The slogans “Axe the Tax” and “Build the Homes” resonate with major economic concerns of Canadians. The devil is in the details when we study the best way to implement effective taxation that accomplishes our need to address climate change and finance the building of the housing needed to address emergency homelessness in our country.
Aaron Wherry of CBC News reports that beneath the back-and-forth over the Liberal government's carbon tax and the Conservative leader's agenda, Justin Trudeau and Pierre Poilievre are also duelling over very different theories of change.
Much of what's wrong with the way things are can be traced, Poilievre suggests, to higher levels of federal spending under Trudeau. For Poilievre, that spending marked a particularly dramatic break with the past and with a historic consensus.
"Balancing the budget to keep inflation and interest rates low was the unanimous policy of all the major political parties at all levels of government for 30 years, right up to the radical departure [in 2015]," he said.
Wherry points out that if the way things were in 2015 is to be a point of reference, it's equally fair to note how much higher greenhouse gas emissions were projected to be back then, how many more Indigenous communities lacked access to clean drinking water, how many more children were living in poverty and how much higher child care fees were. (Wherry, 2024)
Things are changing — the planet's climate certainly is. And Trudeau can argue that significant parts of his government's agenda have been about meeting the need for change and preparing Canadians for the future.
But it's on his ability to "tackle" the problems of today that he is being challenged — and earlier action on housing would have put him in a better place now, even if provincial and municipal governments deserve significant amounts of blame for the current situation.
Opposite Trudeau, Poilievre is laying the rhetorical groundwork to do things very differently — even if he frames it in terms of simply changing things back to way they were. The more he can convince people that the country is in terrible shape — and that everything currently wrong with it can be blamed on Trudeau — the easier it becomes for him to justify doing something close to the opposite. (Wherry, 2024)
Paul Kershaw, in a special article in the Globe and Mail, comments that if you make a mess, you should help clean it up. That’s a responsibility his Mom taught him.
As the House of Commons returned to session, Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Leader, betrayed this family value by courting voters with his promise to eliminate responsibility to pay for our pollution.
Whether to pay for pollution isn’t about consumer preferences. It’s a duty we owe to our kids. We need our politicians to recognize as much if they are to identify real solutions to the affordability crisis, and to reduce risks from extreme weather.
A new Abacus poll signals Mr. Poilievre has convinced many Canadians that the price on pollution is a primary source of financial pain. Alas, research from the University of Calgary shows he is pulling the wool over our eyes. (Kershaw & Urback, 2024)
Professors Trevor Tombe and Jennifer Winter in a report for the School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, calculated the direct and indirect costs of the carbon tax to examine the entire financial impact of the tax relative to its absence. They use data from British Columbia, where the carbon price is the same as that levied by the federal plan. They found that carbon pricing adds 0.5 per cent to the cost of food and beverages; 0.29 per cent to rent; 0.2 per cent for clothing and footwear; and less than 0.13 per cent for insurance and financial services.
While some politicians and policymakers are blaming emissions pricing for high costs of living, the figure shows that the actual effect is quite modest for most items.
Emissions pricing is just one of many indirect taxes that households face. Other examples are sales taxes and alcohol levies. We estimate that the combined effect on Canadian consumer prices from all indirect tax increases between January 2015 and October 2023 was 0.6%.
Knowing that much of the present affordability crisis is due to factors other than emissions pricing, the elimination of the carbon tax is unlikely to solve the problem. As Canada slowly recovers from high inflation in 2021 and 2022, policy makers will need to consider alternative solutions. (Tombe & Winter, n.d.)
Geordie Dent, in an article for The Breach, concludes that cheap money and privatization made housing unaffordable, but organizing can reverse the tide
Canada used to build a decent amount of social housing. By ensuring that low-income renters had affordable options, the government kept the market honest and stopped housing speculation from spiraling into feedback loops.
Until around 1993, Canada funded the construction of 10,000 or more social housing units in a typical year.
So what happened in 1993? That’s the year the federal Liberals were elected on a platform of progressive promises. But once in power, they pivoted to a policy of fiscal austerity. Finance Minister Paul Martin slashed housing spending to almost nothing.
The construction of housing had been completely privatized. (Dent, 2023)
The recent climate disasters in Canada require a taxation strategy to incentivize transition to a carbon reduced economy. Research shows the additional tax burden adds less than 1% to most of the purchases of Canadians. Because we cannot expect the market to build below market housing, social housing for Canadians living in tents needs to be a Government responsibility.
References
Dent, G. (2023, February 2). The global money pool that soaked Canada's hope of affordable housing ⋆ The Breach. The Breach. Retrieved February 4, 2024, from https://breachmedia.ca/the-global-money-pool-that-soaked-canadas-hope-of-affordable-housing/?
Kershaw, P., & Urback, R. (2024, February 2). Pushing to 'Axe the Tax' is unfair to our kids. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved February 4, 2024, from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/young-money/article-pushing-to-axe-the-tax-is-unfair-to-our-kids/
Tombe, T., & Winter, J. (n.d.). ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS PRICING AND AFFORDABILITY: LESSONS FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA. The School of Public Policy. Retrieved February 4, 2024, from https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/EE-Trends-DEC.pdf
Wherry, A. (2024, February 3). Trudeau and Poilievre have very different theories of change. CBC. Retrieved February 4, 2024, from https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-poilievre-election-1.7103710?
No comments:
Post a Comment