Off Topic

Cap-and-Trade will add 4.3C/L to gas prices

  • Last Updated:
  • Mar 21st, 2017 9:10 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 28, 2007
3507 posts
608 upvotes
Alberta
chekacr9 wrote:
Jan 3rd, 2017 12:01 am
That's why Canada is so messed up, because most people think like you and voted Liberal.
Talking about being messed up, look what happened in Alberta when they voted in the NDP and Notley is running the province to the ground. The whole province is screwed up, a ton of people out of work, oil business has cratered etc and she implements a carbon tax.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 18, 2005
16382 posts
906 upvotes
Niagara Falls
jackrabbit000 wrote:
Jan 3rd, 2017 8:20 pm
Talking about being messed up, look what happened in Alberta when they voted in the NDP and Notley is running the province to the ground. The whole province is screwed up, a ton of people out of work, oil business has cratered etc and she implements a carbon tax.
LOL, the NDP have been in charge for what 2/3 years? and you're blaming them. LOL, good one. haha
Moderator
User avatar
Jun 15, 2011
38398 posts
5523 upvotes
Richmond Hill
Lot of interesting memes I've seen across the internet, especially those towards Wynne.

Hmmm...
The One and Only and Proud to be an Indian.
If I helped in any way, click that cool little "Thanks" button.
____________________________________
RFD Twitter Chat wins: Keurig Mini Brewer, $25 Cara GC, RFD travel and ceramic mug
Deal Addict
Feb 9, 2009
3941 posts
1651 upvotes
chekacr9 wrote:
Jan 2nd, 2017 11:59 pm
According to scientific sources Canada has 990-million acres of forests,
370-million acres of wetlands and167-million acres of crop yielding
farmland.
These are known as "carbon sinks". Biologists tell us that trees absorb
about 2.6 tones of carbon per acre.
So if you do the math 990-million acres x 2.6 tones per acre = 2.574
billion tones of carbon being absorbed every year.

Now if you do more math: 36-trillion tones {the amount of world
emission}x 0.0167 (1.67%) = 601.2-million tones.
-- This is the amount of carbon that Canada contributes to the world
emissions.--

In the forests alone, Canada absorbs almost four times the amount of
carbon that it emits.
This means that the other three quarters of our forests are being
sustained by carbon being emitted by the rest of the world.
This calculation does not take into account the wetland or farmland
that also absorb carbon.

Canada really couldn't get any greener, so why are our politicians hell
bent on punishing us with these ridicules carbon taxes? If the media were
honest this information would be made public.

Considering the fact that Canada is given no credit for absorbing much
more carbon than it emits I think there is a good case for some lawyer to
charge our governments with a"class action lawsuit".
Cause they know they have to increase taxes somehow -- so now instead of doing a straight increase they are trying to fool the idiots out there but trying to hide it to some cause like the environment.

Why is it that the 3 more indebted provinces/states (Ontario, Quebec and Cali) are doing the cap and trade and no one else? Huh? HUHHH?

Same with NDP -- they need to increase money to pay for their stupid social policies in Alberta so yeah we need carbon tax cause its good for the environment.

People in 2016 are so stupid and gullible.

2 big advocates of environment are also the biggest hypocrites -- Leonardo DiCaprio who cries about the environment always on private jets sucking fuel and that idiot David Suzuki who has how much carbon sucking homes cause you know -- he's so environmentally friendly.

SUCK IT PEOPLE -- when you wake up let me know and lets march to Queens Park and get rid of these con artists!!
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 11, 2008
4650 posts
333 upvotes
izzyzz wrote:
Jan 3rd, 2017 12:29 am
One of the reasons for Canada having a relatively "good" government is people demanding it to do better. The more passive and less involved the electorate, the more corrupt and inefficient the government is.
It might be more corrupt, but not necessarily more inefficient. Aside from failed states, I can't imagine a more inefficient government than Canada's. The advantage is that our government is also very inefficient in making mistakes. One example would be to build a road, we would need to go through years, if not decades of debates before we even start whereas other countries can do it in months. The good thing is that our road would be a useful road whereas their road might lead to nothing.

As for corruption, Canada is good, but not the best. A lot of our politicians benefit themselves or their donors. Power corrupts. Our government is less corrupt, because it's less powerful. However, we are concentrating more and more power in the government in the name of progressivism.
Deal Fanatic
Aug 14, 2007
7978 posts
559 upvotes
Toronto
Sanyo wrote:
Jan 1st, 2017 7:46 pm
It doesnt just effect the consumer... it effects businesses who transport stuff... costs all get passed to us... Canada is really shooting themselves in the foot right now.
Most people don't think about the effects one change will cause.

It's like the idiots working minimum wage jobs. To be more clear, the idiots that are working those jobs but are demanding that minimum wage be something like $15/hour. Well what do they think is going to happen if all min. wage workers get paid that? They probably don't even realize everything else would go up in price so then they'll demand even more and more.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 11, 2008
4650 posts
333 upvotes
Well, I have no problem with it other on principle (I am against big government, but protecting the environment is actually something I don't think private market can solve). Hopefully it will decrease the number of people who drives (if it's really that much a burden as critics say it is), then I would have fewer people to share the road with. My Prius uses about 4.5L/100km, say 20,000km/year, that's 900 liters or $38.7/year. Nothing really.

As for business cost, whatever is passed on to me is probably even less.

As I said, if this was a consumption tax with a corresponding income tax cut, I would have probably come out ahead.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 22, 2005
7867 posts
1190 upvotes
Could not agree more with this article in the Globe today..

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/ ... e33478285/

I am absolutely furious that poor people and the elderly in particular are being hit with this new tax. It does absolutely nothing to improve the environment. Further - businesses already struggling with high power costs are going to higher even fewer people to save $$ they now have to spend on more expensive fuel and heat.
Deal Addict
Nov 24, 2013
3965 posts
1048 upvotes
Kingston, ON
XtremeModder wrote:
Jan 4th, 2017 12:39 pm
Most people don't think about the effects one change will cause.

It's like the idiots working minimum wage jobs. To be more clear, the idiots that are working those jobs but are demanding that minimum wage be something like $15/hour. Well what do they think is going to happen if all min. wage workers get paid that? They probably don't even realize everything else would go up in price so then they'll demand even more and more.
You're presuming the 'living wage' advocates earn minimum wage (or $15 or less anyway). I think that's more of a 'bleeding heart' cause from progressives of all incomes than a cause originating among people making minimum wage.

Similarly, people who support guaranteed minimum income as a replacement for welfare-type programs aren't the people on those programs. They're people concerned about the plight of others (& also those interest in how government can most effectively & efficiently direct funding).
Deal Fanatic
Sep 16, 2004
6615 posts
664 upvotes
Toronto
At the end of the day it's a tax that you may or may not pay directly.
You have the choice to own a car and the operating expenses that come with it or not.
I think it's those who can barely afford a car but still own one that will most feel it, complain etc.
For those who can afford a large a mansion out in the 905 and trek into Toronto etc in a large gas guzzling SUV, it becomes more of progressive tax.
Eventually, those on the fringe of affording a vehicle may resort to alternatives like public transit which will help the environment.
It will ease traffic for those who can still afford to own a car and even improve their gas mileage with less stop and go traffic.
Indirectly we will all pay whether we drive or not as the costs are passed on to consumers.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 9, 2007
7467 posts
2395 upvotes
Toronto
Either way, I still need to fuel my gas guzzling V8.

WOULD SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
Sr. Member
Jul 30, 2010
755 posts
100 upvotes
Taxes like this always impact the lower class more than upper class. The reality is that most people need to drive, so while I can absorb a $20 a month increase to drive to work, a lot of other people can't.

"Take public transportation". The classic cop out for someone who doesn't care to actually look at a problem seriously. Buses and trains don't access every area of the city, and add probably an hour each way to your commute (in Calgary or Winnipeg in my experience anyways).

The bus system in both cities is terrible (though I don't know how it could ever be improved...how do you create a timely bus route that accesses every residential part of a city?), and the transit pass cost goes up every year as well.

