BC Carbon Tax Reminder

[Carrier]

Quote: "you have control over how much of it you pay by changing your oil consumption habits."

Not really! We live in an oil dependant economy. WE can make only small changes if and when we are permitted to do so by the politicians.

I returned to Canada after several years of living overseas. I needed a car and expected to be able to buy a green and fuel efficient car such as the Citroen C3 diesel or Toyota Yaris diesel that both achieve about 70 mpg in normal use. These models have been available overseas in more than one continent for at least six years. I found out that our anti-environment Fed government banned new diesel cars after 2006 and I was forced to buy a vehicle that at early 2007 fuel prices costs me an extra $500pa in fuel according to the government's fuel economy guide. It is also less green. Last year of the ten greenest new vehicles available in the UK nine were diesels. The other was a petrol-electric hybrid that would have been cleaner still if it had a diesel engine. That's right, the greenest cars are diesels. So what do anti-environment Carol Taylor and Gordon Campbell do in BC? They put an extra tax on diesel fuel. Doh!

Next, in the several countries I lived in overseas, I was able to do all my shopping at one location. At a nearby ASDA hypermarket in the UK I bought my groceries, wine, spirits and beer (all in the same shopping cart) and then filled up the car. The same in the two African countries I lived in. Residents of Ontario are forced by anti-environment politicians to drive from the supermarket to the Govt liquor store, then drive to the beer store and then find a filling station. So much for encouraging reduced use of cars!

Mrs C and I rented a nice apartment last year. Right outside the complex was a city bus stop. We thought this would enable us to get by with one car, and for a few months it did. In January the city revised its bus routes and stopped the bus service to our area!

For longer distances, while overseas if we wanted to visit the next city without driving we would use the frequent, convenient and cost competitive electric train services, powered largely by hydro or nuclear energy. You can travel by electric train from Glasgow, UK on the Atlantic Ocean, through the Chunnel, across Europe and across Asia to Vladivostock and the Pacific Coast. Where is Canada's inter-city/ long distance electric train service?

Canada's town planning is based on the car. It still is! The suburban sprawl continues to grow around each city. No effort is being made to increase housing density, promote mixed use buildings and thereby make public transport more cost effective.

Conclusions: Canada has the best politicians the oil industry can buy, all this government enforced extra driving and increased fuel consumption results in massive extra tax revenue for the politicians, the BC Carbon tax is a red herring put forth by insincere politicians and is as big a scam as the Fed's EcoAuto drivel, any Canadian politician who claims their government is supporting reduced use of oil and reduced greenhouse gases from vehicles is an unmitigated liar, and, sadly, most Canadians are ignorant of how backward Canada is and are not interested in anything not thought of here. Don't expect things to change in a hurry!

[oldncold]

why is it the idiots that dream up this shi... fail to realize that if you tax the industry that has to compete aganist 1.00 a day labour in south east asia or africa etc. juridictions will just move there ops there . and guess what there go the jobs here and GUESS WHAT THE TAXES WILL HAVE TO GO UP AGAIN inorder to keep our sacred cows of health care and we already work till june 14th ( taxfree day) surely that is enough.


time these weenies got there head out from between there legs and stop smelling their own methane/lol it may work on paper but in reality not a chance. when 1 keystroke can transfer a billion $ in a mil-a second biz goes to the lowest cost provider shareholders demand that period.

[v6g]

Pilots seems to be particularly prone to self delusion on the two subjects of climate change and oil depletion, in the belief that we can all carry on doing the same things in the same ways.

Being a higher-rate taxpayer and a fairly typical 40km/day commuter (round trip) with out-of-town trips most weekends and one or two major road-trips each year, I was expecting to be worse off. But, after crunching the numbers, I'm going to be significantly better off.

Always paying for my gas by credit card means I can quickly find out that I spent a total of $1,115.29 on gas from 19th June 2007 until yesterday. Let's assume an average cost over the last year of $1.25/litre. That works out at a total of 892 litres consumed. At 2.41c/L this new gas tax will cost me an extra $21.50 a year.

Now, the reductions in the marginal provincial tax rates will result in me paying $402 less income tax this year. So, I'll be better off by $380.50. Not bad.

