Canadian politics thread

[Hondaracer]

Eby said people in B.C. are doing all they can to fight climate change, and he doesn't want them to have to choose between affordability and climate action.

While Eby said the carbon tax has been an important tool for the province for over 15 years, cost-of-living pressures for households and the pending removal of federal carbon pricing showed there was no longer support for the tax.

https://www.timescolonist.com/local-...rsion-10378409

So serious question.. what did it achieve?

Is there tangible data on anything as to the outcomes? Or were oil companies just purchasing carbon “credits” and funding general revenue pools? What actually came of any of the money toward green initiatives?

If gas prices don’t fall accordingly, it’s on the govt. to hold the oil companies feet to the fire to figure out why. Not just remove the tax and throw their hands up saying well.. we removed it what are ya gonna do

[unit]

honestly i agree with you about that. this isnt the liberals win here, it's the conservatives win to remove the tax 100%. also the money collected going to general revenue even if it is revenue neutral really does nothing to fight climate change at all. many businesses and individuals cant afford to switch to electricity or sometimes its just not viable, so it doesnt really achieve much. i think the idea was there but the execution was really poor.

[VRYALT3R3D]

Well duh, going green is a luxury for the rich at the expense of the poor

[Great68]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

that did not achieve anything they were in place to do lol..

False:

https://institute.smartprosperity.ca...%20Results.pdf

Since 2008, when the tax came in, fuel use in BC has dropped substantially – 19 percent more per capita than in the rest
of Canada – and GHG emissions are trending in the same direction. At the same time, BC’s GDP growth has kept pace with the rest of Canada’s, suggesting that the tax shift has not harmed the province’s economy.

From 2008 to 2011, BC’s per capita GHG emissions associated with carbon taxed fuels declined by 10.0 percent, a substantial reduction. During this period, BC’s reductions outpaced those in the rest of Canada by almost 9 percent

When the carbon tax was brought in, there were predictions that it would harm BC’s economy. Four years later, the data show that BC’s economy has slightly outperformed the rest of the country over the period that the carbon tax has been in place

the increase in carbon taxes is matched by an equivalent reduction in other distortionary taxes. Specifically, the carbon revenue is being used mainly to reduce the corporate income tax rate, and the two lowest personal income tax rates by 5 percent (British Columbia, not dated b). It also funds a low-income tax credit (in 2008) and a rebate up to $200 for northern and rural BC homeowners

BC took a risk in introducing the carbon tax, which was initially quite controversial. It is one of the few North America states or provinces with a price on carbon -- a price that is among the highest in the world. That risk seems to have been rewarded. BC households and businesses now pay the lowest income taxes in Canada, due to the tax
shift, and use the least amount of fuel per capita of any Canadian province. BC is also decoupling its economic growth from fuel consumption (and GHG emissions) faster than the rest of Canada

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by VRYALT3R3D

Well duh, going green is a luxury for the rich at the expense of the poor

80% of people (notably lower income folks) got back more in their federal carbon tax refund than they paid into it. The folks who paid were high volume consumers of gas. As a general thing, the rich paid more than the poor and this was a good tax for the poor.

[CivicBlues]

So the Libs are basically copying the Con's playbook and stealing their most popular policies

Axing the taxes, building the homes.

Is there any reason to vote Blue other than wanting a side of Culture War with your meal or sticking it to Turd's old lackeys? I'd like to see a measured rationale regarding policy decisions for why you'd vote Conservative.

[unit]

well to be fair, you just listed one good reason. the liberals are basically showing that they are a party that will go backwards on their platform if it means getting elected. trust me i don't think highly of the conservatives either, but not really a fan of the games being played to win the upcoming election.

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by CivicBlues

So the Libs are basically copying the Con's playbook and stealing their most popular policies

Axing the taxes, building the homes.

Is there any reason to vote Blue other than wanting a side of Culture War with your meal or sticking it to Turd's old lackeys? I'd like to see a measured rationale regarding policy decisions for why you'd vote Conservative.

