The solution to both of those problems, apparently, is to vote conservative.

A couple random points. First, from the crosstabs:

I'm always surprised by these people, although of course we have such a person in lozen here who prefers the conservatives but would go to the NDP before the Liberals. But it is still surprising given how utterly nonsensical it is from a policy perspective. As a right wing voter you jump over the centrists for the left wing party? Especially now with the Conservatives copying Liberal plans all over the place, if you like conservative policies then ndp as second choice is purely illogical. But then, voters aren't rational and things like if they get a case of the feels about the personality of someone tend to trump informed policy ideas.

The second point is about the collapsing Green party. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. I've voted for them, and think at times they do a good job of highlighting the importance of climate change in the national discourse. But the Liberals actually ran on a huge climate change plan and have done a pretty remarkable job implimenting that agenda thus far, so if you are in for signaling the importance of climate change you no longer have the case where only the fringe party is doing that; just vote for the liberals.

Don't over think it; they sure aren't

Do you think maybe the folks look at Justin Trudeau and his character and say nope my second choice will be the NDP guy ?

Look at a few days ago on the campaign trail Justin actually said "Erin O'Toole will say anything to get elected" with a straight face . Though it may be true he has been lying to CDN's for 6 years

Given the magnitude of O’Tooles flip flops and diving from social conservative right to “copy the liberals” left, I think that is quite reasonable to suggest he will say anything to get elected. With Trudeau he promised a big climate change agenda and delivered a big climate change agenda. Now he is promising a bigger climate change agenda and it seems likely he will indeed up the carbon tax and give that bigger agenda. But I have zero reason to believe O’Toole will actually implement the crappy climate plan his platform made up shortly before the election in opposition to his own party and which he barely even mentions on the campaign trail. It has all the signs of someone feeling they need to say they have a plan to get elected, write just whatever down that sounds politically good, and has no really intention of implementing its details.

Sad.

So were to believe Justin who recently had told CDN's no election in a pandemic and we will get all our citizens and allies out of Afghanistan

Here is man whose platform consists of many promises he has made in the last 6 years . I will say I have never seen so much hate for a PM in an election.

Sadly you can not realize Justin is a Climate Phony at least Maxime is honest about it.

I'm happy to believe that BOTH O'Toole and Trudeau are extremely likely to not actually put in place their platform plans. Heck, O'Toole has been changing his platform on guns literally mid debate! I think Trudeau's climate change plans are definitely much more likely to be implemented than O'Tooles (do you agree?), but on a range of other issues I suspect both won't do what they say.

But the two examples you choose are sort of odd. Can you provide exact quotes?

For instance, on pandemic, here is his non-response to that exact question 7 months ago, is this what you are referring to (https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1862875715693)? Obviously a lot has changed since the start of the year. Due to a tremendous, world class, nearly perfectly executed vaccination plan (thank you Trudeau!!), well over 80% of Canadians have now gotten a vaccination. The economy is pretty much entirely reopened and people back to their lives. In that context, an election carefully controlled by Elections Canada is one of the safest activities people do, probably much safer than most Canadians are doing and of course anyone uncomfortable can vote for mail. All of this points to the fact that not having an election because of the pandemic is stupid. There might be good political reasons not to have one, but it is a fine time just as multiple provinces have had elections. Again, this isn't really about policy its just a "if it sticks" approach to throwing anything randomly negative in.

As for Afghanistan, **** man, this was an utter collapse and crisis that took ever major power in that Country by surprise. Things were changing day by day, but I actually appreciated (and quoted earlier IIT) some pretty stark and honest assessments about the situation by the government. I think trying to cast this one as a "broken promise" by comparing perhaps a statement made on tuesday when th situation on the ground on wednesday had completely changed is just silly. Maybe Trudeau broke a lot of promises (and kept a lot too), but neither of these examples is all that good.

Uke, since you are this threads great climate predicter (Lozen close 2nd) and you know Trudeau's climate plan is the best and that we need more climate tax can you answer this question?

At what point does the cost of living go down and people can start seeing the benefits of carbon tax? When should the intended outcomes of carbon tax kick in and we are green? Should Canadians expect the cost of living to continue to rise? Is it kind of a it has to get worse before it gets better scenerio?

