NDP and taxes on home heating

Making it tax deductible would not help the great many people who do not pay income tax.  Reducing or eliminating the federal portion of the HST, or GST (depending on where you live) would immediately reduce people's costs.  Unlike a tax credit or deduction which could come months later.  The NDP program calls for re-starting eco-Fit and for a major expansion of it, thus helping people reduce their CO2 emmisions and save money on utility bills in the long term. 

This is not going to end poverty, but if we are going to reduce burdens on people- and remember many of the poorest home heating systems are old electric rads and forced air oil- and for many in rural areas that is the best they can hope for -this is a good targeted place to start.

As well, as a long time environmentalist I am sick to effin death of the number of fellow enviornmentalists that sit in their ivory towers and pontificate on what we should do about climate change when the overwhelming majority of those costs are being borne by the most vulnerable in our society.  You need only look to Ontario's Green Energy Act that is simply replacing fossil fuel (coal) for fossil fuel (natural gas) with a major investment in nuclear - just so some folks can delude themselves that big industrial wind turbines owned by large corporate entities (with major sweetheart financial deals) are somehow doing some good.  And who pays the price for that delusion - those with the least in our society and rural areas.  Typical mindset of today's ill-informed.

Exactly correct Life...could not have put it better.

  Any rise in fossil fuel costs is not going to effect me personally in terms of overall home heating costs, just as a note, because of how I heat my house.   However even though I am not adverse to the argument that lower fossil fuel costs will me people will use more (some likely will) and raising the costs can lead to more efficient use and conservation as general overall principle I feel similar to Life's comments.  Higher heating costs will and already are affecting people that can least afford it and have way fewer options to undertake measures that can lead to longer term savings.   Heat is not a luxary but an absolute necessity for survival.  For many it's not a question of being able to afford to use more but to afford to heat at the most basic of levels.   Many are already in a situation of major conservation and there is only so much that can be squeezed out in different situations.

Boom Boom wrote:

I read somewhere - can't remember where I saw it - that Quebec is being pressured to raise its hydro rates. That's bad news for us here on the Quebec coast who only have access to electric or wood heat. I'm on disability - and a rise in electric rates will affect me.

Boom Boom, we discussed it [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/central-canada/qu%C3%A9bec-budget-makes-work..., after last spring's Charest budget. Québec has the lowest hydro rates in Canada, which makes it a prime target for neoliberal "let's be competitive" fanatics. Charest's budget proposed gradual increases, starting in 2014.

As I enjoy quoting myself, here was my comment in that thread:

Unionist wrote:

Boom Boom, Québec has the cheapest residential rates in North America by far, although Manitoba and B.C. are quite close. You can read about the detailed comparisons here - for example, Torontonians pay 67% higher rates than Montrealers!

Neoliberals can't stand ordinary folks getting anything cheap. It's sort of like a religion with them. So, they've been pushing for hydro rates to rise dramatically (which this budget thankfully will not do) so they can soak everyone in order to increase government revenues and hand it over to their buddies; so as to finance more development so they can export more to the U.S. and other provinces; and ultimately to make Hydro a nice target for privatization (recall that it was the Quiet Revolution which nationalized Hydro in 1963).

Oh, I should mention that one reason the Charest neolibs don't raise them faster is rather selfish and greedy - they're afraid it would correspondingly reduce federal equalization payments!

O Canada!

this_guy wrote:

.  CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are causing a severe climate emergency.  Making fossil fuels cheaper means Canadians will probably use more.  Why doesn't Layton get it?"

It gets cold in our Northern Puerto Rico. And our two old line party stooges in phony minority government in Ottawa don't have the political backbone to write made in Canada energy policy. If you think Canadians should freeze in the dark so that private power producers and big oil and gas companies based in the states can sell more Canadian energy to the most wasteful, most unsustainable and most fossil fuel dependent economy in the world south of us, then make sure not to vote NDP. You'll be paying through the nose to stay warm and keep the lights on in no time at all.

Evaluated energy efficiency of a couple of units in a 30 year old townhouse development when my daughter lived there. Early 1970s, baseboard electric heat and little insulation.  A neighbour of my daughter's slept with her border collie on the bed at her feet...for warmth.

The development was part of a market-traded investment group's better-paying, steady income earner...dividends not taxed. The kind of investment that you hope like hell your own savings (past tense) were not a part of.  And that's not exploitation by neo anything...just the evolution of a market system that's absorbed us all since the 1970s.

New Democrats should be campaigning like hell to require complete retrofitting of such hell-holes.

And George Monbiot shows us how hard it's become for folks in the U.K. to keep warm, stay alive:

Cold-Hearted

Posted: 27 Dec 2010 12:05 PM PST

The level of excess winter deaths in the UK is higher than Siberia's. This is why.

If Quebec Hydro rates rise drastically, will there be a mass uprising in protest, I wonder.

