@PatrickBrethour's column *could* help us get past the "it's a tax!" "no, it's not!" politicking. Sure, words matter for perceptions. Great point by @TrevorTombe, that "rebate" is misleading.

As for the analogy to C19th tariff politics, there's even more to learn! Short https://twitter.com/PatrickBrethour/status/1339920374541279233

After 1879, Liberals and Conservatives had genuine, serious differences on political economy questions. Tax disagreements were central. Elsbeth Heaman tells the whole fascinating story in Tax, Order, and Good Government. https://www.amazon.ca/Tax-Order-Good-Government-Political/dp/0773549625#:~:text=Tax%2C%20Order%2C%20and%20Good%20Government%20follows%20the%20money%20and%20returns,%2C%20economic%2C%20and%20social%20history.&text=Canadian%20political%20history.-,Tax%20debates%20in%20early%20Canada%20were%20philosophically%20charged%2C%20politically%20consequential,relationship%20between%20weal

To the Manufacturer's Assoc., close allies of Macdonald's Tories, revenue from a protective tariff was 'incidental' and economic development its purpose. Even better, that revenue kept the tax gatherer from your door. (Source: Cdn Manufacturer, 6 May 1892)

Bravely speaking from the stronghold of protectionist Canada, Montreal's stoutly Liberal newspaper La Patrie disagreed. Protection is taxation! (5 March 1880)

As Heaman points out, this disagreement was not just the regional one (west vs centre) that's canonical in Canadian history courses. The Liberals were standing up for poor people and consumers. The protective tariff taxed the poor to give to the rich.

"Unfair" wasn't "high taxes," although god knows the free trade Liberals of the day thought that full federal coffers meant lavish patronage and wasteful spending.

"Unfair" meant exploitation of consumers and exploitation of workers (especially farmers).

We might agree that both parties' had good arguments for their positions. Navigating among competing sectors and interests, Laurier's Liberals compromised in 1897.

The new tariff of 1897 was a compromise toward shared purpose. (Heaman might find this too generous!)

Today, the way out of stalemate and sterile politicking lies, not in bickering about labels, but assessing the real differences, if any, on strategies to reduce carbon use.

We need ways of doing so that don't exploit politically weaker regions or classes. That WAS a problem with the 1879 tariff. I'm not sure it is with carbon pricing. Maybe.

But that's a matter for evidence and argument and policy to decide. And in this age of big data, we are better equipped than were the partisans of the past.

For their fascinating story, read chapter 4 in Heaman's book (from which my e.g.'s in this thread come)

And for someone who bases their view, not on labels but on data, check out @andrew_leach . https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/leach-carbon-tax-alberta-1.3910024