I can not disagree with anything there but one guy has 6 years of broken promises so I am OK with giving the other guy a chance .

There is also a clip were Justin Trudeau said he would not call an election in the midst of a pandemic though the clip I can not find


Imagine how this election would look if Justin had followed through on a major campaign promise of electoral reform


Shifty asked a really good question.

The Liberal carbon tax has almost no cost of living associated to it. That is the genius of the idea. The overwhelming majority of the tax that is collected is rebated right back to Canadians. The trick is that it doesn't happen equally. Someone who uses a lot carbon and is relatively wealthy is a net loser and will see their cost of living go up, and someone who uses little carbon and is relatively poor is a net winner and will see their cost of living go down. This incentive structure creates economic pressure to incentivize low carbon intensive life styles.

That is such a false statement
Someone living in Vancouver who makes $50,000 a year and takes the bus and shares an apartment gets the same rebate as someone living in Rural Alberta making $50,000 that has no other choice but to drive back and forth to work.

The system would be better if you rebated the actual carbon tax both paid .

Reality is it screws over Rural CDN's which tend to be conservative voters

If the carbon tax is so effective how do you account for Canada's emissions on the rise?

What is the reason for the massive increase in cost of living currently? You've mentioned before it wasn't due to the huge amounts of stimulus and if it's not carbon tax.

How is this any different than the Conservatives plan? How will a poor persons cost of daily living go down?

Ok, and the magic number for this is what? If by 2030 this doesn't happen (it won't btw) do we just keep increasing the carbon tax until it does?

Correct. My statement exactly captured this scenario. On average, it is effectively neutral cost-of-living, but there are winners and losers and there has to be winners and losers otherwise there is no incentive to change. If you just get back exactly what you paid into it, you have no incentive to change. People have choices and sharing an apartment versus a big house somewhere with a long commute is a choice. So the point of the tax is to incentivize people making choices that result in lower total carbon usage. If nothing changes, everyone lives in the big houses by themselves and commutes forever to work, then we don't solve any problems.

You've said this a few times, but the answer is so blindingly obvious I didn't dignify it with a response. Can you REALLY not think of a single factor that has occurred in 2021 that might influence emissions beyond the carbon tax?

My goodness, these are all such basic questions you can google. The modest increase in cost of living is primarily housing related, but with additional price pressures, largely supply side constraints, as the economy revs back up out of the pandemic.

Do you really not know anything about the plans? In the Liberal plan, the amount you get back is fixed at any income level. So it is neutral over all tax collected, but someone who uses very little carbon say they bike to work and have a small apartment, is almost certain to receive more money from the rebate than they spend on the increased prices from the tax. That is why their cost of living goes down. In the conservative plan, a massive bureaucracy is created to track every dollar spent on the carbon tax in a sort of PetroPoints card type of thing, and then you get back the money you spend, with some restrictions. So there is thus no incentive to really change.



Correct. In 2030 the goal is 30% reduction from 2005 levels. The 2050 goal is net zero. So yes, we just keep going. The carbon tax isn't the only policy of course, but it is a crucial one.

So your saying increasing carbon tax will not have an effect on cost of living? Food will cost more, Heating your house will cost more and driving to work will cost more.

If you use no carbon why would you get a rebate? Why not just rebate the folks that have no alternative but to use carbon and are lower income?

Its not to me

The Federal deficit doubles within four years and the big debate ITT is about which party can reduce tailpipe emissions best. If you people think getting a climate plan implemented is hard now, just wait until carrying costs of all this borrowed money really start cutting into the bottom line.

There's a Maslovian Hierarchy of needs when it comes to politics and political action, and implementing policy that purposefully cuts into economic activity to subsidize the environment has got to be pretty damn high up that pyramid.

ps: stop believing political parties when their forecasts' time periods run into multiple decades. These people aren't oracles.

Correct. Well, it will have some marginal 'second order' effects, but the primary mechanism is that the net cost to taxpayers of the carbon tax is net returned to tax payers.