A_J wrote:

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Making it tax deductible would not help the great many people who do not pay income tax.  Reducing or eliminating the federal portion of the HST, or GST (depending on where you live) would immediately reduce people's costs.  Unlike a tax credit or deduction which could come months later.

Of course, those who spend the most on home heating fuel (i.e. the rich with their large houses, heated floors, heated driveways, etc. etc. etc.) will get the greatest benefit out of reducing or eliminating sales taxes.  Sure, you reduce taxes for everyone, but you're also handing those who least need assistance a significant cash windfall.  It's a dumb policy (and that's before you even get into the climate change issue).

Tax credits or deductions don't help, as you said, because those who need the most help are playing little or no income taxes.  The best policy wouldn't be to eliminate sales taxes but to give low-income earners additional cash transfers, like they already get via the GST rebate, to offset those taxes they are paying (while still collecting sales taxes from higher-income earners).

A little bit of paradox can come into play here.  I wish I had my regular computer back because I have some bookmarks which talk about it.  Higher income earners with bigger houses don't automatically pay more $$$ in overall heating costs.  It the world of house design and construction bigger doesn't automatically mean more cost.  Mega uber houses sure but in a range of average house sizes someone with living in a smaller house and even apartment  can actually have to pay more in overall costs then someone in a house twice the size in terms of square footage.   This is due to whole number of factors that derive from how the thing designed and built in the first place, the materials used, the heating systems employed and even where the structure is situated.   Heated floors for instance can actually cost  less to run then a 25 year old furnace in a badly designed house (in terms of it's thermal currents and material structure) even though the heated floor one is bigger.

It still speaks to income disparity though because high income earners can better afford to do things, build houses or buy houses that lead to increased efficiency and less ongoing costs. It's just more complicated then saying bigger and richer automatically means more.

Just to give an example. I and my neighbor have about the same house size in terms of actual square feet.  They're both older farm houses and built around the same time.   They use more to keep their house heated, even though mine is less insulated.  They've redone theirs I'm slowly working at upgrading mine.  The major factor at play though is just basic design.  Their house is spread out more. It takes up more horizontal space. My house is smaller horizontally and stacked vertically.  Heat rises and it takes more to get the heat into the spaces it needs to be and they end up having to supplement with electric space heating.  In mine a single heat source, except on the most bitter days suffices to even heat the floor two floors up.  

  I have other friends who retired and spent a couple of years building their own house. They use the exact same heat source as I do and even though their house is almost twice the size of mine square footage wise we're using the about the same amount of fuel overall.  It's just the way it was designed. In that case taking passive solar, house situation(the side facing the prevailing winter winds is more insulated and has barely any windows) , insulation materials and internal design in terms of thermal flow in mind. 

I do think though that the point that removing taxes will give the richer a break when maybe they don't need it is a good one because in many cases it would.  However when looking at possible solutions on how to deal with the overall issue I do think it's important to move away from looking at it from the viewpoint that bigger just automatically means more costs.  Basic structure, design, material use, efficiency of whatever heating system is employed and age that in many cases factor as more important then just size.

I'll pay my taxes without complaint, but I'll get pissed off at seeing Quebec Hydro artificially raise their rates just so the province can pay off the deficit. I'm on a fixed disability pension - higher rates mean an adjustment in my budget someplace. I hope the people of this province turn out to massively protest this measure, if indeed it comes to pass.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I just received my BC Hydro bill and it cost me $44 in HST for two months.  Now $22 a month is not an insignificant amount but I don't see it as a big deal for anyone or the economy.  Doesn't the left have more to say than end taxes?  

Well in my perfect imagined world a number of things would happen. 

  Firstly building codes and bylaws would be changed to foster better designed new builds. Heck make it mandatory.   In general we build stupidily and more for asthetics then thermal efficiency, not that efficient mean ugly. It actually bugs me sometimes to see large scale houseing developments with scores of windows or glass structure on the north side of the structures.  Yes freedom and all that but ugh..it's just bad design.  :)   It's not like we don't know how to design housing with the optimum of passive solar, air flow for summer cooling (taking advatages of prevailing breezes of the plot), natural lighting etc etc  it's just I suppose that's it's easier to cookie cutter or people are after a certain type of 'look' and that's what matters.  Attitudes towards this type of thing are changing slowly.  An no these types of basic design principles which people tend to call 'eco' or 'green' don't necessarily mean more cost.  That's the kicker.  Looking at it from the point of view of design you can take the exact same type and amount of materials, build two structures using pretty much the same methods for both and one just because of it's design be less costly to run over the long term. 

It just seems like such an overall waste and with issue with climate change looming societally dumb to not be building as smartly as possible on all fronts.  The knowledge and examples are out there it just needs the will and the consciousness (or something...)

So new builds are taken care of now onto what to do with what we already have.  Unfortunately a lot of how we've built whether it's at the single structure level or the neighborhood example (such as suburban sprawl) is difficult to deal with and we're stuck with what we've got.  Make the best of it.