This is for someone living in the city; living in the country because you can't afford to live in the city makes things even harder, because there is no flexibility there. You spend a specific amount of time driving, your insurance, etc. You try to keep your gas cost budgeted, but this would increase it and force you to sacrifice somewhere else in order to compensate. When I was younger I had the choice to live with my parents in the country for free, or live in the city for $600 a month in an apartment. The price of gas was a major factor in this, but obviously not the only one. A single person could move into the city to save on gas and try to balance the additional monthly living expense, but a family is less mobile. Move into a rathole in the city or keep your affordable house outside and commute.

Someone who owns a $70,000 SUV or truck doesn't think twice about the price of gas when they fill up, so this is definitely targeting the wrong group of taxpayers. Not to mention that the cap and trade system is a stupid system to begin with.

Every single tax increase always has serious negative effects to the middle to lower income households first, which is why it's so strange to support left wing "raise taxes" parties when they screw you over the hardest. The best reduction in my own personal taxes have been the income tax reduction by moving out of the left wing shithole of Manitoba into Alberta (saved $2000 a year), the reduction of the GST (thanks Harper), and the lack of PST here as well. Thank you, right wing politics. Oh, and Alberta Health care is a massive leap better than Manitoba Health, so there really isn't anything positive you can say about left wing rule.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 11, 2008
4650 posts
333 upvotes
LeisureSuitL wrote:
Jan 4th, 2017 2:36 pm
Taxes like this always impact the lower class more than upper class. The reality is that most people need to drive, so while I can absorb a $20 a month increase to drive to work, a lot of other people can't.

"Take public transportation". The classic cop out for someone who doesn't care to actually look at a problem seriously. Buses and trains don't access every area of the city, and add probably an hour each way to your commute (in Calgary or Winnipeg in my experience anyways).

The bus system in both cities is terrible (though I don't know how it could ever be improved...how do you create a timely bus route that accesses every residential part of a city?), and the transit pass cost goes up every year as well.

This is for someone living in the city; living in the country because you can't afford to live in the city makes things even harder, because there is no flexibility there. You spend a specific amount of time driving, your insurance, etc. You try to keep your gas cost budgeted, but this would increase it and force you to sacrifice somewhere else in order to compensate. When I was younger I had the choice to live with my parents in the country for free, or live in the city for $600 a month in an apartment. The price of gas was a major factor in this, but obviously not the only one. A single person could move into the city to save on gas and try to balance the additional monthly living expense, but a family is less mobile. Move into a rathole in the city or keep your affordable house outside and commute.

Someone who owns a $70,000 SUV or truck doesn't think twice about the price of gas when they fill up, so this is definitely targeting the wrong group of taxpayers. Not to mention that the cap and trade system is a stupid system to begin with.

Every single tax increase always has serious negative effects to the middle to lower income households first, which is why it's so strange to support left wing "raise taxes" parties when they screw you over the hardest. The best reduction in my own personal taxes have been the income tax reduction by moving out of the left wing shithole of Manitoba into Alberta (saved $2000 a year), the reduction of the GST (thanks Harper), and the lack of PST here as well. Thank you, right wing politics. Oh, and Alberta Health care is a massive leap better than Manitoba Health, so there really isn't anything positive you can say about left wing rule.
The solution would be not to be in the lower class.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 13, 2010
4631 posts
374 upvotes
Scarborough
Price at the pumps now 116.9cents per litre for regular.......
Deal Addict
Feb 9, 2009
3941 posts
1651 upvotes
Archanfel wrote:
Jan 4th, 2017 1:05 pm
Well, I have no problem with it other on principle (I am against big government, but protecting the environment is actually something I don't think private market can solve). Hopefully it will decrease the number of people who drives (if it's really that much a burden as critics say it is), then I would have fewer people to share the road with. My Prius uses about 4.5L/100km, say 20,000km/year, that's 900 liters or $38.7/year. Nothing really.

As for business cost, whatever is passed on to me is probably even less.

As I said, if this was a consumption tax with a corresponding income tax cut, I would have probably come out ahead.
Actually the cost passed by businesses will be even more -- they aren't cutting into their profits...

Top