The $50-200 number is pulled from where? That’s the current projected cost to the average taxpayer and consumer, but not the inflation-adjusted price of what will end up costing people to continue driving and using electricity.

Yes, consumption taxes are a good way to curtail socially unacceptable behaviour. So tax energy inefficient homes and cars.

Your true cost of the economy comment is valid, but we’ll be seeing the “true cost” to the economy when the exponential costs of everything are increased. Carbon taxes affect the production of food [increase], the transportation of food [increase], the cost overhead of sales of food [increase], and the margins are all reflective of that. The “shift” in Dion’s plan will be mercilessly in favour of a higher cost of living.

Unbelievably, I find I disagree strongest with you about who it will hurt. The poorest will not be hurt because they don’t consume gasoline to get to their jobs, nor do they likely have families or homes. The middle income Canadians, of which are made up by the majority, will suffer the greatest from another tax on their overburdened pay.

The revenue neutral part is also misleading since it is based on what? How does one acquire a refund for the increased prices on every single item affected by inflation? The real costs of Dion’s tax grab is in the thousands of dollars, not $50-200.