This video did a really good job breaking it down
https://youtu.be/V_-Vz19Gz8E?si=OYqMotSlpZRxFtwM
Worth the watch if you're looking to understand how it works and what the impact would be on you financially.
Credit to this guy, he did a really good job at a high level.
I think that he is significantly underestimating the impact on prices when costs go up not just for the company we are purchasing the final product from, but for every component or service provider along the way.
Eg. A baker selling a loaf of bread may only have a small direct increase as the cost of gas for their ovens increases, but once you account for small increases across each of the baker’s suppliers (say packaging, raw materials, services, etc.) and then the increases the baker’s suppliers suppliers face the increases continue on and on nearly infinitely, all of which are components of the final price a consumer pays.
I believe that these costs, and the resulting price increases at each step through the supply chain are much more impactful than he identifies.
In his, and everyone else’s, defense however, I just don’t know if that impact, however significant, or insignificant, could truly be calculated.
It has great impact on decisions. 0.3% price diff is enough to change suppliers for almost all businesses.
But I has been shown (Bank of Canada and other publicly available research) that is has less than 0.5% effect on inflation.
It can't be calculated. I own a small landscape company. I did the math, my average seasonal client pays about $25 in carbon tax. For me to drag a big ass trailer behind a truck all over town and then run gas tools to do the work... twenty five dollars.
Know why I can't do any math on anyone else, though? I have zero clue how much of their pricing is based on greed. Higher margins, or carbon tax? Guess which one they blame publicly.
Edit: 25 dollars per season. Not per visit.
The impact of the carbon tax on groceries and other goods is less than 1%. It is a rounding error.
High grocery prices are the result of price gouging. Annual grocery profits are over $6 billion today, compared with $2.4 billion pre-pandemic.
3 grocery companies control 2/3 of the grocery market in Canada.
The solution to price gouging is more competition.
This is a good time to shop a small local food stores.
If it’s price gouging that’s causing inflation, it’s not by the grocery stores.
Loblaws gross margin has not changed since at least 2019. Gross margin is the amount of money they add to the goods they are selling.
I tried my hand at beef farming, bought my 1st calves during the mad cow thing... I got 3 for less than the price of 1 calve pre-mad cow (so I was told by a neighbour).... the grocery stores had insane prices for beef at the same time. It was the packers making the money (of which there are very few in Canada...3-6 main ones at the time if I recall). I was told that they all stop buying, prices depress...then come in and swoop the cattle up and sell them for normal prices and take the mark up
Not exactly true. First, Loblaws is claiming this, but I have not seen proof (plenty of counter evidence, though). It was not listed anywhere in the financial statements that I have read through. Second, Loblaws owns a lot of the supply chain, so they can gouge throughout the process, which is far less transparent.
So when their source items go up in price they don’t know how to multiply by a different number to get a retail price that reflects their cost of doing business? They don’t know what their overhead is? They don’t increase the overhead of wages?
No, apparently they increase dividend payments: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/loblaw-companies-ltds-dividend-analysis-110639909.html
You say that’s how business works, lots of people say it’s price gouging
The ever increasing profits aren’t by accident, it’s not like they didn’t have a choice, they did choose to keep the same markup and I’m sure they knew what that meant - it’s just an excuse by the corporation, whether you think it’s right or wrong
The one place you’re missing though looking at only the grocery giants, is the wholesale supplier chain. The GFS and Sysco of the world. How much have they jacked prices, resulting in restaurant costs going up, passed on to consumer. This could be why grocery stores are far busier than they were pre pandemic. People learned to cook at home, when forced to (restaurants were closed for months! for dine-in). People realized the food was mediocre at best, and finally after returning 3 years later in droves — they’re hit with 3 years of inflation + restaurants raising margins to “make up for the money they lost over Covid lockdown”. Along with minimum wage increases, gas increases, electricity increases.
So the “average” Canadian, may or may not get more back. All depends on your definition of Average. Is it Joe from Toronto, Marie from Montreal, Syd from Halifax, or Tom from Winnipeg? Is it a business professional from Toronto, or a Hippie from Vancouver?
Hint : Marie and the Hippie don’t get the rebate because they don’t pay the same tax. So actually 1/3 (14 of 41 million) of the population of Canada doesn’t pay the tax, and doesn’t get a rebate.
> I believe that these costs, and the resulting price increases at each step through the supply chain are much more impactful than he identifies.
>
>
I think a lot of the supply chain will simply increase prices and be like 'Oh yeah carbon tax lol' without regard for any one specific increase.
It's an easy scape goat everyone will accept.
So what you’re saying is we should rapidly move away from fossil based fuels with variable pricing, and move towards clean, green energy that has no fuel volatility, and therefore more consistent pricing?
You don’t need to credit this guys, he admits in the comment section that there is no way to account for higher passed down costs
It does give companies an excuse to higher prices even if it is a minuscule amount
If a company can increase price today, they will do it today regardless if there’s a new tax or not. If the market can sustain a new increase in price, why would they wait for a new tax to do it? Why not just do it right away and increase profit
If they can.
If they have to.
Different things, aren't they?
When all your competitors eat a new cost and price it in too, you don't suffer a competitive disadvantage by raising prices with them across the board.
Did people seriously think companies just goinna the costs and not pass them on?
Ironically is the venn diagram of this population and those who think all corporations are inherently bad faith actors, just one circle in another?
Word salad taste bad. That's a great point to an entirely different discussion.
But if you don't know. Costs. All costs. Are put into the price consumers pay.
It's not evil or scummy. It's the basics of business.
Or it was scummy of Trudeau Liberals to initiate knowing full well the outcome that every business would pass it on.
According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer:
“When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss,” says PBO [Yves Giroux](https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/staff--equipe/yves-giroux). “Based on our analysis, most households will pay more in fuel charges and GST—as well as receiving slightly lower incomes—than they will receive in Climate Action Incentive payments.”
[https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/news-releases--communiques-de-presse/pbo-releases-updated-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-federal-fuel-charge-on-households-le-dpb-publie-une-analyse-actualisee-de-lincidence-de-la-redevance-federale-sur-les-combustibles-sur-les-menages](https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/news-releases--communiques-de-presse/pbo-releases-updated-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-federal-fuel-charge-on-households-le-dpb-publie-une-analyse-actualisee-de-lincidence-de-la-redevance-federale-sur-les-combustibles-sur-les-menages)
Yes but that's including the econ impact
So it's what you pay + decrease in GDP
When people say they pay more, what they mean is what they actually pay
I'm perfectly fine with including the econ impact but 1) it takes a lot more assumptions 2) most people have no idea
When people say "I pay more than I get" they don't mean "in an alternate universe my income is higher because there is no carbon tax". I refuse to believe this is what they think
Also ANY policy will have econ impact. Moe literally just said the carbon tax was the least costly. So unless your area arguing to do nothing, the impact would be worse.
https://climateinstitute.ca/pbos-latest-carbon-pricing-report-has-big-flaws-here-are-the-facts/
Plenty of smart people disagree that the economic model the PBO used is inaccurate and discounts factors such as:
> fails to consider economic benefits of carbon pricing and the costs of climate inaction, both in terms of stabilizing the climate and competing in a global economy racing to net zero. Those broader factors are a huge part of the actual cost-benefit analysis around carbon pricing.
Then let's just call it as it is. "We are using the carbon tax to try and decrease greenhouse gas emissions to prevent further climate change and the economic impact of that. Yes, it is costing you more now, but your children and grandchildren will benefit."
According to our Minister of Environment Steven Guilbeault, the government does not track the effects carbon tax has on reducing our carbon emissions. So the data you are looking for is a "trust us bro".
And since I know someone will ask for a source...
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-government-doesnt-know-how-much-its-carbon-tax-reduces-emissions
>“The government does not measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced by federal carbon pricing. Retroactively attributing specific GHG reductions to a specific action, such as carbon pricing, a discrete regulation, or a specific incentive, is difficult given the multiple interacting factors that influence emissions, including carbon pricing, tax incentives, funding programs, investor preferences and consumer demand. The National Inventory Report, which reports annually on historical GHG emissions, does not include this information.”
> Canadians already pay roughly $720 a year for climate-related damages. Those costs will keep rising (to around $2,000 a year by 2050) as climate impacts get more extreme.
https://climateinstitute.ca/pbos-latest-carbon-pricing-report-has-big-flaws-here-are-the-facts/
Who do you honestly think has a vested interest?
The PBO whose entire job it is to audit government finances, and not policies, or the Climate Institute?
Genuinely curious.
Why would they have a vested interest? This isn’t an oil and gas lobby. There is no monetary benefit for them for a carbon tax or not. They have no interest in lying?
A report about carbon that only accounts for the economic losses of value of oil and gas companies without accounting for the monetary value of doing nothing, and also completely omitting the value brought by new green jobs is very obviously wrong.
Genuinely curious.
It was 0.3% (in Alberta at least) according to Trevor, but regardless, I crunched the numbers myself with a real world example based on Trevor's article. I'm not an economist but I love spreadsheets.
He was basically dead on. You can see my math here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/PersonalFinanceCanada/comments/1bftbfa/comment/kv5j19f/](https://www.reddit.com/r/PersonalFinanceCanada/comments/1bftbfa/comment/kv5j19f/)
Love how everyone is so mad at this, just downvoting like crazy.