Also correct. And you get rebate back, so that the net cost is, on average, zero. As in yes, the price when you fill up your tank of gas is more, but that money is all being funneled back into Canadians. Crucially, it comes out unequally (some will use more carbon intensive things and pay more tax) but goes back to canadians equally, we all get the same amount back, which is what provides the incentive mechanism to lower your carbon usage.

The goal is to incentivize people to use less carbon. So there is both a carrot and a stick here. If you use a lot of carbon, you pay a lot of tax. But if you use very little carbon, you end up a net winner! You make money under this scheme! This incentivizes people to use less carbon.

At the end of the day, if your carbon reduction plan dosen't incentivize people reducing their carbon, it isn't going to work.



The carbon tax is one among many factors in the economy. So when there are underlying economic factors (like a reviving economy charging back after a pandemic, or increased oil production, or a summer where people drive more, etc etc etc) then the net carbon usage can rise. That doesn't disprove the carbon tax. The carbon tax can still be working splendidly meaning there is less carbon used than there would have been otherwise, it just means it wasn't sufficient. Thankfully the carbon tax steadily rises each year until 2030. This will increasingly put downward pressure. Unless, of course, the conservatives get elected as they have a far lower $50 cap per tonne than the Liberals I believe $170, and that's if there plan even works (which I doubt).

Your answers to the cost of living reek of priveledge. A lot of Canadians are living pay cheque to pay cheque right now if not worse. Cost of living is sky high right now, and you just shrugging off daily cost increase by saying you get a lump sum rebate once a year is completely out of touch with how a lot of people are living right now. It's not hard to tell why so many people are currently upset/angry at Trudeau, when his biggest supports have this kind of attitude.

+1

It's the dumbest political issue for Canadians right now. A lot of polls have cost of living has the number one issue for Canadians. But it's much easier for corrupt politicians to save people from the Boogeyman that's decades away.

Of the two of us, I'm not sure you get to be all up on your high horse about the struggling poor. I'm the one who is in supportive of a more progressive taxation scheme that taxes the rich and corporations more and redistributes it to poor Canadians to pay their monthly bills.

This critique of the carbon tax is a pretty minor one. Consider, earlier you were complaining about rising cost of living. Now that you have learned the basics of how the system works and that the average person is neutral o this factor (and poorer people generally will use less carbon and be net winners) you are complaining about this secondary effect of the exact timing of when you get the money? I'd be fine if the payouts were quarterly or something as well, but I don't think this is really needed given how the vast majority of other such tax incentives all work on the annual schedule. Regardless, complaints over the exact payment schedule don't really hold water as a substantive criticism of the big idea.

The carbon tax is close to deficit neutral. I'm not one who cares too much about structural deficits (I'm ok with expansionary monetary policy, especially as we have done things like slash tax rates that could rise back and fix a bunch of the putative problem), but even if you are such a person and deficit spending is your #1 issue, implementing the carbon tax or not isn't going to make a massive boatload of a difference here.

This is such a good post.

Justin has racked up a bigger deficit than all the prime ministers before him . As well he will rack up a few more massive ones.

The conservatives are talking about a balanced budget in 10 years and the liberals not even a topic.

Justin talks about 2030 goals for coal which two provinces say are unrealistic. He talks about 2050 yet will not meet the Paris Climate accords

I think voters want to hear about the next four years not 2050

Environmentally and economically, you may be correct - although "deficit neutral" is an easy term to throw around. However, politically if Canada is in the midst of a recession - or even a depression - then a platform of reducing the price of gasoline by $.15/L (or whatever the carbon tax will be eventually) is going to appeal to a broader segment of the population.

Like I said previously, we've had a 20 year period where the economy has done tremendous. Notwithstanding house prices for people entering the job market, Canada's economy is doing quite well. However, this progress is built on deficit spending (by both levels of government and by individuals) and is therefore susceptible to interest rate changes. If the BoC can keep prime below 5%, then bully: let the good times roll. If not and we see aspects of the economy (inflation for one) like we saw in the 80's, then I can see how people's perspective could change.

I remember that time what were Mortgages 13-16% and car loans at 20% plus

Though as Justin says Why worry about monetary policy?

Man you cons sure love to microquote trudeau without any context. My bet is you have legit zero memory - at all - of the full quote nor the original question that prompted it, nor any informed opinion on the question itself.