Personal Finance

SK, MB, ON, NB - How Climate Action Incentive Payments will work on your 2018 Tax Return

  • Last Updated:
  • Mar 26th, 2019 11:35 am
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 9, 2012
3276 posts
1957 upvotes
Kitchener
agit wrote: income tested? and thanks op for the info
No, but it should be. Someone driving their LandRover isn't going to need that $$$, while they're polluting the province. Meanwhile, seniors, who already struggle, may be inclined to spend that once a year small chunk of change on their grandkids, while not realizing their budget is getting tighter.

Should be income tested -- those making under $50,000 should get double, those making $50-100,000 should get it as is, over $100,000, it eventually disappears.
How can we fly like eagles, when we're governed by Turkeys?
Deal Addict
Nov 13, 2013
2347 posts
1142 upvotes
Ottawa
jeff1970 wrote: No, but it should be. Someone driving their LandRover isn't going to need that $$$, while they're polluting the province. Meanwhile, seniors, who already struggle, may be inclined to spend that once a year small chunk of change on their grandkids, while not realizing their budget is getting tighter.

Should be income tested -- those making under $50,000 should get double, those making $50-100,000 should get it as is, over $100,000, it eventually disappears.
It is still a bit income tested in the sense those with higher incomes will spend more on the tax though that will also depend on lifestyle.
Personally as a high income family with a very low carbon footprint this plan works a lot better for me than the previous Ontario plan. The new plan hurts suburbanites the most which is surprising as they are the most politically important group. They are the group of consumers that could most make behavior changes that reduce their use. At some point if this tax and rebate keep increasing the suburbs should lose their appeal as the cost of gas and heating becomes prohibitive. I guess that is the point but seems to be under-appreciated.

As for the different levels- e.g. Saskatchewan. This is largely because they use coal for electricity. This means their electricity costs will go up wheras in Ontario their is hardly a carbon tax on electricity as it is carbon free.
If we knew this was going to continue to increase to $200 a ton there are clear decisions to take now that would be financially advantageous. Hard to depend on this as it could easily all go away in 2023 or whenever a new government comes in.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 9, 2012
3276 posts
1957 upvotes
Kitchener
I really don't like the 'pay to pollute' model. Imagine if we modelled other things like that?

Anyway, I still believe it should be income tested. Those with high income and high carbon footprints won't care at all about paying additional $$$ at the pumps, heating their homes, or electrifying their electronics. Unsure how heating a suburban home is different than an urban home, most urban homes are older and have poor insulation. I have friends that used to live in a double bricked home, as that's how insulation worked in the old days, and heating was close to $300/month in the winter. Suburban homes are usually newer and have a very low energy footprint. Personally, I'd rather the government give more rich incentives, income tested, for people to upgrade their homes efficiency, gas rebates for driving vehicles that use less fuel, things like that.

Really, if the government is being honest with their plan, they're really stealing from Paul to give back to Paul.

For me, it's frustrating. I've done everything I can to reduce my footprint, everything in my home has been upgraded to low energy, insulation, new windows, roof, well over $30,000 in upgrades. I drive a fuel efficient car, small little POS Ford. I changed jobs to reduce travel - reducing commuter travel from about 15,000/year to about about 3,500/year . Yet having done everything, my energy costs are still higher than ten years ago, despite using 1/2 the gas (and 1/3 the driving), 1/3 the electricity, 3/4 natural gas (well, that's gone down) and 1/2 the water. Google controls my home now...that's what it has come down to, and I'm still going to be screwed over, while large polluters can still enjoy a free ride (and understandably, since they employ people).

As for Ontario, well, you know we got it up the @$$ for a good 14 years or so, but the provinces carbon footprint is very low, and almost to the point it won't drop off much. Manufacturing is just about completely gone, no coal electric plants, but there were incentives (Feds? I think it was Harper (and his Action Plan) that was handing out the cheques) to upgrade the house (so I did get money back for insulation).

Anyway, end of my rant...
How can we fly like eagles, when we're governed by Turkeys?
Sr. Member
User avatar
May 31, 2018
542 posts
1112 upvotes
Saskatchewan
The reality of the whole mess is that Canada as a whole contributes very little to Global greenhouse gas emissions, and that is the key point here. Even if Canada simply stopped emitting, the overall effect on the planet would be approximately nil.

So aside from trying to make us feel like we're saving the world, this tax is just another tax. Maybe the money will be spent somewhere useful, maybe it'll be absorbed by yet another bureaucracy, maybe it'll just get {censored} away like many other pointless programs, but no matter what it's just more empty rhetoric and sound bites distracting us while yet another tax is levied.

Whether global warming/climate change/insert new terminology here is caused/can be controlled by humans or not, does anyone really think that the ~20 million Canadians footing the bill for a new tax here are going to make any real and meaningful difference to The Planet?
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 11, 2005
19211 posts
1702 upvotes
danishh wrote: anyone know why the payouts in Saskatchewan are so much higher? Higher fuel use per capita I guess?
Payouts higher because expected tax paid is higher.
To be nobody but yourself - in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else - means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting. -- E. E. Cummings
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 11, 2005
19211 posts
1702 upvotes
jeff1970 wrote: I really don't like the 'pay to pollute' model. Imagine if we modelled other things like that?
You mean like capitalism?