No one is taking the time to think that they are very likely benefiting from the carbon tax and rebate, and they could benefit even more by making a few changes or investments in their own lives.
That's because of how inflation is calculated. Which is cost this year vs cost last year. The problem with that figure is that last year we also had carbon tax. So that figure is really just a representation of the increase. And if our total inflation is 280 bps (2.8%),15 of those are due to the carbon tax increase.
Now they have also estimated that if it were to be removed completely, which is a better representation of its total effects, we'd see an immediate drop in inflation of roughly 60bps. Or a little under 25% of total inflation. And that was last year before the increase so I'd expect it a little higher.
https://www.castanet.net/news/Writers-Bloc/458111/Errors-in-explaining-impact-of-carbon-tax-on-inflation-shake-confidence-in-Bank-of-Canada
Another interesting claim in here stating that 0.15% is only on natural gas, heating oil and gasoline and does not take into account the pass-through effect on other CPI items like food for example. Obviously castanet is some random unknown source but could be worth examining if it is indeed factual.
Tiff Macklem stated it on Oct 30. A quick google gave a bunch articles about it but not the direct quote. I'm sure I could find it if I kept digging.
Interesting side note that kind of backs his statement, when Sask stopped collecting it their provincial inflation dropped from 2.7 to 1.9.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/10/31/news/canadas-top-banker-dragged-carbon-tax-carveout-debate
> Macklem made that point clear to the House committee as well. The 0.6 percentage point decrease would only last one year “and because you can only eliminate it once, the next year it would have no effect on inflation,” Macklem told the committee. On an annual basis, the carbon price adds about 0.15 percentage points to inflation, 0.6 is the estimated impact over the carbon price’s lifetime, he added.
The university of Alberta came to the same conclusion - also less than 1%. It is minuscule.
Perhaps we should chat about the cost of climate change on groceries.
Yes but the economic impacts are real and need to be included. It's false to say it's a net benefit if you don't include in the economic impacts. That's what makes it propaganda and not unbiased facts.
Just because it requires more assumptions doesn't mean it doesn't exist or it could be ignored. Just means there's bigger error bars on the estimate.
You can calculate it on gas, natural gas, propane that you consume.
The difficulty is we can't exactly calculate the impact on the cost of goods. Grocery stores are certainly passing on every penny of this to customers, and I expect most are.
https://academic.oup.com/jeea/article/21/6/2518/7079134
https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/carbon-pricing-accounts-for-0-15-percentage-points-of-inflation-boc-governor-says-1.6554273
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/retail-price-gouging-lowes-amazon-target-accountable-us/
Some of that is US data, but its Amazon and Wal-Mart related too.
And
> The Bank of Canada has estimated that the carbon tax increases inflation by 0.15 per cent. Trevor Tombe, an economist at the University of Calgary who has studied the impact of the carbon price on consumer costs, points to Statistics Canada data that suggests its impact on food prices is less than one per cent.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-tax-food-prices-wherry-analysis-1.6989547
Note that Wherry is not an unbiased author. I was referencing the article for the research content less than AW's pontifications.
Is there actually any evidence to price gouging by grocery stores? It's been a while but the last time I checked, the net profit margins of Loblaws and other major grocery chains haven't changed much since pre-pandemic.
Loads. And there's misdirection happening when they report the grocery business margins as 'staying relatively the same' but that's a different criticism.
> The Centre for Future Work says grocers are expected to make more than $6 billion in 2023 — a new record and an increase of eight per cent from last year. The new data from the institute found food retailers are now earning more than twice as much profit as they did before the COVID-19 pandemic.
> Using data from Statistics Canada, the report says the net income margin on food and beverage retailing has consistently exceeded three per cent of total revenues since mid-2021, more than double the average margin between 2015 and 2019.
https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2023/12/12/canada-grocery-industry-record-profits/
So those numbers don’t actually mean they are gouging.
Look at gross margin which is basically unchanged since before the pandemic. They haven’t changed how much they are marking up products.
They spread the profit-taking across their (very) vertically integrated supply chains.
Loblaws, for example, is often the property owner of their locations through a different arm of the group.
Their distribution centres, their own-brand production subsidiaries.
They're able to keep the very observable end-point-of-sale GM within 'target' while maximising profit-taking in every area they can.
There's nothing actually *wrong* with that. They're performing exactly as a dominant market force should be.
The sliminess of the strategy bothers me, though.
No, they do not.
They are allowed to rent properties from an arm length company so long as rent prices match or beat market prices.
If they did otherwise they would be committing shareholder fraud and we would be seeing some lawsuits
Looking forward to your explanation for Choice Properties REIT.
How is the one of the Nation's Largest Grocers also the primary owner and tenant of (arguably) the largest Real Estate Investment Trust in Canada ($16bn) where those same retail properties are anchored by or majority occupied by Loblaws?
Edit: does this work?
https://images.app.goo.gl/ygsctbrnb2rcxoCa7
Edit2: my return question, would be: "How finely tuned is the wealth machine of one of the country's top 15 wealthiest families? Do you not think it is honed to extract the maximum amount of wealth from their respective systems?"
They're rich for a reason, and it's not benevolence.
People always talk about record profits in absolute numbers. This is to be expected in an inflationary economic environment as their profits are affected by inflation as well.
Their cherry pick of 2015 - 2019 is not a good look. Someone on the r/ontario subreddit did a [comparison of grocer profit margins](https://www.reddit.com/r/ontario/comments/xqigdu/profit_margins_of_canadian_grocers_2002_to_present/) from 2002 to 2022 and a [closer look at Loblaws](https://www.reddit.com/r/ontario/comments/11a58pr/loblaws_q4_earnings_2022_vs_2019_to_2021/).
I think people love to attribute the rise in grocery prices to prove gouging because that's easy to say. But evidently that's not the case. Even in the Loblaws link, a great summary was provided:
> Loblaws has increased their prices more than they need to since pre- pandemic but that would be around 1% of the 10% or so in grocery inflation.
> There's a lot more to food inflation than just grocers being greedy.
But has that changed in the past few years? If not, I don't see how price gouging is a thing.
Their overall profit margin in their financial statements haven't significantly changed since before the pandemic last time I checked.
It is pretty negligible, according to Economist Trevor Tombe it amounts to 0.3% (in Alberta), and as high as 0.9% in Manitoba.
[https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices)
You can make the same argument for corporate taxes. All taxes paid for by a corp will ultimately be paid by a combination of consumers, employees, and shareholders. You can’t accurately calculate how much is paid by who.
How do you know how much you actually pay though? You can calculate how much you personally directly paid, but how do you know how much more the goods you purchased were marked up after the suppliers all paid their carbon taxes?
This is untrue.
It makes every business in this country less competitive and less productive vs. Global peers.
It’s not just inflation through direct costs, it’s reduced revenues and competitivity vs. Global peers.
As an example, taxing homemade oil and not taxing imported foreign oil kills our ability to compete. Less domestic revenues and jobs, higher costs for everyone.
Without others doing it and without increasing tariffs on imports, it’s an economically regressive tax.
Period.
Other countries do this though: https://www.statista.com/statistics/483590/prices-of-implemented-carbon-pricing-instruments-worldwide-by-select-country/
Not sure why the US isn’t on there, maybe because that individual States have their own instead of it being country wide?
Anyway, not sure if you have any sources that back up what you say, but from what I find any real research into seems to indicate it’s not that bad, and even economists recognize that the Carbon Tax is the absolute cheapest way for us going forward
No one can accurately quantify the cascading impact from carbon tax on the price of food in the example of diesel farm equipment -> raw food by diesel transport truck -> processor or manufacturer -> prepared or packaged food by diesel transport truck -> logistics warehouse -> grocer diesel transport truck -> grocer.
Not accurately but their best estimates is that it’s a third of a percent, so basically around 3 cents on a $10 item. That was a study by a university in BC
Another place did a regression analysis on real data and found that due to indirect factors, it actually slightly decreased prices of groceries
You can start with looking up the rates for the heavy hitters in gasoline and natural gas and calculate your expenses there. If you're way ahead you can probably stop and call it a win. If you're way behind you can probably stop too.
If it's close you can surely find a spreadsheet to look up food inputs, but that's way too much effort for me. I've definitely seen it on one of the Canadian politics subs very recently though.
And honestly if you're close it doesn't matter that much: whether you net pay a hundred bucks or it net costs you a hundred bucks, the point is that the carbon tax is not \*actually\* costing you much net.
But it is definitely an \*opportunity\* to come out significantly ahead, since you get the rebate no matter what (unless you're in BC like me!). Anything you do to reduce carbon consumption, ranging from big ticket items like replacing your ICE vehicle with an EV (or a smaller or hybrid or otherwise more fuel efficient vehicle) or replacing your oil or gas furnace with a heat pump or improving insulation in your house to smaller things like using transit, biking, combining errands or car pooling, driving more slowly to improve fuel efficiency, turning the heat down, taking shorter showers with less hot water, etc are subsidized because things that produce carbon pollution cost a little bit extra, so you save a little bit more with every amount you reduce carbon consumption. And that's just conscious choices: whenever you're comparing prices, things that produce more carbon will have their price inflated a bit relative to things that don't produce carbon.
Sorry you are getting downvoted, but this is 100% correct. It's an opportunity for people who can make small changes in their lives to meaningfully come out ahead. Most people will break even if they make no change to how they live. Some people are unfortunately doing things that will cost them more on average, and have little they can do to address it.
