SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the people-voting-for-more-taxes dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
The defeat of carbon pricing in Washington State contrasts with its northern neighbor, where carbon taxes are now the rule.
The victory of climate change-denying Republican candidate Donald Trump was one of two big setbacks for U.S. climate policy earlier this month. The other was the resounding defeat of Washington State's Initiative 732, which sought to prove that using fees on carbon emissions to cut existing taxes could provide bipartisan appeal for what economists consider to be the most efficient mechanism to cut greenhouse gas emissions: carbon taxes.
Washington State rejected the idea of a carbon tax by 59 percent to 41. In sharp contrast, just across the world's longest border, carbon taxes are attracting politically diverse support. Four-fifths of Canadians will live in provinces with such taxes in 2017, and in 2018 all Canadians could be paying a carbon tax.
Both Washington State's defeated initiative and Canada's growing comfort with carbon pricing have their origins in North America's first carbon tax, which British Columbia's provincial government launched in 2008. The British Columbia tax started at C$10 (U.S.$7.40) per metric ton of carbon dioxide on fossil fuels consumed in the province, and it ratcheted up to C$30 per metric ton by 2012. The tax is revenue-neutral, with proceeds used to cut corporate and personal income taxes.
[Continues...]
Most academic studies find that British Columbia's tax is reducing carbon emissions by 5 to 15 percent without hurting economic growth, and that a special tax break to offset its impact on low-income families has succeeded. "The tax appears to be highly progressive," says Nicholas Rivers, an expert in energy and economic modeling at the University of Ottawa.
Likewise, the Washington tax was to start next year at $15 per metric ton (adding, for example, about 15 cents to every gallon of gasoline), then rise to $25 in 2018 and grow annually thereafter by a further 3.5 percent plus inflation until it reached $100 per ton. Revenues were to cut existing taxes and provide tax benefits for low-income families.
The initiative garnered strong grassroots support as well as endorsements from Democratic and Republican legislators, including former Republican Senator Slade Gorton and Joe Fitzgibbon, who chairs the state legislature's environment committee. But the Washington initiative was opposed by both fossil fuel interests as well as advocacy groups that favored spending carbon revenues on development projects to ensure a "just" transition to a low-carbon economy.
In Canada, meanwhile, politicians from all major parties are pushing carbon taxes nationwide. Last month Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his Liberal Party government will institute a national carbon tax plan in 2018. And last week a contender for leader of the official opposition in Parliament, Canada's Conservative Party, unveiled a more ambitious carbon tax.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RedGreen on Saturday November 26 2016, @12:22PM
There is no comfort here about it if anything there is a growing resignation that the government is about to thieve more of our money. And it is not like we do not already pay some of the highest taxes on the planet already gas is about two thirds tax in the price, you want a beer that will be 80% tax built into the price, cigarette if you are not fortunate enough to live near where the indians will sell it to you tax free that will be 90% if you don't mind, the list just goes on and on.... Meanwhile good luck getting a hydro or windmill project going without the professionally outraged showing up for their cut in the blackmail money they want spent on their pet causes.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday November 26 2016, @02:35PM
So you're saying that the statement that its revenue neutral is incorrect?
(Score: 2) by RedGreen on Saturday November 26 2016, @03:01PM
Yes I have yet to see anything the government does in the way of taxation be revenue neutral. Unless it is the times it is revenue negative in their never ending pandering to the corporate parasites. Meanwhile we get to live on the ever always decreasing scraps they throw off the table to us.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @03:02PM
Canadian gas tax is about 38% [petro-canada.ca] of the pump price, not 67%. Beer is about 50% [canadiandutycalculator.ca]. Cigarette tax is around 67% to 80%, the latter if you have to pay the Ontario $5/pack deterrent fee.
You are at least within a factor of two, so you've got that going for your argument.
(Score: 2) by RedGreen on Saturday November 26 2016, @09:19PM
"Cigarette tax is around 67% to 80%, the latter if you have to pay the Ontario $5/pack deterrent fee.
You are at least within a factor of two, so you've got that going for your argument."
And your full of shit I just bought cartons of smokes at $11 each that is $100 dollars in the store here. If I had wanted to go the extra 1000Km they can be had there for $8. The rest of your statement is the same as that one.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @12:44AM
You mean the rest of the comments that are backed with actual facts?
And for the cigarettes? Well, the amount you paid looks about right [nsra-adnf.ca], but not your $11 number. Get out your slide rule and you'll see the total tax is about 72%-ish across the provinces.
Bullshit, I know. Facts are troublesome things.
(Score: 2) by RedGreen on Sunday November 27 2016, @12:54AM
Idiot you can spout your useless web site I just did it week and half ago and that is what I paid now when I went to school 100 -11= 89. So I paid 11% of that $100 and 89 is close enough to 90 for me so fuck off.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen