Non profits throughout British Columbia rely on the province's Community Gaming Grants program for their funding. For many, it's their sole source of desperately needed dollars.
The important work that these non profits do toward addressing social needs in their communities cannot be overstated. They deliver far more for the tax dollars they receive than do the majority of government agencies.*
Three BC Liberal leadership candidates have proposed changes to the Community Grants program. Christy Clark would boost the current money allotted ($120 million) by 12.5 percent, or $15 million. Kevin Falcon has just announced increasing the program to $159 million, a 32.5 percent jump.
The third proposal, made by leadership hopeful Ed Mayne, would see the "politically-motivated" Community Grants program junked entirely. In its place, he proposes that two percent of the HST go directly to municipalities.
By a long way, I prefer Mayne's proposal. It gives communities the autonomy and freedom to address their own needs, build on their own strengths and devise their own solutions. It also eliminates the perpetual problem of non-profits having to fit their funding needs, and hence their community needs, to the demands and economic needs of a far-off funder. By 'far-off', I mean in all of these senses: geographical distance, ideological distance and hierarchical distance.
*One such non-profit is the internally-recognized Providence Farm, right here in the Cowichan Valley. Go take a look; it's truly a community wonder.
Recommend this post
Showing posts with label Taxation-Fees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxation-Fees. Show all posts
03 February 2011
19 January 2011
BC Liberal Leadership: Order of preference 2
[UPDATED Jan 20, 10:00 a.m.]
My three top issues that will guide my decision remain as before:
Democratic reform. Support for greater independence and return of powers to local governments. This is the key issue for me. We work, play, live and die in communities. Local elected officials are the closest to the people and best positioned to identify their communities' unique strengths and needs; and to provide the best solutions. Therefore, the greatest political power should rest with local - not provincial, not federal - governments.
Further democratic reforms I'd like to see: outreach and meaningful engagement with the public, resumption of powers to MLAs, open government, electoral reform.
Taxation policy. Smartly applied carrot-and-stick consumption taxes designed to guide consumer behaviour and a gradual reduction of earnings taxes. I favour the HST, a carbon tax with teeth and the proposed-then-rescinded 15 percent reduction in income tax for the middle-class.
Climate change. Greening the economy which must work in sync with the taxation policy. Greening the economy must include an effective carbon tax and cap 'n trade.
Given the dominant themes stated above, of the realistic contenders for the BC Liberal leadership race the following is my current order of preference. This new list acknowledges that Christy Clark, George Abbott and Kevin Falcon are thought by Liberals to be the frontrunners; and that Mike de Jong, while currently considered by as being in fourth place could be, given the positive reception he has been getting, a challenger on the second ballot. Placing Moira Stilwell or Ed Mayne in any position other than fifth or sixth is an exercise in futility, so I've simply dropped them off my preference list.
Recommend this post
My three top issues that will guide my decision remain as before:
Democratic reform. Support for greater independence and return of powers to local governments. This is the key issue for me. We work, play, live and die in communities. Local elected officials are the closest to the people and best positioned to identify their communities' unique strengths and needs; and to provide the best solutions. Therefore, the greatest political power should rest with local - not provincial, not federal - governments.
Further democratic reforms I'd like to see: outreach and meaningful engagement with the public, resumption of powers to MLAs, open government, electoral reform.
Taxation policy. Smartly applied carrot-and-stick consumption taxes designed to guide consumer behaviour and a gradual reduction of earnings taxes. I favour the HST, a carbon tax with teeth and the proposed-then-rescinded 15 percent reduction in income tax for the middle-class.
Climate change. Greening the economy which must work in sync with the taxation policy. Greening the economy must include an effective carbon tax and cap 'n trade.
Given the dominant themes stated above, of the realistic contenders for the BC Liberal leadership race the following is my current order of preference. This new list acknowledges that Christy Clark, George Abbott and Kevin Falcon are thought by Liberals to be the frontrunners; and that Mike de Jong, while currently considered by as being in fourth place could be, given the positive reception he has been getting, a challenger on the second ballot. Placing Moira Stilwell or Ed Mayne in any position other than fifth or sixth is an exercise in futility, so I've simply dropped them off my preference list.