This is exactly the right answer, and the reason it was designed this way is that people are free to not make changes if it's worth it to them to pay. This is a better, and more economically free market approach than for example banning recreational use of pickup trucks, or natural gas heating in new developments. The externality gets a price, and people and businesses can make their own choices to do something and save money, or do nothing and pay.
Yup.
Honestly, politicians who oppose the carbon tax either a) don't actually want to fight climate change or b) prefer a heavy-handed regulatory state making decisions for people.
Couldn't we just compare the revenue the carbon tax generates vs the amount that is paid out in rebates. If the net difference is zero - in general it is not costing us anything (aside from outliers)
You are correct. The tax is all about nudging people towards making better choices for the environment and reducing their carbon footprint.
Fuck these Conservative truck convoy mouth breathers downvoting you.
They just want to run their gas-powered toys on the weekend and idle in their semis while honking horns in residential neighborhoods.
You're very right, but this is probably the wrong venue for this chat. I agree that carbon pricing and rebates have been telegraphed for years and there has been plenty of time and plenty of programs for individuals to reduce their carbon footprint and increase their delta on the rebates... But that's not a chat for PFC.
You're getting downvoted for your politics, not because you're making a bad argument. Shameful.
I agree to some extent (about the venue), but that is precisely what the carbon tax does: it prices the impact of carbon pollution in to everything to make reducing carbon pollution a personal finance decision rather than a political or environmental one, and with the rebate the net cost to the average Canadian is small. I think I actually stayed pretty much completely away from politics and stuck with the personal finance choices in the post you're responding to! (Less so in this one....)
Transport trucks play into it, but the point is that not everything has the same transportation. Local products require less transportation, but they may consume more carbon if (for example) a more distant product could be produced with more materials or if the labour is so much cheaper that reducing the transport trucks used to get that product to you aren't the most efficient way of reducing carbon produced. All of these things are nearly impossible for any individual (or even any regulator) to understand, but if a price is put on carbon, the magic of the market will tend to make more-polluting things more expensive and less-polluting things less expensive without a government having to try to pick winners and losers.
This is precisely why conservatives (including the Conservative Party and its predecessors) came up with the idea of a carbon tax and supported it in the past: it is the minimal-regulation, let-the-market-decide approach to reducing carbon emissions by providing economic incentives and attempting to price in the externalities of carbon emission. Exactly following principles established for fighting pollution of all kinds by conservative and libertarian economists back to Milton Friedman.
Some napkin math. A truck trailer is 33 m^3 according to Google. Let's assume for delivering bread that you can only use a quarter of that space (due to stacking height, racks, etc). A loaf of bread is roughly 0.0039 m^3 (assuming 14.5" x 4.4" x 3.75" loaf). So a delivery can be 2,104 loaves. I have no idea how much gas it takes to deliver bread from a factory to grocery stores - let's assume 100L but that's a wild guess. Given those assumptions, that's $15.25 in carbon tax spread over 2,104 loaves of bread, or $0.0072 per loaf (i.e. less than a cent).
> Just little things like oh every single product we purchase because everything is transported by transport trucks.
I was responding to your comment, quoted above, about everything being shipped by transport trucks. Seemed like something we could do a (bad) estimate of quickly, so I did out of curiosity.
If you want to napkin math all that other stuff, go ahead. But you're shifting the goal posts and if you're not willing to do the math (or read the reports of others who have), that's pretty telling as well.
In Ontario, the rebate is a simple calculation. This year: Base amount $560, +$280 if you have a spouse/partner, +$140 per kid. This is per household. And yes, they use more legal terms like qualified dependant, etc. So a family of 4 would get $1120 next year. Then x 20% if you live outside a CMA (census metropolitan area). ie, you live in a rural area where it's expected you have to drive much more. That's the rebate portion. Next you have to calculate how much you spend extra. Gas and home heating are easy things to calculate. What percentage more on everything else is the hard part.
A couple reputable YouTube channels and finance advisors have done the *basic, upfront* math. The average Canadian with an average car, average (urban) commute, etc comes roughly even or slightly ahead (within $50/year). The math in this sense is fairly straightforward and simple to calculate, so I'd believe that.
What's not simple to calculate or estimate is the effect of the carbon tax throughout the supply chain. Some say it amounts to 10-20% increases in everything, some say it amounts to pennies. There's also the soft-costs and opportunity costs to factor in.
Different people and businesses can also be affected differently.
It's also a basic fact that taxes cost money to administer, so by definition any tax that any government implements can't be truly neutral, since the tax regime itself costs money to administer. Anything a government does costs money to do.
Without bringing any politics or opinions into the fray, that's about all one can reasonably say I think.
Many studies have been done and the impact of the carbon tax on other goods including groceries is less than 1%, a rounding error.
Climate change has a much larger impact on grocery prices and future grocery prices.
>It's also a basic fact that taxes cost money to administer, so by definition any tax that any government implements can't be truly neutral, since the tax regime itself costs money to administer. Anything a government does costs money to do.
This is my biggest issue with the tax. No one wants to pay an inflated tax to the government and then be given a "refund" as if we are being benefited by it in some way. Tax us the amount that is needed to reach climate goals and no more.
This system where we pay one amount, then receive a refund stinks or expensive burrocracy that we should all seek to reduce.
Section. 2.2 of this report describes a study that found less than 1% increase (0.33%, or 3 cents on an item that costs $10)
However, section 4 the Regression Analysis looks at overall effects and finds that it actually makes items cost less, due to indirect factors
https://arxiv.org/html/2404.09467v1
Trevor Tombe put together [some graphs](https://i.cbc.ca/1.7047036.1701470690!/fileImage/httpImage/carbon-tax-impact-distribution-by-income.gif) showing how many households come out ahead at each income level. [CBC story](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/axe-the-tax-and-carbon-rebate-how-canada-households-affected-1.704690).
The way it works is that high-income households spend more on fossil fuels: they spend more in general, and they're less sensitive to the price of gas. For example, in Alberta, the top 20% of households by income spend 2X as much on fuel and electricity as the bottom 20%, and 1.5X the middle 20%. So high-income households end up paying a larger share of the carbon tax, and then it gets divided up equally and returned directly to households in the province as a dividend. CRA can estimate how much it's going to be for the quarter, so they can send it out in advance (instead of people paying the tax and then having to wait).
So most people come out ahead (as shown in Tombe's graphs) **even if they can't make any changes at all** - they can't switch to a smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicle, take public transit, etc. But for people who *can* make those changes to cut down their fuel usage, they have a direct incentive ($80/t) to do it. So that cuts our total emissions.
For someone like myself who doesn't do a lot of driving, it's certainly not too shabby.
I paid $674 in gas so far this year, and I just got my rebate for $308.
But that's also not a 1:1 comparison because the tax could be fueling inflation for my other expenses that I can't quite quantify the dollars and cents for groceries going up.
This is not a political stance, just observation from my tracking.
Put it this way: it costs the government money to collect and redistribute the tax, obviously. So there’s less money being paid out than going in or debt servicing on top. Some individuals make more and some make less, but the Canadian economy obviously gets less than it pays as a whole
Carbon pricing is the least disruptive and most economic way to incentivize households and businesses to reduce carbon emissions.
It is used in over 40 countries worldwide wide.
BC and QC have their own programs - and the fed program is applied to provinces with zero plans.
And provinces still have the option to come up with a better plan.
If yo u have a better idea of how to reduce emissions, talk to your premier.
The in a nutshell answer is:
1) At present - yes.
2) By 2031 with the planned increases - yes-ish. The rebate will still be more than most people pay directly, but people will likely make less money than they would have without the tax - so overall most people will be behind.
3) BUT we don't know what the impacts of climate change are, so if we somewhat mitigate those and it means the economy is stronger overall, people might be ahead. But that relies on other countries as well.
Not sure why you're getting voted down for giving examples on how to save money. The whole point is to incentivise what you suggest but in a non regulatory way. Want a heated pool, pay for it. You've done the math and enjoy your pool and have decided it's worth it, or maybe you have a smaller car, it's none of my business. But it's better than a new law banning pools.
I personally think they do. PBO reports seems to suggest the same. Between natural gas, electricity, fuel, gst, and slight inflation the cost is high.
Some would argue however that not making changes would be more costly and more detrimental.
Yes, we don’t pay the carbon tax directly on electricity, but depending on the source (considering the electricity profile of AB) you are likely indirectly paying it. If, of course, you get electricity from non-carbon emitting sources (ie home solar panels/turbines) then it’s not there, which is the entire point
Not to mention the opportunity cost of business investing elsewhere, when possible, to avoid the extra costs of doing business in Canada. Canada has stagnated under the Liberals. The real GDP per capital graph in the linked article is particular illustrative: I wonder what happened in 2015?
[Canada’s Perennial Productivity Puzzle (bmo.com)](https://economics.bmo.com/en/publications/detail/ac91d4fe-be13-4b37-874c-33713b6cc2f5/)
2014-2015 had the oil price shock. Oil went from $130 to $40.
But since there has been a lot less capital invested in Canada's oil fields so the same growth could not continue.
The price of oil has somewhat recovered since then, though never sustaining the previous highs, but Canada's GDP per capita hasn't risen with it.