The current model where the few pollute yet everyone pays for it, is essentially communal. You prefer a communist approach?
Anyway, I still believe it should be income tested. Those with high income and high carbon footprints won't care at all about paying additional $$$ at the pumps, heating their homes, or electrifying their electronics.
You're wrong, because you are looking at it entirely wrong.

The majority of carbon taxes are not going to be paid by consumers directly. They will be paid by businesses, who pass those costs onto their customers.
Businesses also get no rebates back, with them instead going direct into the hands of the consumer.

Therefore, there is a competitive incentive for all of said businesses to reduce their tax cost so they can reduce their costs to their customers more than their competition.
To be nobody but yourself - in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else - means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting. -- E. E. Cummings
Deal Addict
Nov 13, 2013
2347 posts
1142 upvotes
Ottawa
At what point does this tax and rebate start to change behaviour? I think that is the real question. It seems to me it hits the suburbs and especially exurbs high. If it is $200 a ton and gas is $3 a litre etc. will people still want to live in a single family house in Milton or will they settle for a condo in 416. Even if the rebate is $3000 seems the long commutes will become less desirable.
Deal Addict
Jan 3, 2007
1877 posts
210 upvotes
Toronto
Do we really believe when all the suburbanites are faced with $3 /L gas, the liberals will still be in power? In the first phase, we (first adult) get $154 in rebate. I drive a Corolla to work and gas up about 40L per week. Assuming the first phase is adding $0.05/L to gas, that will be about $100 extra per year. On top of that, natural gas will also go up $0.04 a cubic meter, which is an increase of about $90 per year for a semi-detach with triple insulated windows and high efficiency furnace. All this still does not take into consideration that everything else that requires transportation will also go up, making everyday expenses for the average joe in the suburbs who are trying their hardest to live a modest lifestyle much more expensive. This Liberal government who promised to help the middle class, has been telling us that most will take in more than they give out, which is obviously a lie.
Deal Addict
Nov 10, 2018
3605 posts
3722 upvotes
jeff1970 wrote: No, but it should be.
You mean you think it's not appropriate for taxpayors to subsidize the purchase of a $90,000 Tesla by a member of the 1%?

Are you insane?

/s
For legal topics and discussions, the opinion, guidance, and thoughts provided are my own and are not considered to be legal advice, in any manner.
Deal Addict
Jan 19, 2017
3302 posts
1827 upvotes
danishh wrote: anyone know why the payouts in Saskatchewan are so much higher? Higher fuel use per capita I guess?
Just in case you don’t know, it is a cold place to live which uses more fosile fuel.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Apr 7, 2007
681 posts
198 upvotes
Calgary, AB
This is so stupid. JT just trying to buy votes with AB taxpayer dollars. Put the crook in Jail. Has nothing to do with "Climate Action", just "Vote Buying" and "Virtue Signalling."
Deal Guru
User avatar
May 7, 2007
11901 posts
4800 upvotes
Mike15 wrote:
Manitoba
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-cl ... itoba.html
Under the proposed approach, individuals in Manitoba will receive a tax-free Climate Action Incentive payment after filing their 2018 tax return, starting in early 2019. Climate Action Incentive payments in Manitoba will be calculated as follows for 2019:

$170 for a single adult or the first adult in a couple.
$85 for the second adult in a couple
. Single parents will receive this amount for their first child.
$42 for each child in the family (starting with the second child for single parents).
How do you decide which adult in a couple is first and which one is second one?
Member
Jul 25, 2008
400 posts
274 upvotes
ottawa
ml88888888 wrote: Just in case you don’t know, it is a cold place to live which uses more fosile fuel.
that doesnt really explain the difference in relation to manitoba.
and being cold means you need more energy, not more fossil fuels.
Newbie
Aug 12, 2017
21 posts
9 upvotes
You have the option on the tax return to decide which spouse actually gets the credit refunded on their tax return.

I could decide to put the whole amount on my wives tax return...in which case I would be the 2nd spouse and worth only $77 (I'm in Ontario) whereas the wife is worth $154.

I decide to put the refund on my return...she's only worth $77, but I'm worth $154.

Cheers,

Cottager
[OP]
Deal Fanatic
Nov 24, 2013
6148 posts
2904 upvotes
Kingston, ON
Darkman wrote: How do you decide which adult in a couple is first and which one is second one?
The credit for the whole family (household) is claimed by one spouse or the other. It doesn’t get split. My wording was to indicate that the entitlement to the additional amount comes from having a spouse or dependent in the household, not to indicate an “order” between spouses.

Worth noting while on that topic, “household” with CRA is a narrowly-defined term counting spouses (incl common law) and dependents. Other (non-spouse) adults with the same physical address, be they friends/roommates, children over 18, or other family, get their own $154. If they’re filing with marital status as Single (separated/divorced/widowed) then they’re their own household.

Top