As for the problem of decreased revenue if the plan is as effective as hoped, this is a false concern. If priced accordingly, then the reduction of emissions reduces a corresponding amount of gov expenses for things such as health care. Do things go out of whack if you live in Windsor and the US does nothing? Short term yes, as you’ll still have to deal with whatever blows across, but long term the US will change and by that time Canada will have a strong technical and experience edge on related technologies allowing us to sell to them insead of vice versa. Time for some value investing, lead the market instead of being led by the market.

Just my 2cents.

Apologies if I misconstrued.

Sticking strictly to the math then:

If your family members are saving $150 per month that’s very attractive. At the same time, it required them to pay $12,000 (after rebates) up front. It’s not simply good enough to say 12,000 /150 / 12 = 6.67 years (which is how long it would take them to pay back the cost of their renos)…

…we also have to factor in the opportunity cost of paying $12k up front. Assuming that they had the cash to pay $12k up front and didn’t use a HELOC or some other borrowing instrument at interest rates between 4.75% and 19% or so, they still could have invested that $12,000 and earned a return on it. Let’s say they could have earned a conservative 6.5%. Based on my calculations they would have earned about $5,000 in interest over 6.67 years (roughly). That brings the total TRUE cost of the renos back up to around $17,000. My logic gets a little fuzzy here but that makes the total time to pay off the renos at 9.44 years.

Someone smarter than me would probably be able to give you a more accurate breakdown of this, but the truth is that the real costs of the renos have to include opportunity cost and cost of borrowing (if they borrowed to do it). Don’t forget depreciation on the furnace (especially if the current one had any usable life left).

Usually with things like this the marginal utility of doing the reno and “saving the planet” has to make up for the fact that it’s not cost effective to do it. Prius owners buy them ’cause it’s a badge of honour – not because it saves you money.

And you missed the fact I was giving a hypothetical example about the future, ie. something better than available today…. and instead took it as a personal attack on “what you can understand” means you totally missed the entire point of the post. The whole point of that last line was to emphasize it was a very simplified example of the future and not to be taken literally, but thanks for trying!

You might as well buy a bunch of $20 toasters and run around pushing the plunger down. That way you’ll always feel warm (and get some exercise too!) Just don’t exhale, we wouldn’t want your carbon footprint to go up.

Thanks for simplifying my post for me. Unlike your apparent view, I assume that the readers of this board can think for themselves and understand simple logic. Don’t you think it’s a bit condescending to decide for everyone else what they can (and can’t) understand?

Not even touching the environmental issues, you’re choosing -> Here Mr. Gov, take my money and do whatever you want with it.

I’m choosing -> Install a super high efficiency furnace from some Canadian startup and say “Nooo Mr. Gov, you’re not going to get my money today”. And then I’m going to buy stock in said company with my extra cash and watch it grow.

Again, simplified so others can hopefully understand this time around…

Have a look at the recent fiscal monitor, in case you never do:
http://www.fin.gc.ca/FISCMON/2008-07e.html

Almost 2/5th of the Canadian Government revenues comes from our hard earned wages – so anything to reduce that gets my vote.

Something needs to be done? You don’t even know what this will achieve, if anything.

Fight pollution, not carbon. We’d be dead without it!

Any complicated tax regime is bound for disaster in my books.

I like this 2-tier tax rate instead of 4

Also, why also add tax on heating people’s home??? Ummm… This is a necessity for us people. Canada has more cold months than warm months. People are required to heat their homes or they will get sick. I say no increase in tax on heating homes using natural gas.

The Libs Green Shift is just that – but the green (cash) shifts from Alberta to Ontario and Quebec. Why?

If the plan is to “tax the polluters” (never mind that CO2 isn’t a pollutant) then the hardest hit by the tax will be the industry in Alberta that provides energy to a good chunk of the country.

If the balance to that is the lower income taxes to individuals, the biggest benefit goes to Ontario and Quebec – the areas with the biggest population.

The equation = Tax Alberta and feed Ontario and Quebec. Robin Hood 101.

The Green Shift is nothing but a massive wealth transfer. It has even been admitted to by the Libs themselves.

“But at least one Ontario Liberal MP, Ken Boschcoff, has plainly stated that the Green Shift is a way to transfer money out of Alberta into the rest of Canada, with roughly $9 billion of the $15.3 billion collected each year returned to Canadians with annual incomes of less than $40,000.

Boschcoff called it “the most aggressive anti-poverty program in 40 years. The shift will transfer wealth from rich to poor, from the oil patch to the rest of the country, and from the coffers of big business to the pockets of low-income Canadians.”"

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=8bbf00fc-d0f0-4892-b981-7cb0cefe7ac8

Looks a lot like the NEP, doesn’t it?

Imagine how much wealth this country would have if income taxes were low, we were encouraged to save through TFSA and RRSPs and rather than shipping off primary resources to other countries to build stuff, we were a leader in technology and manufacturing of efficient products?

Hey Jon, fuel used for transportation is quite heavily taxed. To put this into perspective, when the dollars were at par and Canadians were paying $1.30 L (~$5.05 gallon), people in the US were complaining about the $4 / gallon they were paying. Also, there’s a reason Alberta doesn’t have provincial sales tax.

I think the bigger issue is whether or not we’re collecting enough taxes from polluting products to fund programs that offset the pollution. The answer is likely no.

Dion should have called it a pollution tax so the simple minded people would comprehend. Give your head a shake.

What’s easier to control in your life: How much take home pay you have (ie. your salary) or your fuel-consuming behaviours. Obviously the latter.

If the plan is effective in reducing environmental impact than tax revenue from it goes down, and therefore the social programs and tax cuts would have to as well.

The only way this plan works is if the targets are set so high that they can not be reached and thus the tax revenue can be counted on for a considerable time.

It’s still a bit of a stretch to call a plan revenue neutral when those that receive the money are not the same as those who paid it out, it might as well be called wealth redistribution.

@#32 Boyong – This is precisely the atitude thats keeps Canada back (and the States!!). “Teacher, I don’t want to to my homework because Billy didn’t have to…” Is that seriously the best excuse out there?? Do nothing because someone else isn’t?

But let’s look at the falsehood of the reasoning. No, taxing carbon does not make us less competitve. We’re ALREADY paying for it, just not immediately or directly. A simplified example: If a polluting cement plant in BC reduces its output, pollution goes down, health care costs in the nearby town go down, so BC gov’s health care costs go down, which means Fed transfer go down, which means less requirement for revenue and lower income taxes. If it doesn’t reduce pollution, then the carbon tax monies reimburse the Feds for the associated health care costs. Net effect on consumer = zero (averaged of course).

Now yes, governments have a tendancy not to give back money, so you could view it as “reduced requirement to increase taxes later” versus “reduce taxes now and then increase later” to future spending requirements. Net result in the same.

By far the best effect of this policy is that it strengthen’s Canadian industry in technologies of the future instead of subsidizing dying technology of the past. The dividends of that are incredible.