes 2030 is a long time as is 2050 but were all to believe Justin's predictions on target levels that we all know he would never achieve even if he was in office till 2050

My personal opinion is that more folks do not get more back than they pay currently.

Your source was not the PBO, it was a biased opinion piece from Rex Murphy talking about it. Maybe you do not stop to recognize it, but you cite things as news when they are just opinion pieces all the time (telling you what you want to hear) and pretend they are news stories.

Of course. You seem to think this is some gotcha I don't understand but buddy, it's a feature not a bug. OF COURSE the carbon tax should apply to all sources of carbon! It actually doesn't apply on various farm related things because of the opposition which is a mistake imo. High carbon intensive foods should cost more which incentivizes shifts to lower carbon intensive foods. Your ridiculous video earlier was just gasping at the thought that (almost) all sources of carbon are taxes which of course they should be! That's the whole point!

Lol. After all those opinion articles and you are still failing to understand the basics. Anywhere the tax is applied it goes into the pool that is 90% rebated, so yes Justin does use those in his calculations. That extra cost from the tax on, say, the trucker hauling the goods gets 90% rebated. You can try and talk about the PBO economic models if you like, but this isn't it.