revenue neutral? Not a chance...

John Williamson was on CTV today explaining how the Liberal Green Shift plan is in no way revenue neutral. While I couldn't find a clip of the interview, I did manage to find an article he wrote last March on the same subject. (while some people may view this as 'old news' I feel it's worth another look)

For those who don't know, John Williamson is federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which is described as Canada's leading taxpayer advocacy group.
From their own website:

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) is a federally incorporated, non-profit and non-partisan, advocacy organization dedicated to lower taxes, less waste and accountable government ... All CTF staff and board directors are prohibited from holding a membership in any political party. The CTF is independent of any institutional affiliations.

This is not the political posturing of a partisan organization. This is not election spin or rhetoric.
In fact if you look on their website they seem to target all major political parties regardless of their leaning.

With that out of the way, the key points of the article:

The (British Columbia) government says (its carbon tax) will be "revenue neutral" because it is lowering income taxes at the same time. But it certainly isn't neutral for families. A two-income family earning $90,000 with two kids will save $85 this year in lower personal income taxes. Yet, according to the B.C. budget, that same family will pay an additional $100 in gas taxes and another $35 in home heating costs. B.C.'s tax shifting translates into a middle-class tax increase.

...

Mr. Dion similarly favours a so-called revenue neutral tax. But as in B.C., it won't be neutral for taxpayers: Higher energy prices will hit families with kids the hardest. And what will it accomplish? Premier Gordon Campbell's goal is to reduce the province's CO2 emissions by 40 million tonnes by 2020. Yet, the current carbon tax policy is expected to reduce greenhouse gases by only three million tonnes, about 7.5% of the total. If the price of a 7.5% CO2 reduction is more than $15-billion, taxpayers can only imagine what it will cost to cut the other 92.5%.

full article here