Of course, the savings will vary dependent on individual consumption and income. But for the average citizen on the median income this will result in a significant saving. Very few people will be worse off - and that's ignoring these $100 once-off cheques that we're all going to receive.

To all of you who have said that price doesn't affect your personal level of demand, that may be so. But demand, in general, is effected by price. People are driving less. People car-pool more. People opt for smaller cars. There are more bikes, motorbikes & scooters on the roads now. Why do you think GM is closing their truck manufacturing plant? Why do Australians & Europeans drive smaller cars than Canadians? Why do Canadians drive smaller cars than Americans?

With income tax, you are not able to make lifestyle changes that enable you to get the same service benefit (ie an income) with less cost (ie tax). But with gas consumption, you are able to make lifestyle changes that give you the same benefit (personal mobility) but with less cost (fuel). In North American cities you can't realistically choose to forgo a car but you can choose how far you travel both for necessity and discretionary purposes, together with being able to choose a vehicle that's better for your fuel economy.

The issues of Government waste is a problem that is common to all taxes and bares no specific relation to this particular tax (I'm reminded of this every time I drive past those "Welcome to Vancouver - a nuclear free zone" signs - one of the clearest signs of waste in my municipality).

And to claim that the current market dynamics are due entirely to speculators is nonsense. This myth ignores the gaping fact that global demand is out pacing supply and has been doing so for years. Speculators would be able to control the market if it was a small, local market, but the reality is that it is a huge market traded right across the globe. That CNN says so does not make it true.

For people who continue to deny that the main oil producing regions of the world are in decline and insist that the answer is more investment, increased taxation is the best way of raising the funds for that investment, rather than paying increased dividends to oil company shareholders.

[alctel]

Before I start responding I'll say that I'm in favour for this tax mainly because I get nearly $700 back a year by my calculations since I don't drive. Also I agree with a lot of the post above me.

You know Alctel, you probably waste way way more energy surfing the internet and texting all your @#$@@ friends every time somebodies Facebook gets updated with a new picture of themselves. Transport TOTAL is only # 3 in energy use, and aviation is only a small piece of that. I don't mind the kiddies being all concerned about the environment, but the young people demand far far more energy to run their 20-something lives than mine did. Turn off the AC ( house and car) get rid of your cell phone, quit all web surfing ( especially hi-speed)turn off your computer, go back to a B&W TV and then we'll talk about revenue neutral carbon taxes.

I don't have AC, I don't have a car (or a drivers license), or a cell phone, or a TV (let alone a colour one). But hey, thanks for the stereotyping!

You need to stop feeding off of the crap that comes out of Al Gore's mouth. I seriously recommend you google "the inconvenient lie" and have youself a little read-up on what CO2 is all about. It's plain and simple a way of controlling our lives. The UN is creating a way to justify rationing energy.

That was commisioned by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who are one of the oil-company linked think tanks I was talking about. Although I've ever listened to any of Gores speeches or watched his film.

The current fuel prices are based upon speculation that there is a shortage. The reported shortage is based upon information given out by those who market oil.

I agree with you here, there isn't a shortage at the moment, just a projected one.

If you want to get pissed-off about an environmental issue then go for ones that actually matter:
1) Whaling, it's still happening.
2) Bulldosing rainforests to grow crops to make Ethanol (worst fuel ever, BTW)
3) Dumping raw sewage

I also agree with corn-based ethanol being horrible, and causing far more problems than it solves. I don't know anything about the other two however.

In short, get your information about world issues from the people who do the research. Not a failed politician who has found himself a new sandbox by creating an environmental disaster.
Cheers,
Grant

I've never even seen his film or heard any of his speeches!

Open your eyes man, the world extends beyond the borders of north america. I, nor anybody I know, drives less. Driving for me is a neccessity like air.

I'm well aware it does, since I'm from the UK. Also at least 2-3 people over the last year in my office have switched to transit to commute to work instead of driving, because of the fuel costs, it DOES have an effect. The problem being a lot of people, esp in Canada have to drive, since there is no public transportation in a lot of places. However the income tax offset should more than offset the carbon charge.

I don't personally have access to a fjord.

Sometimes a coincidence is just that. Wasn't there a BBC article recently that got quashed that showed data the earths temperature has been down since 1998? Anyways, even a couple hundred years is statistically insignificant since the earth has been around for millions of years.

Besides, people get payed to dig this information up. There is a huge profit motive on both sides of this issue so the debate is tainted. I don't trust any of them personally so for me to buy into this load with close to religious zeal is a bit out there.

to add, boiling down a couple hundred years of ecological evolution into a couple hours of research is not only impossible but not scientifically acceptable (to my standards) Short of just reading a few articles with references and parroting out some results I don't think I could come to a true conclusion in a few short hours.. is this what you have done?

Actually I had to do a project on this when I was finished my degree so I spent a *lot* of time researching this. The upshot is that the Earth does warm and cool over a cycle, but it normally happens over 200million years, instead its doing it in 200 years. The fact that this is because of man-made emissions is supported by the IPCC and all the major national academies of science of the G8, as well as numerous varied groups. All the reports that disagree with man-made climate change are commissioned from groups originating in America, often heavily funded by the oil companies and using discredited scientists, or using the names of respected ones without their knowledge/consent.

Hello mcfly? People are being paid to research climate change no? So how can you claim a profit motive on one side and not the other?

Good point - although I would say that a lot of the groups that find in favour of global warming denial are 'paid by results' - as in, if they don't find the results that the funder wants, they don't get paid. This doesn't happen in Government funded projects in most countries.

And this is the problem. You have bought into the fear man. Your statement is a contradiction in terms. How can you have a 'natural' human caused disaster?

The term 'natural disaster' refers to any disaster caused by the weather, volcanos etc. It doesn't mean that humans cannot influence this!

You nailed the real problem and you didn't even know it. The problem is too many people. What you going to do about that? People need this shit to survive plain and simple. Personally, I like it because it makes my life easier and I can afford it... but the demand will continue to increase with the population. Unless you find a silver bullet solution to this problem the explosive growth of the human population will get us long before global warming.. so I say @#$! it. I want to enjoy what I can while I can. Call me selfish but screw this tax and screw the bleeding heart liberals who support this whole stupid joke we call global warming.
BTW: Im 28

World overpopulation and human-caused global warming are intricintly linked, and both are huge problems with no easy solutions. But we can try...

[Dash-Ate]

global warming cannot be proven. It's a media scam, junk science.

IF YOU REPEAT SOMETHING ENOUGH TIMEs IT BECOMES TRUTH RIGHT??

climate change
climate change
climate change
climate change
climate change
climate change

I heared it on the news so it must be true!!

[v6g]

Here are the savings on income taxes vs the costs of the gax tax.

First the income tax reductions, these figures ignore the $100 one-off rebate cheque your going to receive, assume you're single with no dependents, allow for the "climate action tax credit", and round your marginal rate level to the nearest $10,000 for ease of excel:

If your taxable annual income is:.........then your saving will be:
$10,000 ------------------------------------- $146
$20,000 ------------------------------------- $192
$30,000 ------------------------------------- $238
$40,000 ------------------------------------- $205
$50,000 ------------------------------------- $272
$60,000 ------------------------------------- $339
$70,000 ------------------------------------- $406
$80,000 ------------------------------------- $466
$90,000 ------------------------------------- $537
$100,000 ------------------------------------ $608
$110,000 ------------------------------------ $608
$120,000 ------------------------------------ $608
$130,000 ------------------------------------ $608
$140,000 ------------------------------------ $608
$150,000 ------------------------------------ $608

Next, the costs of the fuel tax.

If you use this much fuel per year:...........Then you will pay an extra:
500L ---------------------------------------------------- $12.05
1,000L -------------------------------------------------- $24.10
1,500L -------------------------------------------------- $36.15
2,000L -------------------------------------------------- $48.20
3,000L -------------------------------------------------- $72.30
4,000L -------------------------------------------------- $96.40
5,000L -------------------------------------------------- $120.50
6,000L -------------------------------------------------- $144.60
7,000L -------------------------------------------------- $168.70
8,000L -------------------------------------------------- $192.80
9,000L -------------------------------------------------- $216.90
10,000L ------------------------------------------------- $241.00

[arcticbeaches]

Thanks V6G you said in numbers what I couldn't say in words about the revenue neutral aspect.....

[tellyourkidstogetarealjob]

I do not support this tax.

Those are great numbers V6G. It's just a pity they are so flawed as to be meaningless. Before supporting this tax you might want to read it a little more carefully.

This tax is similar to the revenue neutral AirCare program. A shameless pandering to the public, the cost of which gets downloaded onto the segment of the population that can least afford it.

First, AirCare:

The AirCare program was extensively studied even before it was implemented in the Lower Mainland. The U.S. company that owned it had already had it running several cities stateside. I remember an article by a lefty S.F.U. professor and even he didn't agree with it.

Contrary to popular belief it was never a tax grab. The company was guaranteed an annual amount and the B.C. taxpayer had to directly make up the shortfall to AirCare as the program never generated the amount of revenue it was predicted to. This is a surprise since the I.C.B.C. monopoly has all the details on number of cars in the Lower Mainland and should have, if competently planned, known to the last nickel how much the program would have brought in.

It also provided poor value for that money. It was argued at the time that a simpler system of buying junkers (similar to Car Heaven) for $1000.00 per unit was much better at reducing pollution (measured in tons). It would help generate used vehicle sales as recipients would use the money for a deposit on a newer vehicle. This is not just theory. Some U.S. cities had adopted this approach and were compared against the AirCare model.

It was fine for politicians to legislate AirCare. They weren't affected by it as their cars were new enough to have no problem passing the test. A large segment of the population weren't adversely affected by it, either. But for those who couldn't afford to change their vehicles and were nursing along old beaters this program as been a grotesque burden. Few people drive crappy old cars because they want to. Those that do, could hardly afford to make expensive repairs to their obsolete emissions systems.

A more successful way of combating air pollution would have been to bring in California style emissions systems for cars sold in B.C. Even simply making a pickup truck or SUV driver's licence a different class - and much tougher - than a car licence would have slowed sales of gas guzzling "Mall Assault Vehicles". But hey, we don't want to do that, might just lose a half dozen votes. Better to bring in a showcase program that will have a hidden cost to it that nobody important - like anyone with a lobby group - will have to pay.

The most annoying thing is that many people here actually believe AirCare has made a difference. The difference happened because every few years the federal government tightened emissions standards. As the older cars aged, they simply died away. You would be hard pressed to convince me AirCare accelerated this process in any meaningful manner.

Now the B.C. carbon tax:

This is deja vu.

Let's take a quick look at your numbers. The average car does about 18,000km per year driving. This estimate I got from one of the Auto Associations, although I'm hard pressed to remember which one.

In case you hadn't looked in the classifieds lately, most used cars for less than $3000 that aren't thrashed are gas guzzlers. The sort of price range someone with a $30,000 salary can afford, anyway. That'll get you a Dodge truck with a 360 (13m.p.g.) or maybe a Chevy car with V6 that gets 21m.p.g. Let's take 17 m.p.g. as an average for larger vehicles. That is about 16.6 L/100 Km. That mean he/she will buy about 3000 Litres of fuel each year.

By your calculation that will cost $72 per year while benefitting him with $238 in tax blessings from the great socialist offices in Victoria. That is, in the first year. By 2012 the amount increases to 7.2 cents per litre which now brings his total expenditure to $216 per year.

That still leaves him $22 to the good, you say. Not so fast! This tax is also on propane, natural gas, home heating oil, etc. If he's living in the north his home heating oil costs can equal his gas costs.

Now he's losing money. Quite a bit.

Even if his rent includes free heat you can bet his rent will increase as the landlord recoups the extra expense.

Once again, instead of introducing legislation that might create controversy (such as a massive surcharge on gas guzzlers, a revised driver's licence, or a surtax on homes greater than 3000 sq. ft as they burn excessive fuel to heat) the government has introduced a showcase program that will mostly affect those who are least equipped to escape it.

For those living in other parts of Canada you should take note. I guarantee every legislature from Edmonton to St.John's will be looking at the next few months. Also, this has all the hallmarks of a "sin tax" like cigarettes and booze. Something that can be arbitrarily jacked up without guilt every time the government pisses away too much on Olympics, I mean, other things.

[v6g]

I do not support this tax.

Those are great numbers V6G. It's just a pity they are so flawed as to be meaningless. Before supporting this tax you might want to read it a little more carefully.

...

By your calculation that will cost $72 per year while benefitting him with $238 in tax blessings from the great socialist offices in Victoria. That is, in the first year. By 2012 the amount increases to 7.2 cents per litre which now brings his total expenditure to $216 per year.

Actually, the marginal income tax rates will be reducing in future years also. You're calculation hasn't taken account of that. I decided not to add the numbers for future years for simplicity (but I'm glad somebody noticed). I ran the proposed rates for 2009 through the spreadsheet (with the increased fuel levy) and the savings-to-costs profile was similar.

In case you hadn't looked in the classifieds lately, most used cars for less than $3000 that aren't thrashed are gas guzzlers. The sort of price range someone with a $30,000 salary can afford, anyway. That'll get you a Dodge truck with a 360 (13m.p.g.) or maybe a Chevy car with V6 that gets 21m.p.g. Let's take 17 m.p.g. as an average for larger vehicles. That is about 16.6 L/100 Km. That mean he/she will buy about 3000 Litres of fuel each year.

I disagree that a suitable (and price-practical) vehicle for someone on $30,000 a year, who doesn't need it for business purposes (where he/she wouild be deducting the fuel from their business tax anyway), is a 17MPG truck or V6 SUV. But let's try not to turn this into a used-car discussion!

I agree with your assessment of the AirCare program.

[BoostedNihilist]

To all of you who have said that price doesn't affect your personal level of demand, that may be so. But demand, in general, is effected by price. People are driving less. People car-pool more. People opt for smaller cars. There are more bikes, motorbikes & scooters on the roads now. Why do you think GM is closing their truck manufacturing plant? Why do Australians & Europeans drive smaller cars than Canadians? Why do Canadians drive smaller cars than Americans?

The demand for oil is going up whether or not you have a few statistics that say north americans are driving less, it is irrelevant because this problem resides within the global economy, globally, demand for oil is going up despite the raise in price. Some would argue, correctly, that the increase in price is due to the increase in demand... I believe it is called supply and demand, could be wrong...

To say that the price of oil is the sole reason people are driving less is myopic to say the least. People are driving less because they're packing 20k of 18% credit card debt, and their mortgage interest skyrocketed and food is more expensive etc.

Why do you think GM is closing their truck manufacturing plant?

umm, tundra, ridgeline, frontier.. I believe that competition has a bit to do with it.

In North American cities you can't realistically choose to forgo a car but you can choose how far you travel both for necessity and discretionary purposes, together with being able to choose a vehicle that's better for your fuel economy.

I would say that logic is backwards. In cities you have more access to transportation infrastructure, whereas in the rural areas you might not be able to forgo any degree of your gas consumption.

For people who continue to deny that the main oil producing regions of the world are in decline and insist that the answer is more investment, increased taxation is the best way of raising the funds for that investment, rather than paying increased dividends to oil company shareholders.

So... my tax dollars, that I pay against my will, will now be going to subsidize other companies in the private sector? I prefer a free market fix for this one where the best idea wins not who can get the prized government funding. Free market companies with real financial liability are much more efficient, and I believe waste less money because it is coming out of their own bottom line, not a bottomless pit of tax revenue, where if the pot runs dry they just tax us more.

The following quotes are from your article V6G I will let the readers derive the point.

To all of you who have said that price doesn't affect your personal level of demand, that may be so. But demand, in general, is effected by price. People are driving less. People car-pool more. People opt for smaller cars. There are more bikes, motorbikes & scooters on the roads now. Why do you think GM is closing their truck manufacturing plant? Why do Australians & Europeans drive smaller cars than Canadians? Why do Canadians drive smaller cars than Americans?

And to claim that the current market dynamics are due entirely to speculators is nonsense. This myth ignores the gaping fact that global demand is out pacing supply and has been doing so for years. Speculators would be able to control the market if it was a small, local market, but the reality is that it is a huge market traded right across the globe. That CNN says so does not make it true.

Hmm, if I go with your logic this should not be possible because demand, in general, is effected by price? Right?

[tellyourkidstogetarealjob]

v6g,

You may be right with your calculations, but I don't see how any estimate can be accurate unless all forms of the tax are taken into account.

My basic point is that taxing users is not productive. The wealthy change, or can afford to change, their cars every couple of years. They can adapt to changing gas prices - including taxes.

The average car in Canada lasts something like 14 years. The means the used cars of tomorrow are being purchased now. That's where taxes and legislation need to be implemented, not post-purchase.

B.C. is in the best position to do this as they are the most populated province with no auto plants (and auto workers with votes) to worry about annoying.

[scrambled_legs]

V6g... if you think this tax will do anything to slow fuel useage, you are freaking clueless. People won't drive less because of a 2.4c/liter increase in fuel costs. People drive less because gas went from 5c to 1.50c/liter in 30 years and our salaries never.

To top it off the the poor guy that drives his '84 K-car to his $7/hr job will paying just as much of an increase in the fuel charges as the guy that drives his Mercedes SLR. As well, food and all of the other essentials will cost that much more due to increased shipping costs. The only difference, as you pointed out, is the rich guy making over 100g a year who doesn't care how much his fuel bill is, will be receiving $608 in tax relief. Whereas, the guy who is already f*cked trying to make ends meet at an annual salary of 10g/year, will get a kickback of a measly $146/year. This of course was smoothed over by giving everyone $100 which was a huge deal for the poor guy, so he didn't notice the painful prick in his behind as he bent over to pick it up. It's simply another government tax grab and a very sly way to steal from the poor to wine and dine the rich.

Here are the savings on income taxes vs the costs of the gax tax.

First the income tax reductions, these figures ignore the $100 one-off rebate cheque your going to receive, assume you're single with no dependents, allow for the "climate action tax credit", and round your marginal rate level to the nearest $10,000 for ease of excel:

If your taxable annual income is:.........then your saving will be:
$10,000 ------------------------------------- $146
$100,000 ------------------------------------ $608

By the way I make 6 figures and just got back from a 3,500km 5 day roadtrip for pleasure only in a gas guzzling pickup. I don't worry about my carbon footprint as it'll help prevent the next ice age from killing us all but I just think this is low ball, even for government. By the way, I'm all for clean water, and proper refuse disposal, and environmental things that we can actually control. Increasing gas by 2c/liter while China is expected to have 140 million automobiles plying its roads by 2020, 120 million more than now, makes this tax seem pretty freaking ridiculous.

[Cat Driver]

I also am trying to prevent another ice age.

Spent five weeks driving my motor home all over the southern states.

At the rate my motor home consumes fuel I don't leave a carbon foot print I leave a carbon boot print.

[2R]

To paraphrase another famous Politician " A tax is a tax is a tax.When you have a tax you have a tax ehhhh .That is a proof and a proof is a proof is a proof and a tax is a tax is a tax is a tax nes pas ???

[scrambled_legs]

120 million more active autos in the world in 10 years and these naive school kids think that a 2.4c gas tax is actually a sincere initiative towards saving the world. Like 2R said, a tax is a what? It's just a tax?

[Carrier]

Quote: "......and these naive school kids think that a 2.4c gas tax is actually a sincere initiative towards saving the world."

The above and similar posts indicate that most users here think the politicians are just posturing and tax grabbing as against coming up with real solutions. Nothing new about that! Here is a quote from Liverpool Football Club's famous 1960s manager Bill Shankly:

"If you can't make decisions in life, you're a bloody menace. You'd be better becoming an MP."

[North Shore]

China is expected to have 140 million automobiles plying its roads by 2020, 120 million more than now

I wonder where the steel to make them is going to come from, and the gasoline to fuel them? If you think the price of oil is high now....

[scrambled_legs]

I just got back from a nice BC holiday... you'll be happy to know that your gas is currently 15-20c/liter higher than Alberta... gotta love the commies. Oh well, could be worse, could be the NDP. They'd probably add a $1.

Any idea what the effects are going to be on your economy??? From the lumber/fishing industry that's barely holding its own, with all their gas powered equipment, to the cost of goods in the 99.99% of BC that is remote and not accessible by public transit or anything other than gas powered vehicles? Are they going to ask for the $10 million dollars back that they paid the federal government to get the names of the citizens to send their precious $100 cheque to, in order to bail out all the companies that this plan will bankrupt?

If they really wanted to save the world they'd cancel the Olympics. Does anyone have any idea how much fuel will be burned in 2010 vs. 2009 or 2011??? Sh*t, they should cancel all tourism. There is no need for people to use precious fuel for needless enjoyment.

Somethings not adding up, especially with 60% of the population opposed to it and an election right around the corner.

[xsbank]

All those people bankrupted or suffering job loss due to the taxes can get government jobs collecting the tax. How much actual money do you think makes it into the piggy bank? I don't mean 'revenue,' I mean after the salaries, pensions, benefits and new furniture and new buildings and new computers and all the other clobber that makes up a bureaucrat's office, how much actual tax do you think has been created?

Taxes are NEVER "revenue neutral" as the costs of collecting them are lost permanently. Why do we need such large government?

The "carbon tax" neatly sidesteps the issue of urban sprawl and the total ineptitude of the politicians that encouraged it based on cheap fuel. In most cases, you need to drive for hours each way to work because there is no alternative - the buses are so slow and uncomfortable, there is no rapid transit from many areas and living in the city is not an option because the costs of housing are breathtaking. There is a huge shortage of shop-type labour in Vancouver already as there is nowhere for them to live. Can you imagine an hour-plus commute to work each way to earn $12 an hour, when that first hour of work merely pays for you to get there and back? (did I read that Vancouver's transit is the most expensive in North America?). So what you are seeing on the bridges and 'freeways' (hah) is to a large degree the labour that gets everything done, those who cannot afford to live in Vancouver (or any large city), so the solution is to tax them?

The part that's overlooked is that the perception of a tax, even if its all given back, is that the taxed feel poorer, they don't have the proportion of tax 'given back' in their pockets each time they buy fuel, so they feel worse off. When the rebate arrives in the mail, its not put in the bank or proportioned for future fuel purchases, it goes to pay bills or buy beer or whatever you do with your tax rebate.

The arrogance and the ignorance and the paternalism is unbelievable. The result of this (ignoring the effects on the populace in the hinterland) is that there will be a greater labour shortage in the city as the fringes finally give up, work locally or just go on welfare (remember, this is "revenue neutral"). The rich who live in the city will have to wash their own cars, stock their own grocery shelves, make their own coffee, serve themselves in restaurants or leave the city to buy such things (to the suburbs where all the workers are, and the cheap land to put up the businesses) so the city becomes a wasteland and loses its vitality while the rich drive their SUVs to the 'burbs to pick up tons of toilet paper at Costco. At least they are not affected by the tax.

An H2 is a Suburban with a sh*tty body on it, a poseur, a wanna-be Hummer for the not-rich-enough-yet drug dealer; no visibility but built-in animosity from the locals. There are much better large vehicles out there if you really want something to haul your "stuff" around.

The Olympics - organized entertainment for the rich, performed by drugged-up 'athletes' whose success is based on the relative knowledge of pharmacology and the ability to avoid detection possessed by their 'trainers' and 'coaches.' All of this provided by a grateful population who are more than happy to have the city torn up for years on end and to pay for it for the rest of their, and their children's, lives while the speculators and hotel-owners and that ilk get richer and buy more fuel for their larger toys.

"Global Warming" is a scam, perpetrated by government and the media to keep us frightened and willing to pay more taxes and windfall pricing for fuel while we carry on as if nothing is happening; all because the terrorism threat is waning due to lack of interest - a frightened populace is a pliable populace. Like George Carlin said, the world doesn't care because it will outlast all of us and our moronic ways.

All of the business aircraft manufacturers have record order-books right now, 2 or 3 year waits. If you think a Hummer has a profligate use of fuel, how about a personal G5? Or even VLJs? Drive to the airport in your Armada and fly your personal jet? Give me a break. All of us in business aviation are just chauffeurs, making it possible for the few to gobble up the largest amounts of fuel. How much fuel does Pattison's yacht, the something Spirit, burn each hour?

How's that for cynicism? I have a non-alcohol headache and it makes me mean.

[2R]

Who pays the carbon tax when the forests burn ???A burning forest must put a lot of stuff in the air ???So who is reponsible for paying all those taxes ???
Whomever can find another way of getting more blood from the stone (Taxpayer ) will get a nice corner office in the legislature

[BoostedNihilist]

All those people bankrupted or suffering job loss due to the taxes can get government jobs collecting the tax. How much actual money do you think makes it into the piggy bank? I don't mean 'revenue,' I mean after the salaries, pensions, benefits and new furniture and new buildings and new computers and all the other clobber that makes up a bureaucrat's office, how much actual tax do you think has been created?

Taxes are NEVER "revenue neutral" as the costs of collecting them are lost permanently. Why do we need such large government?

The "carbon tax" neatly sidesteps the issue of urban sprawl and the total ineptitude of the politicians that encouraged it based on cheap fuel. In most cases, you need to drive for hours each way to work because there is no alternative - the buses are so slow and uncomfortable, there is no rapid transit from many areas and living in the city is not an option because the costs of housing are breathtaking. There is a huge shortage of shop-type labour in Vancouver already as there is nowhere for them to live. Can you imagine an hour-plus commute to work each way to earn $12 an hour, when that first hour of work merely pays for you to get there and back? (did I read that Vancouver's transit is the most expensive in North America?). So what you are seeing on the bridges and 'freeways' (hah) is to a large degree the labour that gets everything done, those who cannot afford to live in Vancouver (or any large city), so the solution is to tax them?

The part that's overlooked is that the perception of a tax, even if its all given back, is that the taxed feel poorer, they don't have the proportion of tax 'given back' in their pockets each time they buy fuel, so they feel worse off. When the rebate arrives in the mail, its not put in the bank or proportioned for future fuel purchases, it goes to pay bills or buy beer or whatever you do with your tax rebate.

The arrogance and the ignorance and the paternalism is unbelievable. The result of this (ignoring the effects on the populace in the hinterland) is that there will be a greater labour shortage in the city as the fringes finally give up, work locally or just go on welfare (remember, this is "revenue neutral"). The rich who live in the city will have to wash their own cars, stock their own grocery shelves, make their own coffee, serve themselves in restaurants or leave the city to buy such things (to the suburbs where all the workers are, and the cheap land to put up the businesses) so the city becomes a wasteland and loses its vitality while the rich drive their SUVs to the 'burbs to pick up tons of toilet paper at Costco. At least they are not affected by the tax.

An H2 is a Suburban with a sh*tty body on it, a poseur, a wanna-be Hummer for the not-rich-enough-yet drug dealer; no visibility but built-in animosity from the locals. There are much better large vehicles out there if you really want something to haul your "stuff" around.

The Olympics - organized entertainment for the rich, performed by drugged-up 'athletes' whose success is based on the relative knowledge of pharmacology and the ability to avoid detection possessed by their 'trainers' and 'coaches.' All of this provided by a grateful population who are more than happy to have the city torn up for years on end and to pay for it for the rest of their, and their children's, lives while the speculators and hotel-owners and that ilk get richer and buy more fuel for their larger toys.

"Global Warming" is a scam, perpetrated by government and the media to keep us frightened and willing to pay more taxes and windfall pricing for fuel while we carry on as if nothing is happening; all because the terrorism threat is waning due to lack of interest - a frightened populace is a pliable populace. Like George Carlin said, the world doesn't care because it will outlast all of us and our moronic ways.

All of the business aircraft manufacturers have record order-books right now, 2 or 3 year waits. If you think a Hummer has a profligate use of fuel, how about a personal G5? Or even VLJs? Drive to the airport in your Armada and fly your personal jet? Give me a break. All of us in business aviation are just chauffeurs, making it possible for the few to gobble up the largest amounts of fuel. How much fuel does Pattison's yacht, the something Spirit, burn each hour?

How's that for cynicism? I have a non-alcohol headache and it makes me mean.

Exactly

Bravo