>The report said “broadly speaking” that its analysis showed larger net gains and lower net household costs than a previous study.
>However, on average, households were worse off when the PBO analyzed the economic impact on GDP or investment income.
>[…]
>Earlier this year, the PBO acknowledged that its original economic analysis of the federal carbon tax and rebates inadvertently included the industrial pricing system that applies to heavy emitters.
>Consistent with previous reports, the PBO’s updated analysis does not account for the benefits of reducing emissions or the economic costs of climate change. It also does not estimate the impacts of alternative policies.
>The Parliamentary Budget Office is a non-partisan government office serving MPs and senators. It produces economic and financial analyses for parliamentarians.
!ping Can
OkEntertainment1313 on
> However, on average, households were worse off when the PBO analyzed the economic impact on GDP or investment income.
Will the dozens of you that have insisted this wasn’t the case since the PBO said the results wouldn’t change with a new analysis now stop pretending otherwise?
2 Comments
Summary:
>Thursday’s [updated report](https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/publications/RP-2425-017-S–distributional-analysis-federal-fuel-charge-update–analyse-distributive-redevance-federale-combustibles-mise-jour) from the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) found that considering the average household costs of paying the consumer fuel levy, the GST that’s charged and the indirect costs from the carbon tax, on average, households will see a net gain in 2030-31.
>The report said “broadly speaking” that its analysis showed larger net gains and lower net household costs than a previous study.
>However, on average, households were worse off when the PBO analyzed the economic impact on GDP or investment income.
>[…]
>Earlier this year, the PBO acknowledged that its original economic analysis of the federal carbon tax and rebates inadvertently included the industrial pricing system that applies to heavy emitters.
>Consistent with previous reports, the PBO’s updated analysis does not account for the benefits of reducing emissions or the economic costs of climate change. It also does not estimate the impacts of alternative policies.
>The Parliamentary Budget Office is a non-partisan government office serving MPs and senators. It produces economic and financial analyses for parliamentarians.
!ping Can
> However, on average, households were worse off when the PBO analyzed the economic impact on GDP or investment income.
Will the dozens of you that have insisted this wasn’t the case since the PBO said the results wouldn’t change with a new analysis now stop pretending otherwise?