I think some of the retro-fit and eco-fit programs were a good start but don't go far enough.  It also doesn't help that they've been slashed at the Fed level either, or they were when last I heard.  I knew a number of people who did take advatage of the grants and convert to things like geo-thermal and do other upgrades.  In two cases the grant money did make the overall retro-fit finacially viable and so far the cost savings are paying for the outlay.  I looked into taking advatage of it as well and unfortunately fell into the group 'that can't afford the intial outlay even though the monthly savings would actually pay for the outlay in the short term.'   In order to take advantage of these programs a person has to have a source of cash whether it's a loan or some other financing to pay for it on the outset.  In the case of geo-thermal which granted up to about 8000-9000 from the Fed and the Province you also had to be capable of doing without that for a number of months, six in one case.   I also know people that took advantage of it and upgraded their furnaces and put in some solar thermal.   Again though a person does need to have the cash in the first place and be able to afford the part the grants don't cover. 

I'd like to see some sort of program with upfront grants as well as some sort of micro-financing program.  These type of programs would go farther to help lower income people do this type of work.   Upgrading a furnace or putting in better insulation can make a big difference on costs but try to get a loan or financing from a bank or pretty much any finanical institution.  Frustrating because in some cases the savings can help pay off the costs but it appears that for many the system is set up that you have to have money to save money even if it's only for the need of a few thousand dollars in your pocket at the same time.

None of this addresses the issue that many lower income people are not homeowners and rent other peoples properties and indirectly or directly if rent doesn't include utilities pay the operating costs.  Although landlords could take advatage of some of the eco-fit programs I do think more should be done in this area.  I'm just not sure what exactly. The only think I can think of now is perhaps things like tax breaks if your property meets a certain standard, which in my imagined world would be high and not loop holey and perhaps some sort of financing program directed at landlords in particular with some sort of control that the savings wouldn't just end up in their pockets.  Don't know if something like that is even possible to control with the way laws are set up now but it would be nice.

Then 

Gas is $1.51/liter here, and the reason is that we do not yet have a connecting road to the outside world - someone has to go and get a gas supply by boat or barge, and, when the winter is cold enough and there's snow on the ground, by skidoo and komatic. The higher price here reflects the difficulty in getting gas to this isolated community. Further down the coast, some communities get gas directly from tanker ships.

For home heating, the only choices available to us are wood and electric, usually a combination of the two.

Question, Boomer.  What's the generator for. Backup?

We're still two years away from the road opening here, and that's if the bridge over the river gets built. We haven't heard anything yet about that getting done. Gas in the next two communities is much cheaper than here, but with a connecting road, prices should drop here.

ETA: with the likelihood of cheaper gas here in a few years, that just might offset the higher price of electricity being planned by Quebec Hydro - at least in my personal budget. I have to fuel a generator, skidoo, snowblower, lawn mower, and a small truck.

Boom Boom wrote:

I have to fuel a generator, skidoo, snowblower, lawn mower, and a small truck.

Thread drift: Is your generator gasoline or propane? and how many watts? Reply by PM if you prefer.

Unionist wrote:

Thread drift: Is your generator gasoline or propane? and how many watts? Reply by PM if you prefer.

We can't get propane here (except small BBQ cannisters), so that answers one question. It's a small generator, I'll have to check when I have more time.

Unionist wrote:

Thread drift: Is your generator gasoline or propane? and how many watts? Reply by PM if you prefer.

It's a 3500 watt gas generator from Home Hardware. I wanted a Hyundai 5000 watt with electric start - it has wheels to move it easily - but was twice as expensive as the 3500. I use it during a hydro outage just for the freezer, fridge, stove, and my computer.

Most folks here with generators have much larger generators than mine, but my needs are simpler - I live alone. And the hydro has been reliable in 2010 - usually just goes down for mantenance, but a couple of times a small transformer blew. Quebec Hydro uses a helicopter from nearby Natashquan to get their maintenance people here. If the weather is lousy when the power is down - that's when we need the generators, as it'll be a while before the problem is fixed. If we get our connecting road to the mainland finished in 2012 as promised, well, that obviously would be better for us with regard to hydro folks getting here faster.

Oh - you reminded me. I also use my generator to run the furnace fan in cold weather!   Most folks here have small wood stoves used for  heat and sometimes cooking. I have a big wood furnace that has to be run with the furnace fan on. Next summer I am adding a 'mud room' to my house that will be heated with a small wood stove - which will also heat the house if it's not really cold, instead of the much bigger furnace.

As for a generator for the house or cottage, I strongly suggest a 5000 watt minimum - the smaller ones are delicate and in my opinion not worth the money. For about $650 you can get a new 5000 watt generator with wheels and electric start, and six outlets for power cords.

Boom Boom if you don't mind me asking what's the going rate for a cord of wood in your area?

George Victor wrote:

You can always tell its a farmer or a fan of Robert Frost when "bush" cord is assumed.   Few city folk can afford those any more.

:D

I have my own woodsplitter - electric - now in its fifth year, works like a charm. Best $300 I ever spent.