- Christy Clark. Over the past couple of weeks, Clark's public messaging and videos have suggested a lack of vision (see this, for example: nice music, nice ambience, no policy statement). As I write this, the first all candidates meeting has just completed. Clark continued her "we must listen to the people" mantra almost ad nauseum. My advice to the candidate: Be careful not to portray yourself in your public appearances as merely interested in consultation; that can suggest that as Premier you could be indecisive.
At the same event Clark fortunately did announce a major policy proposal, the creation of an Office of the Municipal Auditor General.
Over the last several years, as the economy has shifted, municipalities have struggled to determine how to fund services and deal with the shifting of responsibilities from senior levels of governments. This new office would look at the competition between commercial, industrial and residential taxation, the role local government is playing and find ways to make sure the taxpayer is being well-served.... [T]his new office would be able to select its own areas for review, react to requests from municipalities and look at suggestions from the public.
Couple this with Clark's call for a Community Gaming Grants review and an initial 12.5 percent increase to the program, of the major contenders Clark stands first in terms of policy acknowledgements of the importance of communities and local governments. Therefore, I currently place her first in this list.
- Mike de Jong. de Jong appears to be the most real in terms of outreach, in trying to engage not just Liberals but the general public. He truly appears to be listening to the ideas presented to him at his Open Mike sessions. Among those I like: lowering the voting age to 16, a call for an online vote of the HST referendum, support for the carbon tax.
ETA Jan 20 10:00 a.m.: Just now on CFAX, I liked de Jong's nod to the Citizens' Assembly and his discussion regarding lowering the voting age and increasing citizen participation generally. He's not backing off on the voting age proposal, which had been a concern of mine. Still haven't heard de Jong say anything about municipalities.
- George Abbott. As the campaign has proceeded, I've been less enchanted with Abbott. It's nothing I can put my finger on; more that his conciliatory positioning makes me question whether much would get done under his leadership. Abbott isn't short on policy, for which I give him credit, but can he make the hard decisions when necessary?
- Kevin Falcon. Falcon suggested lowering the HST first to 11 percent then to ten percent. Where does he plan to make up the shortfall? Falcon also has signalled a backtracking on the carbon tax.
In general, some of Falcon's responses or statements expose a defensiveness which is unattractive in a political leader. He tends also to listen through a particular lens to questions posed to him; not just in terms of which questions he chooses to answer but in his responses. In many cases, he is not responding to the question at all, but giving a response in reference to an issue only remotely related to it.
ETA Jan 18, 12:30p: For example, just now in the Vancouver Sun online chat session, Falcon gave a terrible, defensive nanny-state answer to my municipalities question. This was a case (of several) of not answering the question put to him:
What policy, if any, would your government implement in support of increasing the power (areas of responsibility) to, and autonomy of funding for municipalities?
Regarding funding, 'autonomy' was a key word. Falcon's answer began with a defence a) against claims, which the question didn't make, that the provincial government had continued to download responsibilities to local governments while b) reducing their provincial funding. Provincial funding wasn't part of the question either; autonomy of funding was.
Recommend this post
29 December 2010
Our Hearts Bleed
An interesting comment appeared on economicus ridiculous to my post about anti-HST sentiment plummeting.
Yes, such a shame.
Let's look at the math, shall we? From my response:
Had the real estate fee been less than 6%, the situation would be even worse in terms of this woman making a case that she was hard done by. At a 5% rather than 6% real estate fee, the sale price of her "last home" (how many did she turn over for investment purposes?) would be $4,285,714.20.
It behooves me also to point out that someone with a multi-million dollar house likely engages in activities or uses services that the rest of us plebes do not; at the least, she makes use of them far more often. For example:
A multi-million house consumes more energy than the poor abodes which house the rest of us. The drop in tax on residential electricity and heating from 5.4% to 5% would save someone owning such a house a bundle.
For people who travel in BC, the 13% hotel room tax has been reduced to 12%.
For rental vehicles, one no longer pays the $1.50 per day Passenger Vehicle Rental Tax.
For people you enjoy wine, beer or other alcoholic beverages on the many occasions they dine out, the 10% PST charged previously has been reduced to 7%.
For people who purchase vehicles priced over $55,000, the higher PST rate of 10% is gone. Now it's 7%.