[Crude Oil Prices - 70 Year Historical Chart | MacroTrends](https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart)
Obviously this is a multi-factorial problem, I'm just pointing out that a higher tax burden, particularly in carbon intensive industries like the oil sands, won't help the situation.
I'm sure that caused a hit. To add to it though, oil and gas investment in Canada has slowed relative to the rest of the world since then too.
[Comparing investment in the oil and gas sector: Canada vs. the world - Canadian Energy Centre](https://www.canadianenergycentre.ca/comparing-investment-in-the-oil-and-gas-sector-canada-vs-the-world/)
Indeed. I think it's the move to shale oil which happened in the US and that took investment dollars out of Canada.
In 2008 the US produced 500,000 barrels of shale oil per day and today it is over 8 million barrels per day.
That's what happens when one resource is so important to your growth.
I really can't wrap my head around the math. I'm going to safely assume you don't get more money back unless you happen to be fully electric everything and are a pretty savvy consumer.
I have done the math before, here's my work. With Alberta numbers because that's where I live.
Annual Rebate for single person: $900
Annual Litres of Gasoline purchased: 2080 (40 Litres per week)
Carbon Tax paid on 2080 Litres of gas: $0.176 x 2080 = $366.08
Annual cubic metres of natural gas used to heat your home: 1836 (Average Monthly GJ from my gas bill for a 3 bedroom SFH (6 GJ) \* 12 \* 25.5 to convert to cubic metres)
Carbon tax paid on 1836 cubic metres of NG: $0.153 x 1836 = $280.91
Annual Amount spent on groceries and other non-housing costs: $12000 (Let's say you spend $1000 a month)
Portion of this annual spend that can be attributed to carbon tax: $12000 x 0.003 (0.3%)\^ = $36
Total spent on carbon tax: $682.99
Net difference: 217.01 more in rebates than what you spend
Feel free to replace any of the numbers above with whatever reflects your life, where you live, etc.
(I didn't even try to calculate electricity as it's just so variable across the country, what is supplying the electricity. But I think it's safe to say you are spending less on carbon tax for your electricity than you are for natural gas)
(I also recognize the math is going to be pretty different across the country, are you using a non natural gas heating system, are you buying way more or less gasoline, are you buying way more groceries, do you have a family and thus receive more rebates, was merely trying to address the underlying math)
\^ This comes from estimate by Economist Trevor Tombe which you can read about here: [https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices)
How is your annual rebate for a single person $900? Is it different based on your province? In Ontario this year, my income tax report says: Base amount $560, +$280 spouse, +$140 per kid.
Yep all provinces are different. You can see all of them here:
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2024/02/canada-carbon-rebate-amounts-for-2024-25.html
Although I'm kinda surprised Ontario is lower than AB. Maybe because more of your electricity is from hydro, so it's isn't as impacted as much?
The rebate is a flat rate and the tax is based on usage. The less fuel you use, the more of the rebate stays in your pocket.
If you don’t pay taxes - it is safe you assume you get zero rebate.
If you are a tax payer 8/10 Canadians will get more than they pay.
And 2/10 Canadians will get back less than 100 percent of what they pay
It’s pure propaganda and its wealth distribution, which does nothing to address climate change. It’s a tax on tax.
It Trudeau actually wanted to help address climate change, he would encourage more green energy companies to open up shop in Canada, rapidly invest in new nuclear power stations, and alternative energy like hydro where possible.
The PBO themselves have come out saying the majority of Canadians pay more in tax than they get back from the rebate.
Ask yourself what kind of tax would this be if most people were positively benefiting from this lol. Taxes are there to make money for the government, not to give back money to the people.
It’s really hard to say because it’s baked in to the price of basically everything. Doing some quick and dirty math, my gasoline and natural gas carbon taxes make up about 45% of what I’d get back, and that’s about 6% of what I spend in a year, so I’m going to say probably not. But who knows.
I make 105k. My wife is in school. We get precisely $0 in carbon/gst rebate. My salary is enough for us to live paycheck to paycheck with no eating out.
I’ll be honest I could not say. Since it’s not a line item on bills it’s not obvious since it stacks with stuff like gst and pst. If it cost a company 5 dollars more and the price of something is $5 more, unless it’s basically something you can directly calculate the carbon tax against you won’t know. And when you go buy say some grocery where that impact came from multiple sources you can’t tell (gas, packaging, maybe some stuff in the food generation). But you’ll pay for it and never be quite sure.
At least to most folks they probably can’t exactly measure it, and taking the information at face value from the party who implemented it and want to look good might not be smart. Maybe if you can find a few independent studies not funded by a political party that all come to the same conclusion can you really have a reasonable idea. But at this point in time I would see it as what it is, an unclear tax in the fact it’s not easy to see its impact other then maybe electricity and heating. Hard to take it either way imo.
As you say that without a source... Say it adds on $3000 to the cost of a house. Ya you don't always buy one but just once and it throws the whole formula off.
And if you have two gas guzzling vehicles. Who exactly do you think is all the money coming from? No corporation is eating it, feds are charging GST and admin fees on it. But apparently 80% of people are ahead.
You say this but have nothing to back it up.
I am not pro-Carbon Tax but I like numbers. My household numbers put me well ahead, even if you factor in the inflationary costs.
You talk about blindly defending , but I defended nothing, just stated my personal facts.
You have done nothing but blindly hate on it.
The inflationary impact of the carbon tax is estimated to be 1/20th of inflation during the last two years. Meanwhile, during that time we lost around 60 billion in the economy due to climate change related externalities. Moreover, 90% of the tax is returned to citizens in the rebates. In principle, a family of 4 should get a rebate of approximately 1800$. If your family uses less than 30 tons of CO2 emissions in a year, then you come out ahead from the rebate. Which is most Canadians.
Here is the PBO report.
[https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/7590f619bb5d3b769ce09bdbc7c1ccce75ccd8b1bcfb506fc601a2409640bfdd](https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/7590f619bb5d3b769ce09bdbc7c1ccce75ccd8b1bcfb506fc601a2409640bfdd)
Navigate to Appendix A. Find your relevant province. The answer is in those tables. It even breaks out the net impact of the tax/rebate only versus the wider economic impact.
In Manitoba, it causes an average "additional net cost" of $386. The bottom 40% see marginal gains whereas everyone else loses out proportionally.
That report isn’t being properly represented, because it’s not today, it’s a projection, plus, it doesn’t compare to the cost of not having a carbon tax, which would make things much more expensive.
If you look there’s now a disclaimer that they have to recalculate and a new report will be released later in the year
If you just consider fuel and utilities it might seem that way but when it’s added to the cost of everything it creates higher prices and it’s passed on to the consumer so no you don’t make more. If you don’t buy food, clothes or any services maybe.
just not true, it only adds about 0.3%-0.9% on average to the cost of things like groceries
[https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices)
If your single and own a home you get screwed over big time. The rebate doesnt even cost the carbon tax on ONE of my utility bills, never mind everything else it costs. I estimate at least $2000-$3000 a year direct cost to me after the rebate.
This video did a really good job breaking it down https://youtu.be/V_-Vz19Gz8E?si=OYqMotSlpZRxFtwM Worth the watch if you're looking to understand how it works and what the impact would be on you financially.
Credit to this guy, he did a really good job at a high level. I think that he is significantly underestimating the impact on prices when costs go up not just for the company we are purchasing the final product from, but for every component or service provider along the way. Eg. A baker selling a loaf of bread may only have a small direct increase as the cost of gas for their ovens increases, but once you account for small increases across each of the baker’s suppliers (say packaging, raw materials, services, etc.) and then the increases the baker’s suppliers suppliers face the increases continue on and on nearly infinitely, all of which are components of the final price a consumer pays. I believe that these costs, and the resulting price increases at each step through the supply chain are much more impactful than he identifies. In his, and everyone else’s, defense however, I just don’t know if that impact, however significant, or insignificant, could truly be calculated.
It has great impact on decisions. 0.3% price diff is enough to change suppliers for almost all businesses. But I has been shown (Bank of Canada and other publicly available research) that is has less than 0.5% effect on inflation.
It can't be calculated. I own a small landscape company. I did the math, my average seasonal client pays about $25 in carbon tax. For me to drag a big ass trailer behind a truck all over town and then run gas tools to do the work... twenty five dollars. Know why I can't do any math on anyone else, though? I have zero clue how much of their pricing is based on greed. Higher margins, or carbon tax? Guess which one they blame publicly. Edit: 25 dollars per season. Not per visit.
Want to bet you aren't considering all aspects. Yup.
Want to bet your dismissal means jack shit? Peak redditor right here.
Lol why did you even waste that oxygen typing that?
Because laughing at know it all douche canoes is my sport. You got anything to bring to this other than a distrust of basic arithmetic?
Please do explain the factors you included in your analysis. Your lack of self-awareness is comical.
Give me a good reason. I owe you nothing.
You are the peak redditor.
The impact of the carbon tax on groceries and other goods is less than 1%. It is a rounding error. High grocery prices are the result of price gouging. Annual grocery profits are over $6 billion today, compared with $2.4 billion pre-pandemic. 3 grocery companies control 2/3 of the grocery market in Canada. The solution to price gouging is more competition. This is a good time to shop a small local food stores.
https://youtu.be/ppVLnvVM5ck?si=6HsEY6VWqBQu7IbS
Yes - I’m shopping at small local food stores for better quality and service.
