pull down to refresh

163 sats \ 6 replies \ @grayruby 5 May \ on: The Economics of Carbon Taxes, Canada Edition (FT, Simon Mundy) econ
Firstly, the notion that the rebate was full is debatable. Do you trust the government and their economists ability to accurately measure the true cost of carbon pricing on everything in the economy and rebate accordingly? I will take the under on that and like the CPI I am sure the guesstimate was in the government's favour.
Secondly, the consumer tax is cancelled but an industrial carbon tax is being put in it's place. Industrial price might end up costing the consumer less than the consumer price but there will be a cost borne by the consumer that we can be sure of.
write
preview
13 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 5 May
I'm guessing you didn't see it as a net benefit for your family?
These carbon taxes are usually sold as financially positive for the middle class, since they consume a disproportionately smaller amount of carbon compared to the wealthy, but any number of implementation details could change the reality on the ground.
reply
13 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 5 May
Certainly the rebates didn’t cover the amount cost of living increased but it’s impossible to gauge how much prices increased solely due to carbon taxes vs just increasing in general.
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 6 May
Just count one or two clear ones — gas and electricity, and compare to rebated amounts
reply
26 sats \ 2 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 5 May
the notion that the rebate was full is debatable. Do you trust the government and their economists ability to accurately measure the true cost of carbon pricing on everything in the economy and rebate accordingly? def no!
But I believe they just rebated whatever they raised in revenue, no? (which has/should have fairly objective paper trail)
reply
80 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 6 May
And, if that's what they did, this is closer to what the government is supposed to do, according to the externalities literature.
Normally, they just pocket the revenue from taxing bads, which obviously doesn't compensate whoever's harmed by the bads, it just reduces them closer to the socially optimal amount.
The way this stuff is really "justified" theoretically, is by measuring how much each individual is harmed by an externality, taxing the producer by the aggregate amount, and then giving that money to the harmed parties. The biggest problem with this is that it's metaphysically impossible to know how much those individuals are harmed. The lesser problem is that once you account for the costs of administering a realistic government process, it's no longer a net social benefit.
reply
59 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 6 May
Undisc brings the thuuuunder.
Yes, indeed.
reply