If that shiny new vehicle runs on propane, the motor fuel tax no longer applies.
If one's family income derives from owning a business, one likely has saved from the conversion to the HST from the combined PST+GST. It's well known that the HST saved most businesses money.
Do Daphne and I bleed for the poor woman who had to pay $15,000 more in tax for the sale of her $3.57 MILLION investment home? NO. (The annual income of each of our households is two-thirds that amount: $10,000.)
Recommend this post
Actually, the HST screwed my mother-in-laws [sic] best friend out of 15 thousand dollars when she sold her last home. She was looking to move into a retirement home and already had to sell her house at a reduced rate because of the poor shape of the economy. She got double dinged by the HST. It's a shame.
Yes, such a shame.
Let's look at the math, shall we? From my response:
There is no HST applied in BC to the prices of resale homes. It is only applied to real estate fees, which were already subject to the 5% GST.
In other words, your mother-in-law's friend would have paid an additional 7% on the real estate fee only. If she paid $15,000 more than she'd have paid otherwise, then we can calculate that the real estate fee alone was $214,285.71.
Real estate fees are usually set at 6%. Assuming that's correct in this case, the house sold for $3,571,428.50.
Had the real estate fee been less than 6%, the situation would be even worse in terms of this woman making a case that she was hard done by. At a 5% rather than 6% real estate fee, the sale price of her "last home" (how many did she turn over for investment purposes?) would be $4,285,714.20.
It behooves me also to point out that someone with a multi-million dollar house likely engages in activities or uses services that the rest of us plebes do not; at the least, she makes use of them far more often. For example:
A multi-million house consumes more energy than the poor abodes which house the rest of us. The drop in tax on residential electricity and heating from 5.4% to 5% would save someone owning such a house a bundle.
For people who travel in BC, the 13% hotel room tax has been reduced to 12%.
For rental vehicles, one no longer pays the $1.50 per day Passenger Vehicle Rental Tax.
For people you enjoy wine, beer or other alcoholic beverages on the many occasions they dine out, the 10% PST charged previously has been reduced to 7%.
For people who purchase vehicles priced over $55,000, the higher PST rate of 10% is gone. Now it's 7%.
If that shiny new vehicle runs on propane, the motor fuel tax no longer applies.
If one's family income derives from owning a business, one likely has saved from the conversion to the HST from the combined PST+GST. It's well known that the HST saved most businesses money.
Do Daphne and I bleed for the poor woman who had to pay $15,000 more in tax for the sale of her $3.57 MILLION investment home? NO. (The annual income of each of our households is two-thirds that amount: $10,000.)
Recommend this post
23 December 2010
Anti-HST Support Plummets
From approximately 85 percent at the height of the period during which signatures calling for the HST referendum were collected, to the latest figure of 54 percent, anti-HST sentiment is plummeting.
British Columbians are thinking twice. Some have privately told me of regret for having signed the petition calling for the referendum, or for having too hastily judged the value of the tax.
British Columbians are signalling it was the process, not the tax, that so stoked their anger.
I am glad to see the change in these numbers. I support a taxation policy that favours taxing consumption rather than putting a price on enterprising activity, i.e., taxing earnings.
Provided voters get enough credible information about the HST prior to the referendum for them to make an informed choice, I suspect the referendum will fail.
The changing numbers regarding the HST could play a role in the BC leadership race. Kevin Falcon says he will reduce the tax from 12 percent, to 11, then ten percent. Mike de Jong wants to keep the tax at the current rate and favours the type of taxation policy that I do. George Abbott says he supports the tax and has not signalled anything with respect to reducing it; same also with Dr. Moira Stilwell.
Christy Clark... Well, who knows what her position is on the HST? She says she supports it and would like MLAs to vote on it. Would that be in its present form, or changed? Conveniently, not being a MLA herself, Clark would avoid the vote.
[Cross-posted at economicus ridiculous]
Recommend this post
British Columbians are thinking twice. Some have privately told me of regret for having signed the petition calling for the referendum, or for having too hastily judged the value of the tax.
British Columbians are signalling it was the process, not the tax, that so stoked their anger.
I am glad to see the change in these numbers. I support a taxation policy that favours taxing consumption rather than putting a price on enterprising activity, i.e., taxing earnings.
