Ottawa Introduces “National Energy Program: The Sequel”

Trudeau’s carbon tax.

Advertisements

Canada’s Import Laws and Taxes Are Dumb

At least that seems like a reasonable conclusion when it takes the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, a Federal Appeals Court, and the Supreme Court of Canada to figure out… whether this or that tax applies to imported hockey gloves.

This all revolved around the question of whether hockey gloves are gloves or “other articles of plastic.” Because despite the pretence of “free trade”, these categories of goods are taxed differently

Only in a country with dumb laws and dumb taxes is such a costly and ridiculous decision-making process possible for such a dumb issue.

— Read more at National Post — 

 

How Much Do We Subsidize Fossil Fuels?

Some people have a confused idea of what counts as a subsidy.

In the minds of anti-oil radicals, not collecting more taxes from fossil fuel producers and consumers is a subsidy to fossil fuels.

That’s like saying the government subsidizes you unless it taxes 100% of your income.

David Yager writes:

The notion that Canadian governments in some way subsidize the cost of the final product to consumers – as per the dictionary definition – is preposterous. According to PetroCanada the taxes on a liter of gasoline in Canada in 2015 above and beyond the cost of petroleum, refining and distribution included a federal excise tax of $0.10 per liter, GST/HST ranging from 5% to 15%, a $0.667 per liter carbon tax in B.C., and provincial fuels taxes ranging from $0.13 to $0.192 per liter. Similar direct fuel cost levies exist for diesel fuel. These can total 25% or more of the total cost or more depending on crude prices and where you live. It is estimated these fuel levies provide Ottawa and the provinces with $15 billion annually. This is on top of another $18 billion oil and gas producers paid to all levels of government in 2014 in the form of property taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes and producing royalties.

Some subsidy.

— Read more at EnergyNow

Notley Defends Her Beer Tax

By pointing to her new corporate welfare program for some Alberta brewers

(You get subsidies if you are small and stay small — that’s obviously helpful for one’s growth strategy!)

Should We Subsidize CO2?

Alberta’s NDP government passed its carbon tax law today.

Many agree that it is one of the stupidest taxes ever created, however even many arguments against the tax accept the basic premise that CO2 is a negative externality and “something must be done.”

But what if the premise underlying the tax — not to mention any other “climate change” policy — is wrong?

What if the social cost of carbon is negative — i.e. the net effects of carbon are positive?

A new paper by Dayaratna, McKitrick, and Kreutzer finds reason to believe this is justified by the empirical data:

Substituting an empirical ECS distribution from LC15 yields a mean 2020 SCC of $19.52, a drop of 48%. The same exercise for the FUND model yields a mean SCC estimate of $19.33 based on RB07 and $3.33 based on the LC15 parameters—an 83% decline. Furthermore the probability of a negative SCC (implying CO2 emissions are a positive externality) jumps dramatically using an empirical ECS distribution. Using the FUND model, under the RB07 parameterization at a 3% discount rate there is only about a ten percent chance of a negative SCC through 2050, but using the LC15 distribution, the probability of a negative SCC jumps to about 40%. Remarkably, replacing simulated climate sensitivity values with an empirical distribution calls into question whether CO2 is even a negative externality. The lower SCC values also cluster more closely together across difference discount rates, diminishing the importance of this parameter.

This all makes perfect sense, because there are non-climate effects of CO2 and they are extremely beneficial to the planet (plant growth, crop yield, human well-being). Furthermore, the climate effects of CO2 observed in the real world are far less damaging than what’s been predicted by the models of climate change propagandists — and these too are largely beneficial. On this, see Goklany’s Carbon Dioxide: The Good Newsfrom GWPF.

So using the logic of carbon tax advocates, since carbon provides us with overall benefits, we should subsidize carbon rather than tax it extra.

CONCLUSION

From the standpoint of economics and ethics, we should neither subsidize carbon nor tax it.

If you have a carbon tax, get rid of it. If you don’t have one but think you need one, forget it.

Carbon taxes are an abomination — they do nothing to improve the environment and exist only to plunder citizens so that politicians, central planners and cronies can enrich themselves.

The New York Times Recognizes that Taxation is Robbery

But only when ISIS does it.

To paraphrase a friend: “Only the NYT could write 2000 words about ISIS and not recognize that it is their preferred model.”

 

Election 2015: NDP and Liberals Want to Tax Stock Options 100%

Another day, another foolish campaign policy proposal.

This time, the NDP and Liberals have proposed one of their dumbest policies yet: 100% tax on stock options, instead of the usual 50%.

They think they are being clever and that this provides a clever way to “tax the rich,” but this proposal is pure failure and reveals disheartening ignorance among our would-be rulers.

If they do this, it is expected that corporations would be able to deduct stock options as expenses.

Net impact on government revenue? Virtually nothing, or less revenue overall.

Oops.

But what if they tax options at 100% and they disallow the deductions? Then won’t the Liberals and NDP prevail and get more money while sticking it to “rich” people?

Hardly. Stock based compensation would simply switch to deferred stock units, restricted stock units, or something similar.

The CFOs of companies sophisticated enough to have compensation plans with stock options are smarter than the lawmakers. Forget it.

This silly proposal also ignores the countless middle class taxpayers who get stock options as a meaningful chunk of their compensation. There are many companies where even the lowest level corporate grunt job gets stock options. This proposal would hurt the middle class and it’s delusional to think it would bring in more revenue.

What a bunch of fools.

— Read more at CBC.ca

%d bloggers like this: