Siouxie

in Saskatchewan, a single person who is 18 or older without children could receive $305
in Manitoba, a person with a spouse or common-law partner (but only one of them may claim) without children could receive $255
in Ontario, a person could receive $307 for a family of four
in New Brunswick, a single person with a dependent child under the age of 18 could receive $160

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-age...tion-incentive

magnumpi

And how exactly does this stop carbon ? I don’t even get that much back as we are two adults with grown up kids. So basically I am financing some one else’s rebate

Pulaski

Good question!

I always think the same thing, when governments in various countries, not least the US and UK, provide additional hand-outs for those on various forms of income support, to pay for additional heating or fuel which is being taxed precisely to discourage excessive usage! The whole point of the additional "carbon" tax is precisely to make the heating/ fuel somewhat unaffordable!

magnumpi

BristolUK

It makes people think twice about whether to get in their car instead of a ten minute walk and then, when you get your payment instead of thinking - hey, I'll go for a celebratory drive on the money, you think, hey this is nice...I've helped save the planet and I have a bit of cash to spend on something else.
We're four adults, no drivers, and we each get the $128. Thank you for your contribution

Of course, you probably make a greater contribution to the problem than we do too

dbd33

I like the carbon tax, as much as anyone can ever like a tax, it seems a generally sensible approach. It's a conservative idea, good on offering choice, but I can see that people who have limited resources bear an unfair burden since they must spend proportionately more on keeping warm. A rebate seems a reasonable way to address that weakness.

Pulaski

That sounds entirely reasonable, but I have several acquaintances who complain about monthly heating bills two to three times what we pay, to heat a home that is only a half to one third the size of Pulaski Manor, which probably has a lot to do with the fact that their heating is set at 6ºC-8ºC above what we have our heat set at, and undoubtedly also to some degree that their home may not be as well insulated as ours.

When at home in the winter I wear jeans, shoes/slippers, and a sweater, but when I visit their homes I find them in shorts and T-shirts, and barefoot. They run their heat all night and all day, whereas we knock ours waaay down when we aren't home and at night when we are tucked up in bed. I have no sympathy for their complaints that their heating is "unaffordable".

Almost Canadian

I believe a far better approach is to mandate that new vehicles cannot be sold unless they can go x number of kms on a litre of 87 gas (sliding timeline for when older vehicles must be taken off the road); new homes cannot be sold unless they are carbon neutral (sliding timeline for when older homes must comply); drive throughs are banned, politicians are not permitted to expense the public for all travelling that involves burning of fossil fuels; mandate that all lights on all office blocks are to be turned off once the working day ends and shall only be turned on when cleaners, etc. need to access areas.

Taxing wealthy people's use of carbon and giving it to the less wealthy, or making the tax tax neutral, will not have the desired effect.

Pulaski

That's just socialism dressed up as an eco-policy!

dbd33

They're making the choice though and I think that's essentially fair. If I choose to burn more carbon by taking the Jag rather than the Mustang, I'm electing to pollute more and should pay more. Same as if people choose to be hot at home.

(I'm assuming here that the rebate is means tested, based on taxable income.)

dbd33

I don't see a problem with that in theory. However, regulation is a harder sell than a sales tax and there's no central authority to coordinate all those measures; homes are Provincial regulated through building codes, politicians by varying levels of government, office buildings by local municipalities, vehicle fuel consumption by the US government and there's currently no inspection authority for office cleaners. A tax has the advantage of being something that can be implemented; indeed it has been implemented and shown to work.

CanadaJimmy

Yeah I don't mind the carbon tax. It's based on science, and it's a lot simpler than a scattered piecemeal solutions. Those who pollute more pay more - pretty straightforward. It puts pressure on people who drive inefficient cars to downsize or switch to electric - notice how often the loud-mouths complaining viscerally about gas prices are the ones who just pulled up in their Ford F350 pickup that they have purely for showing off?

I agree this can in some cases hit the worse off more though, but it then puts pressure on social housing projects to implement things like geo-thermal heating. It makes people put more pressure on government to invest in transit solutions. All of this is good.

Almost Canadian

Which is what the Feds appear to be proposing.

Almost Canadian

I appreciate that it would require some joined up thinking, which is exactly why it cannot be left to politicians to implement.

Almost Canadian

What is one to do if one needs to heat one's home but none of the energy providers allow for less production via fossil fuels that the others, and the providers simply pass the costs onto its customers?

IIRC, a carbon tax only operates as it should when the cost approaches $200 a tonne. I accept that something needs to be done. I simply wish that politicians would stop thinking of their own prospects and do something drastic that would have an actual effect, rather than farting around at the edge of the issue.

I drive a very small car, have solar and wind power that powers my property all of which I paid for myself. My daughter, attending university at the age of 19 but who still lives with me, get a lift into public transport with me each day and receives a very nice cheque every quarter to compensate her for the cost of the carbon tax that she doesn't really pay. Is that causing her to use less carbon?

I believe that, despite the fact that Alberta has had a carbon tax for some years now, its carbon use has increased.