Provided voters get enough credible information about the HST prior to the referendum for them to make an informed choice, I suspect the referendum will fail.
The changing numbers regarding the HST could play a role in the BC leadership race. Kevin Falcon says he will reduce the tax from 12 percent, to 11, then ten percent. Mike de Jong wants to keep the tax at the current rate and favours the type of taxation policy that I do. George Abbott says he supports the tax and has not signalled anything with respect to reducing it; same also with Dr. Moira Stilwell.
Christy Clark... Well, who knows what her position is on the HST? She says she supports it and would like MLAs to vote on it. Would that be in its present form, or changed? Conveniently, not being a MLA herself, Clark would avoid the vote.
[Cross-posted at economicus ridiculous]
Recommend this post
30 November 2010
Analysis: Kevin Falcon Enters BC Liberal Race
Kevin Falcon just now declared his intention to run for the leadership of the BC Liberals. Should he win, Falcon would instantly become Premier of this province.
The website of Falcon's campaign is now up and his inaugural speech for the Liberal leadership is available.
From this non-partisan's perspective, Falcon appears to deserve the "Campbell light" label others have stuck to him. His speech contains largely - almost to the point of ad nauseam - references to building and investing: building the economy and increasing the built environment.
There's no reference to the preservation of the natural environment.
More worrisome to me are these statements:
If a Falcon government would lower the HST, how would it maintain current programs, reduce the deficit, or pay for new programs (for, say, helping parents with dyslexic or autistic children, as Falcon suggests)? Where does Falcon suppose the money will come from, if not from increased income taxes? If Falcon were to lower the HST, he would have no choice but to raise income taxes or to increase fees, which is a form of consumption tax.
An increase in income taxes in conjunction with lowering the rate of the HST is the wrong direction to go in terms of overall tax policy. The HST is only 12 percent now, the lowest rate of HST in the country; it need not go any lower.
If Falcon is going to be 'Campbell light', then he must at least retain what good policy Campbell's government introduced. He must continue its direction of using consumption taxes to encourage or curb spending in certain areas and stop punishing earnings through income taxes. In other words, Falcon should
Recommend this post
The website of Falcon's campaign is now up and his inaugural speech for the Liberal leadership is available.
From this non-partisan's perspective, Falcon appears to deserve the "Campbell light" label others have stuck to him. His speech contains largely - almost to the point of ad nauseam - references to building and investing: building the economy and increasing the built environment.
There's no reference to the preservation of the natural environment.
More worrisome to me are these statements:
I'd like to begin a discussion about how people would feel about lowering the HST rate over time to 10%. Perhaps a 1% reduction in 2011 and a further 1% when provincial revenues are sufficient to accommodate it....
the best job we can do as government is ensuring we maintain a low tax environment
If a Falcon government would lower the HST, how would it maintain current programs, reduce the deficit, or pay for new programs (for, say, helping parents with dyslexic or autistic children, as Falcon suggests)? Where does Falcon suppose the money will come from, if not from increased income taxes? If Falcon were to lower the HST, he would have no choice but to raise income taxes or to increase fees, which is a form of consumption tax.
An increase in income taxes in conjunction with lowering the rate of the HST is the wrong direction to go in terms of overall tax policy. The HST is only 12 percent now, the lowest rate of HST in the country; it need not go any lower.
If Falcon is going to be 'Campbell light', then he must at least retain what good policy Campbell's government introduced. He must continue its direction of using consumption taxes to encourage or curb spending in certain areas and stop punishing earnings through income taxes. In other words, Falcon should
- NOT lower the HST - tweak it, yes, so that, for example, expensive luxury items pay a higher rate.
- increase the carbon tax, and
- lower income tax.
Recommend this post
28 October 2010
BC Tax Policy
When BC Premier Gordon Campbell spoke last night in a 20-minute TV special, he announced a 15 percent reduction in income taxes for anyone earning less than $72,000.
I applaud this move. Campbell should have announced it at the same time he announced the HST. It would have made clearer to British Columbians the connection between the income tax reduction and the consumption tax increase.
As I've stated previously, I prefer income not be taxed at all and that all levels of government use consumption taxes as their primary source of revenue. Ideally, the consumption taxes would include not just general sales and carbon taxes, but also more targeted taxes intended to curb and reward behaviour, and higher rates on luxury goods and services that only the wealthy can afford.