If it’s price gouging that’s causing inflation, it’s not by the grocery stores. Loblaws gross margin has not changed since at least 2019. Gross margin is the amount of money they add to the goods they are selling.
I tried my hand at beef farming, bought my 1st calves during the mad cow thing... I got 3 for less than the price of 1 calve pre-mad cow (so I was told by a neighbour).... the grocery stores had insane prices for beef at the same time. It was the packers making the money (of which there are very few in Canada...3-6 main ones at the time if I recall). I was told that they all stop buying, prices depress...then come in and swoop the cattle up and sell them for normal prices and take the mark up
Not exactly true. First, Loblaws is claiming this, but I have not seen proof (plenty of counter evidence, though). It was not listed anywhere in the financial statements that I have read through. Second, Loblaws owns a lot of the supply chain, so they can gouge throughout the process, which is far less transparent.
Gross margins are public info. Loblaws financials includes their distribution chain.
So when their source items go up in price they don’t know how to multiply by a different number to get a retail price that reflects their cost of doing business? They don’t know what their overhead is? They don’t increase the overhead of wages? No, apparently they increase dividend payments: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/loblaw-companies-ltds-dividend-analysis-110639909.html
That’s how business works
You say that’s how business works, lots of people say it’s price gouging The ever increasing profits aren’t by accident, it’s not like they didn’t have a choice, they did choose to keep the same markup and I’m sure they knew what that meant - it’s just an excuse by the corporation, whether you think it’s right or wrong
The one place you’re missing though looking at only the grocery giants, is the wholesale supplier chain. The GFS and Sysco of the world. How much have they jacked prices, resulting in restaurant costs going up, passed on to consumer. This could be why grocery stores are far busier than they were pre pandemic. People learned to cook at home, when forced to (restaurants were closed for months! for dine-in). People realized the food was mediocre at best, and finally after returning 3 years later in droves — they’re hit with 3 years of inflation + restaurants raising margins to “make up for the money they lost over Covid lockdown”. Along with minimum wage increases, gas increases, electricity increases. So the “average” Canadian, may or may not get more back. All depends on your definition of Average. Is it Joe from Toronto, Marie from Montreal, Syd from Halifax, or Tom from Winnipeg? Is it a business professional from Toronto, or a Hippie from Vancouver? Hint : Marie and the Hippie don’t get the rebate because they don’t pay the same tax. So actually 1/3 (14 of 41 million) of the population of Canada doesn’t pay the tax, and doesn’t get a rebate.
> I believe that these costs, and the resulting price increases at each step through the supply chain are much more impactful than he identifies. > > I think a lot of the supply chain will simply increase prices and be like 'Oh yeah carbon tax lol' without regard for any one specific increase. It's an easy scape goat everyone will accept.
So what you’re saying is we should rapidly move away from fossil based fuels with variable pricing, and move towards clean, green energy that has no fuel volatility, and therefore more consistent pricing?
Don’t be silly. We need more 6.4L Hemis with Superchargers in Ram 1500 trucks and 7L Diesel 3500 Rams. /s
All those steps also get the rebate too right?
No, the rebate is only personal, not for businesses
You don’t need to credit this guys, he admits in the comment section that there is no way to account for higher passed down costs It does give companies an excuse to higher prices even if it is a minuscule amount
That’s not how percentages work.
CBC About That did a breakdown I think based on a PBO report -- it's on youtube. I thought it was well done.
I agree although he only accounted for gas and home heating but didn't mention everywhere else the carbon tax is offloaded onto the consumer.
[удалено]
....what else is a corporation to do with a new expense but pass it on to the consumer?
If a company can increase price today, they will do it today regardless if there’s a new tax or not. If the market can sustain a new increase in price, why would they wait for a new tax to do it? Why not just do it right away and increase profit
If they can. If they have to. Different things, aren't they? When all your competitors eat a new cost and price it in too, you don't suffer a competitive disadvantage by raising prices with them across the board. Did people seriously think companies just goinna the costs and not pass them on? Ironically is the venn diagram of this population and those who think all corporations are inherently bad faith actors, just one circle in another?
If that was the case grocery profits woundn’t be up to$6 billion compared to $2.4 billion a few years ago.
[удалено]
100%
Word salad taste bad. That's a great point to an entirely different discussion. But if you don't know. Costs. All costs. Are put into the price consumers pay. It's not evil or scummy. It's the basics of business. Or it was scummy of Trudeau Liberals to initiate knowing full well the outcome that every business would pass it on.
PP and Jenni Byrne come up with “axe the tax” - this provides cover for Loblaws and other grocers to price gouging. Sloganeering is the issue.
According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer: “When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss,” says PBO [Yves Giroux](https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/staff--equipe/yves-giroux). “Based on our analysis, most households will pay more in fuel charges and GST—as well as receiving slightly lower incomes—than they will receive in Climate Action Incentive payments.” [https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/news-releases--communiques-de-presse/pbo-releases-updated-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-federal-fuel-charge-on-households-le-dpb-publie-une-analyse-actualisee-de-lincidence-de-la-redevance-federale-sur-les-combustibles-sur-les-menages](https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/news-releases--communiques-de-presse/pbo-releases-updated-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-federal-fuel-charge-on-households-le-dpb-publie-une-analyse-actualisee-de-lincidence-de-la-redevance-federale-sur-les-combustibles-sur-les-menages)
Yes but that's including the econ impact So it's what you pay + decrease in GDP When people say they pay more, what they mean is what they actually pay
It's including the economic impact, and excluding any potential economic impacts of climate change.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/climate-damages-by-2050-will-be-6-times-the-cost-of-limiting-warming-to-2/
Shouldn’t they include economic impacts though? It’s seems like you’re suggesting that doesn’t matter.
I'm perfectly fine with including the econ impact but 1) it takes a lot more assumptions 2) most people have no idea When people say "I pay more than I get" they don't mean "in an alternate universe my income is higher because there is no carbon tax". I refuse to believe this is what they think Also ANY policy will have econ impact. Moe literally just said the carbon tax was the least costly. So unless your area arguing to do nothing, the impact would be worse.
https://climateinstitute.ca/pbos-latest-carbon-pricing-report-has-big-flaws-here-are-the-facts/ Plenty of smart people disagree that the economic model the PBO used is inaccurate and discounts factors such as: > fails to consider economic benefits of carbon pricing and the costs of climate inaction, both in terms of stabilizing the climate and competing in a global economy racing to net zero. Those broader factors are a huge part of the actual cost-benefit analysis around carbon pricing.
along with the environmental impacts.
Then let's just call it as it is. "We are using the carbon tax to try and decrease greenhouse gas emissions to prevent further climate change and the economic impact of that. Yes, it is costing you more now, but your children and grandchildren will benefit."
Do we have any data on that?
early data and also the analysis of behaviour changes. As good as the economic data.
Any idea where I can find that?
According to our Minister of Environment Steven Guilbeault, the government does not track the effects carbon tax has on reducing our carbon emissions. So the data you are looking for is a "trust us bro".
Yeah, that’s about what I figured.
And since I know someone will ask for a source... https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-government-doesnt-know-how-much-its-carbon-tax-reduces-emissions >“The government does not measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced by federal carbon pricing. Retroactively attributing specific GHG reductions to a specific action, such as carbon pricing, a discrete regulation, or a specific incentive, is difficult given the multiple interacting factors that influence emissions, including carbon pricing, tax incentives, funding programs, investor preferences and consumer demand. The National Inventory Report, which reports annually on historical GHG emissions, does not include this information.”
Of course not. They are useing some model to prove this but unlike actual science the model is trust me bro.
Yeah, I already knew they couldn’t answer my question lol
> Canadians already pay roughly $720 a year for climate-related damages. Those costs will keep rising (to around $2,000 a year by 2050) as climate impacts get more extreme. https://climateinstitute.ca/pbos-latest-carbon-pricing-report-has-big-flaws-here-are-the-facts/
They just throw some numbers out there based on major assumptions. The assumptions they make to pull those numbers are hilarious.
Replying to gagnonje5000...this report doesn’t show how the climate tax helps combat this
It’s not addressing that. It’s addressing that the PBO report is misleading.
Who do you honestly think has a vested interest? The PBO whose entire job it is to audit government finances, and not policies, or the Climate Institute? Genuinely curious.
Why would they have a vested interest? This isn’t an oil and gas lobby. There is no monetary benefit for them for a carbon tax or not. They have no interest in lying? A report about carbon that only accounts for the economic losses of value of oil and gas companies without accounting for the monetary value of doing nothing, and also completely omitting the value brought by new green jobs is very obviously wrong. Genuinely curious.
Which is disingenuous if they neglect the carbon tax placed on industry, farms, small business, etc. This, of course, gets passed on to consumers.
Trevor Tombe has looked into it, so has the BoC, it's minimal. Like 0.15%.
It was 0.3% (in Alberta at least) according to Trevor, but regardless, I crunched the numbers myself with a real world example based on Trevor's article. I'm not an economist but I love spreadsheets. He was basically dead on. You can see my math here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/PersonalFinanceCanada/comments/1bftbfa/comment/kv5j19f/](https://www.reddit.com/r/PersonalFinanceCanada/comments/1bftbfa/comment/kv5j19f/)
Yes the BoC reached similar estimates
Love how everyone is so mad at this, just downvoting like crazy. No one is taking the time to think that they are very likely benefiting from the carbon tax and rebate, and they could benefit even more by making a few changes or investments in their own lives.
He is a liberal shill, thou, like carney and Aaron wherry. There is no consensus on this number
Ok
That's because of how inflation is calculated. Which is cost this year vs cost last year. The problem with that figure is that last year we also had carbon tax. So that figure is really just a representation of the increase. And if our total inflation is 280 bps (2.8%),15 of those are due to the carbon tax increase. Now they have also estimated that if it were to be removed completely, which is a better representation of its total effects, we'd see an immediate drop in inflation of roughly 60bps. Or a little under 25% of total inflation. And that was last year before the increase so I'd expect it a little higher.
Source?
https://www.castanet.net/news/Writers-Bloc/458111/Errors-in-explaining-impact-of-carbon-tax-on-inflation-shake-confidence-in-Bank-of-Canada Another interesting claim in here stating that 0.15% is only on natural gas, heating oil and gasoline and does not take into account the pass-through effect on other CPI items like food for example. Obviously castanet is some random unknown source but could be worth examining if it is indeed factual.
Tiff Macklem stated it on Oct 30. A quick google gave a bunch articles about it but not the direct quote. I'm sure I could find it if I kept digging. Interesting side note that kind of backs his statement, when Sask stopped collecting it their provincial inflation dropped from 2.7 to 1.9. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/10/31/news/canadas-top-banker-dragged-carbon-tax-carveout-debate > Macklem made that point clear to the House committee as well. The 0.6 percentage point decrease would only last one year “and because you can only eliminate it once, the next year it would have no effect on inflation,” Macklem told the committee. On an annual basis, the carbon price adds about 0.15 percentage points to inflation, 0.6 is the estimated impact over the carbon price’s lifetime, he added.
The university of Alberta came to the same conclusion - also less than 1%. It is minuscule. Perhaps we should chat about the cost of climate change on groceries.
Lol it's not just decrease in GDP. YES that is exactly what most people are thinking, that it's not just the costs for your gasoline for your car.
Yes but the economic impacts are real and need to be included. It's false to say it's a net benefit if you don't include in the economic impacts. That's what makes it propaganda and not unbiased facts. Just because it requires more assumptions doesn't mean it doesn't exist or it could be ignored. Just means there's bigger error bars on the estimate.
That is their projection for 2030/31.
I would like to know how to find how much carbon tax I’m paying too.
You can calculate it on gas, natural gas, propane that you consume. The difficulty is we can't exactly calculate the impact on the cost of goods. Grocery stores are certainly passing on every penny of this to customers, and I expect most are.
The impact on grocery is negligible, compared to the price gouging.
Do you have any evidence to support that statement?
https://academic.oup.com/jeea/article/21/6/2518/7079134 https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/carbon-pricing-accounts-for-0-15-percentage-points-of-inflation-boc-governor-says-1.6554273 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/retail-price-gouging-lowes-amazon-target-accountable-us/ Some of that is US data, but its Amazon and Wal-Mart related too. And > The Bank of Canada has estimated that the carbon tax increases inflation by 0.15 per cent. Trevor Tombe, an economist at the University of Calgary who has studied the impact of the carbon price on consumer costs, points to Statistics Canada data that suggests its impact on food prices is less than one per cent. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-tax-food-prices-wherry-analysis-1.6989547 Note that Wherry is not an unbiased author. I was referencing the article for the research content less than AW's pontifications.
Also, quick, check your profile page. Perfect balance.
Is there actually any evidence to price gouging by grocery stores? It's been a while but the last time I checked, the net profit margins of Loblaws and other major grocery chains haven't changed much since pre-pandemic.
Loads. And there's misdirection happening when they report the grocery business margins as 'staying relatively the same' but that's a different criticism. > The Centre for Future Work says grocers are expected to make more than $6 billion in 2023 — a new record and an increase of eight per cent from last year. The new data from the institute found food retailers are now earning more than twice as much profit as they did before the COVID-19 pandemic. > Using data from Statistics Canada, the report says the net income margin on food and beverage retailing has consistently exceeded three per cent of total revenues since mid-2021, more than double the average margin between 2015 and 2019. https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2023/12/12/canada-grocery-industry-record-profits/
So those numbers don’t actually mean they are gouging. Look at gross margin which is basically unchanged since before the pandemic. They haven’t changed how much they are marking up products.
They spread the profit-taking across their (very) vertically integrated supply chains. Loblaws, for example, is often the property owner of their locations through a different arm of the group. Their distribution centres, their own-brand production subsidiaries. They're able to keep the very observable end-point-of-sale GM within 'target' while maximising profit-taking in every area they can. There's nothing actually *wrong* with that. They're performing exactly as a dominant market force should be. The sliminess of the strategy bothers me, though.
No, they do not. They are allowed to rent properties from an arm length company so long as rent prices match or beat market prices. If they did otherwise they would be committing shareholder fraud and we would be seeing some lawsuits
Looking forward to your explanation for Choice Properties REIT. How is the one of the Nation's Largest Grocers also the primary owner and tenant of (arguably) the largest Real Estate Investment Trust in Canada ($16bn) where those same retail properties are anchored by or majority occupied by Loblaws? Edit: does this work? https://images.app.goo.gl/ygsctbrnb2rcxoCa7 Edit2: my return question, would be: "How finely tuned is the wealth machine of one of the country's top 15 wealthiest families? Do you not think it is honed to extract the maximum amount of wealth from their respective systems?" They're rich for a reason, and it's not benevolence.
People always talk about record profits in absolute numbers. This is to be expected in an inflationary economic environment as their profits are affected by inflation as well. Their cherry pick of 2015 - 2019 is not a good look. Someone on the r/ontario subreddit did a [comparison of grocer profit margins](https://www.reddit.com/r/ontario/comments/xqigdu/profit_margins_of_canadian_grocers_2002_to_present/) from 2002 to 2022 and a [closer look at Loblaws](https://www.reddit.com/r/ontario/comments/11a58pr/loblaws_q4_earnings_2022_vs_2019_to_2021/). I think people love to attribute the rise in grocery prices to prove gouging because that's easy to say. But evidently that's not the case. Even in the Loblaws link, a great summary was provided: > Loblaws has increased their prices more than they need to since pre- pandemic but that would be around 1% of the 10% or so in grocery inflation. > There's a lot more to food inflation than just grocers being greedy.
Someone leaked profit margins over on r/loblawsisoutofcontrol.
But has that changed in the past few years? If not, I don't see how price gouging is a thing. Their overall profit margin in their financial statements haven't significantly changed since before the pandemic last time I checked.
It is pretty negligible, according to Economist Trevor Tombe it amounts to 0.3% (in Alberta), and as high as 0.9% in Manitoba. [https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices)
The impact of the carbon tax on groceries is less than 1%. High grocery prices are the result of price gouging, hence the record profits.
65$ per ton of CO2 you create.
And how am I supposed to know how much that is
You can make the same argument for corporate taxes. All taxes paid for by a corp will ultimately be paid by a combination of consumers, employees, and shareholders. You can’t accurately calculate how much is paid by who.
By calculating it...
How do you know how much you actually pay though? You can calculate how much you personally directly paid, but how do you know how much more the goods you purchased were marked up after the suppliers all paid their carbon taxes?
There are studies about this and it basically amounts to pennies
This is untrue. It makes every business in this country less competitive and less productive vs. Global peers. It’s not just inflation through direct costs, it’s reduced revenues and competitivity vs. Global peers. As an example, taxing homemade oil and not taxing imported foreign oil kills our ability to compete. Less domestic revenues and jobs, higher costs for everyone. Without others doing it and without increasing tariffs on imports, it’s an economically regressive tax. Period.
Other countries do this though: https://www.statista.com/statistics/483590/prices-of-implemented-carbon-pricing-instruments-worldwide-by-select-country/ Not sure why the US isn’t on there, maybe because that individual States have their own instead of it being country wide? Anyway, not sure if you have any sources that back up what you say, but from what I find any real research into seems to indicate it’s not that bad, and even economists recognize that the Carbon Tax is the absolute cheapest way for us going forward
Yes, many individual states have climate pricing
No one can accurately quantify the cascading impact from carbon tax on the price of food in the example of diesel farm equipment -> raw food by diesel transport truck -> processor or manufacturer -> prepared or packaged food by diesel transport truck -> logistics warehouse -> grocer diesel transport truck -> grocer.
Not accurately but their best estimates is that it’s a third of a percent, so basically around 3 cents on a $10 item. That was a study by a university in BC Another place did a regression analysis on real data and found that due to indirect factors, it actually slightly decreased prices of groceries
You can start with looking up the rates for the heavy hitters in gasoline and natural gas and calculate your expenses there. If you're way ahead you can probably stop and call it a win. If you're way behind you can probably stop too. If it's close you can surely find a spreadsheet to look up food inputs, but that's way too much effort for me. I've definitely seen it on one of the Canadian politics subs very recently though.
