Letters: Differing views on carbon tax; watch cash for church and state

Article content

Axing carbon tax won’t change inflation

All this rant about the carbon tax is driven primarily by those who are either ill-informed or who are intentionally spreading misinformation. The current carbon tax rate is 14.3 cents per litre. My car on average fill ups is 55 litres and so my cost comes to $7.86.

Now here’s where it’s interesting. I recently received my quarterly carbon tax rebate of $142. Taking my average fill up that rebate covers 18 fills per quarter. Over the course of a year my rebate will total $568, equivalent to 72 fills. If I fill up once per week (which I don’t do all the time) that comes to 52 fills at a carbon cost of $408.72 Since we are a two car family then combined we have a net cost after rebates of about $21 over the course of a year.

For those driving the big gas guzzlers, yes you are likely paying out more than the value of the rebate but you made the choice of vehicle.

One may wonder over the sense of it all, I do myself, but don’t be fooled into thinking this tax is costing you big bucks. Take note, the biggest contributors to the rapid rise at the pumps is due to the post-pandemic increase in demand combined with Putin’s war and Middle East turmoil. All of which has also been the major cause of inflation, not the carbon tax.

So Mr. Poilievre may run around the country yelling “axe the tax,” but remember such an axe will also axe the rebate. As such don’t expect to see a big drop at the pumps. And by the way, like it or not, climate change is real.

Peter A Belliveau

Moncton

Follow the money on church and state

I once thought I would never be a one issue voter.

I look at policies rolled out on all political party platforms in upcoming elections. I have voted where I feel comfortable with the most policy statements and promises, and that means I have voted for different parties at different times.  That has changed.  

Rosella Melanson’s timely and thought-provoking Telegraph-Journal column (April 13) on the use of religion to appeal to voters has me thinking.  Why are both Pierre Poilievre and Blaine Higgs blurring the line on the separation of church and state? Melanson suggests it’s not because a majority of voters are religious and want faith-based policy. There has to be something more to it. There’s a possible answer that might fit. 

As the saying goes: Follow the money. Who has it, to whom are they giving it and to what end?  Speculation on this leads me, on this one issue, the separation of church and state, never to vote Conservative as long as these two leaders are heading up their respective parties.  
 
Anne Baker

Saint John 

Tax only lining government pockets

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau proposes to the premiers to give an alternative to the carbon tax, which means ‘I want the Canadians’ money and I do not care how I get it.’

It is already known the carbon tax does nothing for the environment as it is just another way to make Canadians poorer and to line his pockets.

Blair Foster

Fredericton