Meanwhile, Carole James has this to say:
Might it not be from the HST that you and your party have been campaigning so fiercely against?
Recommend this post
I applaud this move. Campbell should have announced it at the same time he announced the HST. It would have made clearer to British Columbians the connection between the income tax reduction and the consumption tax increase.
As I've stated previously, I prefer income not be taxed at all and that all levels of government use consumption taxes as their primary source of revenue. Ideally, the consumption taxes would include not just general sales and carbon taxes, but also more targeted taxes intended to curb and reward behaviour, and higher rates on luxury goods and services that only the wealthy can afford.
Meanwhile, Carole James has this to say:
I believe in a competitive tax environment but this is a ridiculous way to set tax policy... Fiscal irresponsibility and a government trying to buy back public support is the only thing I saw with this tax cut... It's unclear where the money will come from.
Might it not be from the HST that you and your party have been campaigning so fiercely against?
Recommend this post
16 September 2010
HST Referendum in BC - Hooray!
I support the HST and have given my reasons in several posts.
More, I support true democratic process and have spent a good deal of this space writing about that. No matter the topic of the day, the problem almost always returns to the majority of voices having been left unheard.
Democratic reform topped the list of WISE's three major goals. The WISE women, all of whom lived in households of very low income, knew that unless politicians were forced to heed the voices of the people who elect them, nothing would change for us or for the majority of the masses. The only real benefits would accrue to the already well-connected or well-to-do.
So I'm tickled pink that British Columbia will be holding a referendum on the HST next September, that the result will be based on a simple majority vote and that its outcome will determine the fate of the HST in this province.
As long as policies and decisions are determined on the basis of meaningful consultation with an informed electorate, and any referenda are based on a simple majority vote, I'm prepared to accept their consequences. If I don't like the consequences, I will work to change people's minds.
Meaningful, truthful dealing by governments with the people. The people using suasion amongst themselves and with their political representatives. That's how a democracy is supposed to function.
Recommend this post
More, I support true democratic process and have spent a good deal of this space writing about that. No matter the topic of the day, the problem almost always returns to the majority of voices having been left unheard.
Democratic reform topped the list of WISE's three major goals. The WISE women, all of whom lived in households of very low income, knew that unless politicians were forced to heed the voices of the people who elect them, nothing would change for us or for the majority of the masses. The only real benefits would accrue to the already well-connected or well-to-do.
So I'm tickled pink that British Columbia will be holding a referendum on the HST next September, that the result will be based on a simple majority vote and that its outcome will determine the fate of the HST in this province.
As long as policies and decisions are determined on the basis of meaningful consultation with an informed electorate, and any referenda are based on a simple majority vote, I'm prepared to accept their consequences. If I don't like the consequences, I will work to change people's minds.
Meaningful, truthful dealing by governments with the people. The people using suasion amongst themselves and with their political representatives. That's how a democracy is supposed to function.
Recommend this post
29 May 2010
Anti-HST Petition a Sign of New Populism in BC?
[Updated]
I've written before that I support the HST, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that I didn't sign the anti-HST petition.
I do NOT and have never supported the machinations by the BC Liberals to ram the HST down British Columbians' throats without ever uttering a word about it during the May 2009 election.
I've also written, extensively, about my support for democratic reform.
I am therefore heartened by the strength of the (pseudo*) populist anti-HST campaign, which has already reached the required number of signatures weeks ahead of the deadline. And I'm especially excited about this: if the conclusion is unsatisfactory (nothing binds the Liberal government to honour a referendum outcome or to introduce a bill to undo the HST), then the petitioners will begin the recall process for Liberal MLAs, one riding at a time.
I hope this augers well for future heightened voter attention to the goings-on in Victoria. It's long past time politicians thought twice about getting voters angry.
*The anti-HST petition received a lot of help from well-pocketed individuals and groups who've certain vested political interests.
ETA: If my MLA was a Liberal and despite my supporting the HST, I would sign a recall petition. Lying during an election and bringing in a policy scant weeks later - one known to press voter buttons and one that Campbell & Co. assured everyone wasn't even on the party's radar - deserves no less than firing the lot of them.