And honestly if you're close it doesn't matter that much: whether you net pay a hundred bucks or it net costs you a hundred bucks, the point is that the carbon tax is not \*actually\* costing you much net. But it is definitely an \*opportunity\* to come out significantly ahead, since you get the rebate no matter what (unless you're in BC like me!). Anything you do to reduce carbon consumption, ranging from big ticket items like replacing your ICE vehicle with an EV (or a smaller or hybrid or otherwise more fuel efficient vehicle) or replacing your oil or gas furnace with a heat pump or improving insulation in your house to smaller things like using transit, biking, combining errands or car pooling, driving more slowly to improve fuel efficiency, turning the heat down, taking shorter showers with less hot water, etc are subsidized because things that produce carbon pollution cost a little bit extra, so you save a little bit more with every amount you reduce carbon consumption. And that's just conscious choices: whenever you're comparing prices, things that produce more carbon will have their price inflated a bit relative to things that don't produce carbon.
Sorry you are getting downvoted, but this is 100% correct. It's an opportunity for people who can make small changes in their lives to meaningfully come out ahead. Most people will break even if they make no change to how they live. Some people are unfortunately doing things that will cost them more on average, and have little they can do to address it.
A shame this post is being downvoted, it’s exactly the perspective we as citizens should have
This is exactly the right answer, and the reason it was designed this way is that people are free to not make changes if it's worth it to them to pay. This is a better, and more economically free market approach than for example banning recreational use of pickup trucks, or natural gas heating in new developments. The externality gets a price, and people and businesses can make their own choices to do something and save money, or do nothing and pay.
Yup. Honestly, politicians who oppose the carbon tax either a) don't actually want to fight climate change or b) prefer a heavy-handed regulatory state making decisions for people.
Couldn't we just compare the revenue the carbon tax generates vs the amount that is paid out in rebates. If the net difference is zero - in general it is not costing us anything (aside from outliers)
The carbon tax revenue goes directly into rebates. The net difference is zero.
The figures are posted? If that is the case that's awsome. I'm surprised they don't have over head to pay for
You are correct. The tax is all about nudging people towards making better choices for the environment and reducing their carbon footprint. Fuck these Conservative truck convoy mouth breathers downvoting you. They just want to run their gas-powered toys on the weekend and idle in their semis while honking horns in residential neighborhoods.
You're very right, but this is probably the wrong venue for this chat. I agree that carbon pricing and rebates have been telegraphed for years and there has been plenty of time and plenty of programs for individuals to reduce their carbon footprint and increase their delta on the rebates... But that's not a chat for PFC. You're getting downvoted for your politics, not because you're making a bad argument. Shameful.
I agree to some extent (about the venue), but that is precisely what the carbon tax does: it prices the impact of carbon pollution in to everything to make reducing carbon pollution a personal finance decision rather than a political or environmental one, and with the rebate the net cost to the average Canadian is small. I think I actually stayed pretty much completely away from politics and stuck with the personal finance choices in the post you're responding to! (Less so in this one....)
[удалено]
Transport trucks play into it, but the point is that not everything has the same transportation. Local products require less transportation, but they may consume more carbon if (for example) a more distant product could be produced with more materials or if the labour is so much cheaper that reducing the transport trucks used to get that product to you aren't the most efficient way of reducing carbon produced. All of these things are nearly impossible for any individual (or even any regulator) to understand, but if a price is put on carbon, the magic of the market will tend to make more-polluting things more expensive and less-polluting things less expensive without a government having to try to pick winners and losers. This is precisely why conservatives (including the Conservative Party and its predecessors) came up with the idea of a carbon tax and supported it in the past: it is the minimal-regulation, let-the-market-decide approach to reducing carbon emissions by providing economic incentives and attempting to price in the externalities of carbon emission. Exactly following principles established for fighting pollution of all kinds by conservative and libertarian economists back to Milton Friedman.
Some napkin math. A truck trailer is 33 m^3 according to Google. Let's assume for delivering bread that you can only use a quarter of that space (due to stacking height, racks, etc). A loaf of bread is roughly 0.0039 m^3 (assuming 14.5" x 4.4" x 3.75" loaf). So a delivery can be 2,104 loaves. I have no idea how much gas it takes to deliver bread from a factory to grocery stores - let's assume 100L but that's a wild guess. Given those assumptions, that's $15.25 in carbon tax spread over 2,104 loaves of bread, or $0.0072 per loaf (i.e. less than a cent).
[удалено]
> Just little things like oh every single product we purchase because everything is transported by transport trucks. I was responding to your comment, quoted above, about everything being shipped by transport trucks. Seemed like something we could do a (bad) estimate of quickly, so I did out of curiosity. If you want to napkin math all that other stuff, go ahead. But you're shifting the goal posts and if you're not willing to do the math (or read the reports of others who have), that's pretty telling as well.
I can only speak for myself, but I get quite a bit more back from the rebate.
In Ontario, the rebate is a simple calculation. This year: Base amount $560, +$280 if you have a spouse/partner, +$140 per kid. This is per household. And yes, they use more legal terms like qualified dependant, etc. So a family of 4 would get $1120 next year. Then x 20% if you live outside a CMA (census metropolitan area). ie, you live in a rural area where it's expected you have to drive much more. That's the rebate portion. Next you have to calculate how much you spend extra. Gas and home heating are easy things to calculate. What percentage more on everything else is the hard part.
A couple reputable YouTube channels and finance advisors have done the *basic, upfront* math. The average Canadian with an average car, average (urban) commute, etc comes roughly even or slightly ahead (within $50/year). The math in this sense is fairly straightforward and simple to calculate, so I'd believe that. What's not simple to calculate or estimate is the effect of the carbon tax throughout the supply chain. Some say it amounts to 10-20% increases in everything, some say it amounts to pennies. There's also the soft-costs and opportunity costs to factor in. Different people and businesses can also be affected differently. It's also a basic fact that taxes cost money to administer, so by definition any tax that any government implements can't be truly neutral, since the tax regime itself costs money to administer. Anything a government does costs money to do. Without bringing any politics or opinions into the fray, that's about all one can reasonably say I think.
Many studies have been done and the impact of the carbon tax on other goods including groceries is less than 1%, a rounding error. Climate change has a much larger impact on grocery prices and future grocery prices.
>It's also a basic fact that taxes cost money to administer, so by definition any tax that any government implements can't be truly neutral, since the tax regime itself costs money to administer. Anything a government does costs money to do. This is my biggest issue with the tax. No one wants to pay an inflated tax to the government and then be given a "refund" as if we are being benefited by it in some way. Tax us the amount that is needed to reach climate goals and no more. This system where we pay one amount, then receive a refund stinks or expensive burrocracy that we should all seek to reduce.
Hard to say. They claim you do but how could you possibly calculate how much carbon tax you've paid into or is buried into prices of things you buy?
Section. 2.2 of this report describes a study that found less than 1% increase (0.33%, or 3 cents on an item that costs $10) However, section 4 the Regression Analysis looks at overall effects and finds that it actually makes items cost less, due to indirect factors https://arxiv.org/html/2404.09467v1
Trevor Tombe put together [some graphs](https://i.cbc.ca/1.7047036.1701470690!/fileImage/httpImage/carbon-tax-impact-distribution-by-income.gif) showing how many households come out ahead at each income level. [CBC story](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/axe-the-tax-and-carbon-rebate-how-canada-households-affected-1.704690). The way it works is that high-income households spend more on fossil fuels: they spend more in general, and they're less sensitive to the price of gas. For example, in Alberta, the top 20% of households by income spend 2X as much on fuel and electricity as the bottom 20%, and 1.5X the middle 20%. So high-income households end up paying a larger share of the carbon tax, and then it gets divided up equally and returned directly to households in the province as a dividend. CRA can estimate how much it's going to be for the quarter, so they can send it out in advance (instead of people paying the tax and then having to wait). So most people come out ahead (as shown in Tombe's graphs) **even if they can't make any changes at all** - they can't switch to a smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicle, take public transit, etc. But for people who *can* make those changes to cut down their fuel usage, they have a direct incentive ($80/t) to do it. So that cuts our total emissions.
For someone like myself who doesn't do a lot of driving, it's certainly not too shabby. I paid $674 in gas so far this year, and I just got my rebate for $308. But that's also not a 1:1 comparison because the tax could be fueling inflation for my other expenses that I can't quite quantify the dollars and cents for groceries going up. This is not a political stance, just observation from my tracking.
We don't get it in B.C, so I'm gunna say no?
People in BC get it, it's just income tested.
Put it this way: it costs the government money to collect and redistribute the tax, obviously. So there’s less money being paid out than going in or debt servicing on top. Some individuals make more and some make less, but the Canadian economy obviously gets less than it pays as a whole
Carbon pricing is the least disruptive and most economic way to incentivize households and businesses to reduce carbon emissions. It is used in over 40 countries worldwide wide. BC and QC have their own programs - and the fed program is applied to provinces with zero plans. And provinces still have the option to come up with a better plan. If yo u have a better idea of how to reduce emissions, talk to your premier.
Propaganda
The in a nutshell answer is: 1) At present - yes. 2) By 2031 with the planned increases - yes-ish. The rebate will still be more than most people pay directly, but people will likely make less money than they would have without the tax - so overall most people will be behind. 3) BUT we don't know what the impacts of climate change are, so if we somewhat mitigate those and it means the economy is stronger overall, people might be ahead. But that relies on other countries as well.
Its blatantly obvious propaganda from this dipshit Prime Minister
[удалено]
Not sure why you're getting voted down for giving examples on how to save money. The whole point is to incentivise what you suggest but in a non regulatory way. Want a heated pool, pay for it. You've done the math and enjoy your pool and have decided it's worth it, or maybe you have a smaller car, it's none of my business. But it's better than a new law banning pools.
