This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Shirley N Carl Jorgensen says:

    I would like to hear the other side.

  2. Josh Weale says:

    Hey Kevin, I think your analysis is off (or at least needlessly confusing) given the fact that you are comparing household income (as defined in the Green plan using StatsCan data) with individual income (which you are using in your analysis.) The Third Party graph that you used clearly says “household income,” and it should have been obvious that something was off when you noticed that our “fifth quintile” (20%) of population was made up of only 2-3% of Islanders (using your definition). According to Statscan there are about 60,000 private households on PEI, and our plan estimates that about 12,000 of those households earn a combined $110,000. Hope that clears things up.

  3. Hey Josh….what’s important to my thinking is how the Green Party plan determines who will get a quarterly dividend….and for that calculation, as far as I can figure, income tax returns will need to be used in the Green Party plan. So regardless of how StatsCan data may have been used to formulate and attempt to justify the carbon pricing plan based on household income data, it will be individual income tax filings that will be used to calculate which (and how many) Islanders fit into the different quintiles in the plan – or at least that’s how I read it – when calculating who gets a rebate. The Green Party Q&A clearly states: “We propose that government create a Carbon Pollution Dividend which would provide every Islander, with the exception of top earners, with a quarterly check (similar to the HST rebate), regardless of their actual carbon cost.” The only way that can happen is by using individual income tax data, not StatsCan Household income survey data, which is not only partial and generic, but “anonymous” (e.g., the privacy of individuals participating in StatsCan surveys is protected and the data they submit voluntarily is not available to provincial governments).

  4. joshweale says:

    Hey Kevin…the fact remains that you are basing most of your analysis on individual income levels, when the Green Party plan is focused on household income. The graph you cite clearly references household income, and yet all of your analysis (of said graph) refers to individual income. Apples and oranges. At worst it’s misleading, but at best it is simply adding unnecessary confusion to an already complex debate. Not sure what is gained with this approach.

  5. Shirley N Carl Jorgensen says:

    still wrong

  6. Don Humphrey says:

    With no disrespect to other commenters, arguing about incomes being individually based or group based seems like economic tail-chasing.
    Carbon ‘pricing’is a tax that will be borne disproportionately by those at the lower end of the income spectrum.
    Those living paychque to paycheque have little choice but to keep driving their present vehicle and just hope their vehicle keeps on going.
    Likewise regarding home energy conservation, a quarterly cash infusion has little guarantee that the money will be spent on a costly fuel conversions or making fuel efficiency renovations.
    Inevitably carbon ‘pricing’ will be a regressive tax whose revenues are likely to be in a not-so-wise manner.

  7. Warren Biro says:

    These political honchoes that are pushing, pushing and pushing for this “feel good” tax to be imposed are completely out of touch with the lives of most of their constituents. People are sick to death of this constant push from both provincial and federal governments to strip even more money out of the pockets of the common man trying to get by.
    I’ve moved here a little over a year ago from Ontario and I’m here to tell you it was the Liberals taxation schemes (Green Energy), disgusting waste of tax dollars (the Gas Plant fiasco for one) and total disassociation from the reality of the man in the street that put Doug Ford in the provincial driver’s seat. People are fed up.
    One can only hope that there will be a PEI politician sensible enough to do away with all of this nonsense after the coming election and the exit of the current party.

  8. fromawaysite says:

    Kevin, just recently discovered your blog and recent article on the corruption in the e gaming scam. Having said that , allow me to turn this upside down about Global Warming , now called, Climate Change. Global Warming is world wide tax scam perpetrated by the globalist agenda no different than the War on Terror or the Bail Outs of the Banks in 2008.
    There is Climate Change , absolutely, but not based on the fabrication by the so called, funded climate scientists. The real experts have published their findings for several years now from Astrophysics, Geology, Archeology, Physics and many more linked scientists. One such name comes to mind, Valentina Zharkova . Of course the agenda by the globalists who control the press have suppressed the real scientists while funding the climate experts to push their Carbon Tax Scam.
    The planet Earth has gone through millions of years of Climatic changes not based on carbon emissions but based on the Sun. There is a record of these changes especially confirmed with new solar data not available until 2006 from a solar probe program that was suddenly shut down by the US government when the data was showing contrary evidence.
    The Earth is effected by the activity or the inactivity of sun spots and solar flares. This year alone we have had over 148 days of No Sun Spots. Recorded records and gathered data have showed this cycle repeating itself over and over again with smaller cycles in between these major events.
    The one we are entering now from approximately 2015 to 2055 is called THE GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM. The last one was from 1645 to 1715 AD called THE MAUNDER MINIMUM. As a side note, this is the time period that they burned the most witches claiming they where responsible for crop failures . Interesting the period of the Themes froze over and they would have festivals on the ice.
    So, what have they discovered during these events . Unusual Volcanic activity ( they discovered this by unusual dust samples in ice core samples )
    Extreme drought and crop failure
    Extreme early and late cold leading to crop loss
    Major flooding
    Loss of life from disease
    The planet is getting well into this event as it has in recorded history and well before as in this Solar Cycle. It will become more evident if you start to take more attention to the unusual weather changes and crop losses all over the world and the increase of volcanism and earth quake activity.
    As an good link

    look up the u tube blog iceagefarmer.

  9. sdpate956 says:

    Face it Kevin, you’re a flat earth society member and will have a problem with any carbon tax.

    Doug Ford did not win as much as Wynn’s lost.

    Cons spend their time with specious argument against carbon tax – a proven strategy- and any reasonable strategy to save the planet.

    Nero fiddled while Rome burned

    • I respectfully beg to differ – I am not a flat-earth society member, nor do I subscribe to that theory: It occurred to me that if the earth was flat, cats would have pushed everything over the edge by now.

      If you read my article carefully, you’ll see that I believe we should be moving quickly to eliminate – as rapidly as possible – pollution, greenhouse gases, toxic chemicals, etc. from our environment. I recognize that there is a time and place for carbon taxes, and they can play an important role in influencing behaviour to move trends away from the use of carbon-based energy sources – I just don’t it is the right approach at the present time in PEI, and that there are more proactive strategies which should be vigorously pursued by government. I’ll have more to say about what I believe those strategies should be in coming days.

  10. james wood says:

    Kevin many good points. I agree adding a new tax to an already over taxed population will not fix the problems. Anyone who thinks another tax is a good idea either don’t drive or has money to burn. Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor sounds a little like a socialist government to me. If the tax on used vehicles was removed lower income people could buy newer cars and that alone would get them into safer, newer cars and remove older higher polluting cars from the road.

Leave a Reply