Technically the Liberal versions of the policy are more moderate and involve more public sector intervention. For example, the Cons want to get rid of the industrial carbon tax as well (which is dumb b/c some of our trading partners require a carbon tax). The Liberal housing policy restarts a public housing development corp which the Cons don't have. The Liberal GST credit for new homes only applies to new home buyers instead of all home buyers.

But otherwise I too, would actually like to hear the argument for the Conservatives' policies. I miss the days (the Mulroney days) when you could actually hear real arguments for the policies that weren't based on anger but on facts or well articulated opinions. Today's Cons seem like nothing more than an American Culture War party.

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by unit

well to be fair, you just listed one good reason. the liberals are basically showing that they are a party that will go backwards on their platform if it means getting elected. trust me i don't think highly of the conservatives either, but not really a fan of the games being played to win the upcoming election.

Parties can change direction for a host of reasons and I think it's important to distinguish why a party changes their mind:

- New leader, new direction
- Going whichever way the wind blows in order to hold power
- Responding to market conditions
- Responding to changes in the electorate

For example, the Liberals doing the GST tax credit over the holidays was nothing more than pandering to keep power (#2) but killing the carbon tax is a #1 and #4 reason with a bit of #2 mixed in (#2 invariably is always a reason, just not always the primary reason). The carbon tax is too divisive so they'll kill it and replace it with the equivalent in other policies that the electorate finds more palatable - the party isn't backing off climate change (no fundamental policy change) but are changing their approach to it.

In the same way that the Conservative wing of the country has moved from Progressive Conservative to somewhat far right since the 80's or how the BC NDP went from hard left to centre-left I think it's ok for that to happen.

[Hondaracer]

Building 500,000 homes seems totally reasonable for a govt. that’s built zero in the last decade? lol.

Why vote conservative? Crime, period lol

If everything else is equal, and the liberals with the same faces behind the scenes continue to feign their efforts regarding social issues, we’re just trending to one giant Portland with crime and homelessness overrunning our cities.

Locking people up is better than what we have now. Even if it costs more.

Went to commercial drive on the weekend, the corner of Venebles and Commercial is a full fledged encampment now. Really great to see families stepping over strung out homeless.

[unit]

first of all being homeless isn't a crime, so you shouldnt over-conflate the two. the type of homeless criminals that i think you're referring to who break windows and assault people should absolutely be handed stricter penalties than the system that we have now, but the idea of locking up homeless people to get the problem off of the streets.... surely that's not what you are suggesting? if you lock up the ones who are repeat offenders, that isn't going to change the way the DTES looks.

[VRYALT3R3D]

Originally Posted by unit

first of all being homeless isn't a crime, so you shouldnt over-conflate the two. the type of homeless criminals that i think you're referring to who break windows and assault people should absolutely be handed stricter penalties than the system that we have now, but the idea of locking up homeless people to get the problem off of the streets.... surely that's not what you are suggesting? if you lock up the ones who are repeat offenders, that isn't going to change the way the DTES looks.

The hobos who are in the parks stay there because they refuse to follow the shelters rules. There is space in the shelters for them but they choose to remain on the streets so they can do drugs and trash the community near them with no regard for others

[Hondaracer]

Originally Posted by Great68

False:

https://institute.smartprosperity.ca...%20Results.pdf

I don’t disagree with the data as I’m not going to spend hours digging through individual claims. However, the funding of this “institute” seems suspect as do the people associated with it.

As well, later in the article they are quoting their own internal research as to whether or not aspects of this were actual profitable, not govt. sources.. so again..

If you can’t trust the Fraser institute and their credibility, these feels a lot along the same lines albeit on the other side.

[Hondaracer]

Originally Posted by unit

first of all being homeless isn't a crime, so you shouldnt over-conflate the two. the type of homeless criminals that i think you're referring to who break windows and assault people should absolutely be handed stricter penalties than the system that we have now, but the idea of locking up homeless people to get the problem off of the streets.... surely that's not what you are suggesting? if you lock up the ones who are repeat offenders, that isn't going to change the way the DTES looks.