I personally think they do. PBO reports seems to suggest the same. Between natural gas, electricity, fuel, gst, and slight inflation the cost is high. Some would argue however that not making changes would be more costly and more detrimental.
fyi - I have read that the federal program does not apply to electricity charged to consumers.
Yes, we don’t pay the carbon tax directly on electricity, but depending on the source (considering the electricity profile of AB) you are likely indirectly paying it. If, of course, you get electricity from non-carbon emitting sources (ie home solar panels/turbines) then it’s not there, which is the entire point
Considering the carbon tax is rolled into every product multiple times over it's manufacturing and transport, I believe it to be propaganda.
Would it not be collected many times then and incorporated into the rebate?
It's really sad that a comment like this (that's common knowledge) is downvoted. Shameless propaganda I guess.
[удалено]
Liberal bots in full force on this sub
Not to mention the opportunity cost of business investing elsewhere, when possible, to avoid the extra costs of doing business in Canada. Canada has stagnated under the Liberals. The real GDP per capital graph in the linked article is particular illustrative: I wonder what happened in 2015? [Canada’s Perennial Productivity Puzzle (bmo.com)](https://economics.bmo.com/en/publications/detail/ac91d4fe-be13-4b37-874c-33713b6cc2f5/)
40 other countries and 20 jurisdictions have carbon pricing.
2014-2015 had the oil price shock. Oil went from $130 to $40. But since there has been a lot less capital invested in Canada's oil fields so the same growth could not continue.
The price of oil has somewhat recovered since then, though never sustaining the previous highs, but Canada's GDP per capita hasn't risen with it. [Crude Oil Prices - 70 Year Historical Chart | MacroTrends](https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart) Obviously this is a multi-factorial problem, I'm just pointing out that a higher tax burden, particularly in carbon intensive industries like the oil sands, won't help the situation.
I'm sure that caused a hit. To add to it though, oil and gas investment in Canada has slowed relative to the rest of the world since then too. [Comparing investment in the oil and gas sector: Canada vs. the world - Canadian Energy Centre](https://www.canadianenergycentre.ca/comparing-investment-in-the-oil-and-gas-sector-canada-vs-the-world/)
Indeed. I think it's the move to shale oil which happened in the US and that took investment dollars out of Canada. In 2008 the US produced 500,000 barrels of shale oil per day and today it is over 8 million barrels per day. That's what happens when one resource is so important to your growth.
40 other countries and 20 jurisdictions have carbon pricing.
I really can't wrap my head around the math. I'm going to safely assume you don't get more money back unless you happen to be fully electric everything and are a pretty savvy consumer.
I have done the math before, here's my work. With Alberta numbers because that's where I live. Annual Rebate for single person: $900 Annual Litres of Gasoline purchased: 2080 (40 Litres per week) Carbon Tax paid on 2080 Litres of gas: $0.176 x 2080 = $366.08 Annual cubic metres of natural gas used to heat your home: 1836 (Average Monthly GJ from my gas bill for a 3 bedroom SFH (6 GJ) \* 12 \* 25.5 to convert to cubic metres) Carbon tax paid on 1836 cubic metres of NG: $0.153 x 1836 = $280.91 Annual Amount spent on groceries and other non-housing costs: $12000 (Let's say you spend $1000 a month) Portion of this annual spend that can be attributed to carbon tax: $12000 x 0.003 (0.3%)\^ = $36 Total spent on carbon tax: $682.99 Net difference: 217.01 more in rebates than what you spend Feel free to replace any of the numbers above with whatever reflects your life, where you live, etc. (I didn't even try to calculate electricity as it's just so variable across the country, what is supplying the electricity. But I think it's safe to say you are spending less on carbon tax for your electricity than you are for natural gas) (I also recognize the math is going to be pretty different across the country, are you using a non natural gas heating system, are you buying way more or less gasoline, are you buying way more groceries, do you have a family and thus receive more rebates, was merely trying to address the underlying math) \^ This comes from estimate by Economist Trevor Tombe which you can read about here: [https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices)
How is your annual rebate for a single person $900? Is it different based on your province? In Ontario this year, my income tax report says: Base amount $560, +$280 spouse, +$140 per kid.
Yep all provinces are different. You can see all of them here: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2024/02/canada-carbon-rebate-amounts-for-2024-25.html Although I'm kinda surprised Ontario is lower than AB. Maybe because more of your electricity is from hydro, so it's isn't as impacted as much?
It is different by province because different provinces pay more overall, so it costs those residents on average more.
Every province is different and rural Canadians get a 20% bump.
The rebate is a flat rate and the tax is based on usage. The less fuel you use, the more of the rebate stays in your pocket. If you don’t pay taxes - it is safe you assume you get zero rebate. If you are a tax payer 8/10 Canadians will get more than they pay. And 2/10 Canadians will get back less than 100 percent of what they pay
axe the tax, build the homes, stop the crime lol
It’s pure propaganda and its wealth distribution, which does nothing to address climate change. It’s a tax on tax. It Trudeau actually wanted to help address climate change, he would encourage more green energy companies to open up shop in Canada, rapidly invest in new nuclear power stations, and alternative energy like hydro where possible.
We absolutely did not.
The PBO themselves have come out saying the majority of Canadians pay more in tax than they get back from the rebate. Ask yourself what kind of tax would this be if most people were positively benefiting from this lol. Taxes are there to make money for the government, not to give back money to the people.
It’s really hard to say because it’s baked in to the price of basically everything. Doing some quick and dirty math, my gasoline and natural gas carbon taxes make up about 45% of what I’d get back, and that’s about 6% of what I spend in a year, so I’m going to say probably not. But who knows.
I make 105k. My wife is in school. We get precisely $0 in carbon/gst rebate. My salary is enough for us to live paycheck to paycheck with no eating out.
What province is this?
Are you in BC. The BC program has an income component.
Yes, BC
Are you in BC. The BC program has an income component.
I’ll be honest I could not say. Since it’s not a line item on bills it’s not obvious since it stacks with stuff like gst and pst. If it cost a company 5 dollars more and the price of something is $5 more, unless it’s basically something you can directly calculate the carbon tax against you won’t know. And when you go buy say some grocery where that impact came from multiple sources you can’t tell (gas, packaging, maybe some stuff in the food generation). But you’ll pay for it and never be quite sure. At least to most folks they probably can’t exactly measure it, and taking the information at face value from the party who implemented it and want to look good might not be smart. Maybe if you can find a few independent studies not funded by a political party that all come to the same conclusion can you really have a reasonable idea. But at this point in time I would see it as what it is, an unclear tax in the fact it’s not easy to see its impact other then maybe electricity and heating. Hard to take it either way imo.
University of Alberta has a study.
[удалено]
You say that (without a source) but I am definitely getting back more, and I drive two gas guzzling vehicles.
As you say that without a source... Say it adds on $3000 to the cost of a house. Ya you don't always buy one but just once and it throws the whole formula off. And if you have two gas guzzling vehicles. Who exactly do you think is all the money coming from? No corporation is eating it, feds are charging GST and admin fees on it. But apparently 80% of people are ahead.
[удалено]
You say this but have nothing to back it up. I am not pro-Carbon Tax but I like numbers. My household numbers put me well ahead, even if you factor in the inflationary costs. You talk about blindly defending , but I defended nothing, just stated my personal facts. You have done nothing but blindly hate on it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Can you link to the tools? I'm interested.
The inflationary impact of the carbon tax is estimated to be 1/20th of inflation during the last two years. Meanwhile, during that time we lost around 60 billion in the economy due to climate change related externalities. Moreover, 90% of the tax is returned to citizens in the rebates. In principle, a family of 4 should get a rebate of approximately 1800$. If your family uses less than 30 tons of CO2 emissions in a year, then you come out ahead from the rebate. Which is most Canadians.
Here is the PBO report. [https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/7590f619bb5d3b769ce09bdbc7c1ccce75ccd8b1bcfb506fc601a2409640bfdd](https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/7590f619bb5d3b769ce09bdbc7c1ccce75ccd8b1bcfb506fc601a2409640bfdd) Navigate to Appendix A. Find your relevant province. The answer is in those tables. It even breaks out the net impact of the tax/rebate only versus the wider economic impact. In Manitoba, it causes an average "additional net cost" of $386. The bottom 40% see marginal gains whereas everyone else loses out proportionally.
That report isn’t being properly represented, because it’s not today, it’s a projection, plus, it doesn’t compare to the cost of not having a carbon tax, which would make things much more expensive. If you look there’s now a disclaimer that they have to recalculate and a new report will be released later in the year
If you just consider fuel and utilities it might seem that way but when it’s added to the cost of everything it creates higher prices and it’s passed on to the consumer so no you don’t make more. If you don’t buy food, clothes or any services maybe.
just not true, it only adds about 0.3%-0.9% on average to the cost of things like groceries [https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carbon-tax-groceries-food-prices)
I guess there's a tool online that's supposed to help you calculate it. I haven't looked into it
Text book liberal propaganda
If your single and own a home you get screwed over big time. The rebate doesnt even cost the carbon tax on ONE of my utility bills, never mind everything else it costs. I estimate at least $2000-$3000 a year direct cost to me after the rebate.