I don’t blame the actual homeless people at all for their plight, it’s our shit govt. that’s put most of them on the streets.

However, if mental illness and addiction is running amok over “regular” society, living with the status quo isn’t possible. If we can’t effectively treat people and provide them places to rehabilitate, it’s better they are away from society than what we have currently.

[GLOW]

Originally Posted by GLOW

i hope so, b/c over the weekend it went up to 19x.x so dropping 17.6 cents would make it like 17x.x which is what it was before the announcement

called it, wife drove to work and said gas is 179.x today in e.van.
happy april fools to us!

[Great68]

Lol Hondaracer: "If I don't like the data and results, I'm just going to say I can't trust it"

[Hondaracer]

Bra you know how many times I posted Fraser institute or some other shit that reads exactly like that and it was just blown off?

It’s pretty clear an organization like that is funded by the people who want the report to read a certain way.

If emissions went down, good for them in actually achieving something, we all paid a huge price for it and now it’s being reversed.

[Manic!]

I'm surprised but gas price is 155.9 in Nanaimo.

[CivicBlues]

So what is PP going to do about crime? Other than yelling out "Jail not Bail" can someone link me to his Party's election platform?

[unit]

Originally Posted by Manic!

I'm surprised but gas price is 155.9 in Nanaimo.

what was it 2-3 weeks ago?

[Hondaracer]

https://www.conservative.ca/poilievr...nals-for-life/

Severe punishment for repeat criminals. Wild concept.

[mikemhg]

Gas prices in my area are currently $1.88 - $1.97, the exact same price they were days ago, funny that.

The issue I worry about is by dumping that tax, the province is going to have to find that lost revenue somewhere, that likely means an increase to income taxes for everyone else.

We've essentially moved the tax burden from oil producers and the wealthy, over to the broad mass.

Typical Conservative economics.

[Hondaracer]

Originally Posted by mikemhg

Gas prices in my area are currently $1.88 - $1.97, the exact same price they were days ago, funny that.

The issue I worry about is by dumping that tax, the province is going to have to find that lost revenue somewhere, that likely means an increase to income taxes for everyone else.

We've essentially moved the tax burden from oil producers and the wealthy, over to the broad mass.

Typical Conservative economics.

Well.. Carney was the one who facilitated it all? lol.. obviously at the pressure from copying the cons

But surely someone who is as amazing as him can find the shortfalls elsewhere right?

If it was the “right” thing to do, I guess everyone (the masses) were the wrong ones to question it and we should just accept any and all new taxes regardless of whether the govt. can actually explain where the fund are going other than general revenue?

From the start this was poorly executed.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by unit

what was it 2-3 weeks ago?

160.9

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

Bra you know how many times I posted Fraser institute or some other shit that reads exactly like that and it was just blown off?

It’s pretty clear an organization like that is funded by the people who want the report to read a certain way.

If emissions went down, good for them in actually achieving something, we all paid a huge price for it and now it’s being reversed.

The Fraser Institute has a long held reputation for advocating for their particular point of view by cherry picking data points to support their views so yeah, it's always blown off. They're not as bad as the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation but not far from it. If I want to read centre-right content that's factual I'll read stuff from the CD Howe Institute.

Regarding this particular report the organisation doesn't hide that its point of view is about pushing for market based green solutions which was originally a position of the right before the right went crazy. Carbon taxation was an idea of Conservatives, not Liberals or Socialists so it's unclear where this group sits on the left-right spectrum.

The report answers a pretty simple question that doesn't contain any material bias - did per capita consumption of fuel change more in BC than the rest of the country after the carbon tax showed up (and did GHG emissions go down as well). This might as well have been a test of whether increasing fuel prices drives down consumption. The answer is obvious - duh, of course it did, something got more expensive and we used less of it. Economics 101.

But because it comes from a group you've never heard of you dismiss it.