Recommend this post
I've written before that I support the HST, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that I didn't sign the anti-HST petition.
I do NOT and have never supported the machinations by the BC Liberals to ram the HST down British Columbians' throats without ever uttering a word about it during the May 2009 election.
I've also written, extensively, about my support for democratic reform.
I am therefore heartened by the strength of the (pseudo*) populist anti-HST campaign, which has already reached the required number of signatures weeks ahead of the deadline. And I'm especially excited about this: if the conclusion is unsatisfactory (nothing binds the Liberal government to honour a referendum outcome or to introduce a bill to undo the HST), then the petitioners will begin the recall process for Liberal MLAs, one riding at a time.
I hope this augers well for future heightened voter attention to the goings-on in Victoria. It's long past time politicians thought twice about getting voters angry.
*The anti-HST petition received a lot of help from well-pocketed individuals and groups who've certain vested political interests.
ETA: If my MLA was a Liberal and despite my supporting the HST, I would sign a recall petition. Lying during an election and bringing in a policy scant weeks later - one known to press voter buttons and one that Campbell & Co. assured everyone wasn't even on the party's radar - deserves no less than firing the lot of them.
Recommend this post
07 April 2010
UPDATE on Tweeting the HST
From the Globe and Mail today, about the Nova Scotia's NDP government and its recent move to raise the HST to 15 percent:
It would seem that when in opposition, the party that favours more public services will oppose any taxes to pay for those services, unless those are corporate taxes. But while in government, leaders of the party haven't the same concern.
I'm fine with NDP governments facing economic realities. My objection is to any political party that opposes merely for the sake of opposing, as the BC NDP did with the carbon tax and is now doing with the proposed HST. If that's the (Carole James') NDP method of redefining itself, then the leadership should think again.
[Cross-posted at economius ridiculous]
Recommend this post
The Nova Scotia NDP under Darrell Dexter are that rarest of political birds: the tax-and-cut party. They are increasing consumption taxes while cutting civil servants and their perquisites.
Take their budget issued this week, which raises the harmonized sales tax two points to 15 per cent from 13 per cent, while cutting income taxes - particularly for those with very low incomes and in the $93,000 to $150,000 range - and laying off 10 per cent of the civil service.
Like many other provinces, Nova Scotia is moving away from income taxes and toward consumption taxes to stimulate the economy and create jobs.
For HST opponents in the NDP, like federal leader Jack Layton, Ontario leader Andrea Horwath and B.C. leader Carole James, this is a real challenge. One of the two provincial NDP governments are not only in favour of the HST, they are actually increasing it. [my emphasis]
It would seem that when in opposition, the party that favours more public services will oppose any taxes to pay for those services, unless those are corporate taxes. But while in government, leaders of the party haven't the same concern.
I'm fine with NDP governments facing economic realities. My objection is to any political party that opposes merely for the sake of opposing, as the BC NDP did with the carbon tax and is now doing with the proposed HST. If that's the (Carole James') NDP method of redefining itself, then the leadership should think again.
[Cross-posted at economius ridiculous]
Recommend this post
Andrew Coyne's Suggestions for Resurrection of Liberal Party
Andrew Coyne has some excellent suggestions for the Liberal Party of Canada, six in fact, which the party might use to re-brand itself. All have merit, however the following are my particular favourites; I've suggested them all myself on this blog:
True, that last.
Although the BC NDP tried to incite electors against the BC carbon tax, James & Company failed abysmally. In fact, the party's disingenuous (to put it politely) Axe the Tax™ campaign was among the reasons the party failed to defeat the Liberals in May 2009. British Columbians essentially agreed that a carbon tax was necessary. While the majority of us dislike the Liberals (again, putting it mildly), we are perfectly capable of separating the person or party from the essential principle.
Will the LPC re-brand itself with any or all of Coyne's suggestions? Not unless it's grown a spine, the lack of which has been evident these past few years.
I strongly recommend that all members of the LPC read Coyne's article in full.
Recommend this post
• The party of democratic reform. How we nominate candidates, how we choose leaders, how we elect members, how Parliament functions—there’s clearly lots of work to do here. This used to be a Conservative issue. Today, not so much.
• The party of taxpayers. Former Liberal MP Dennis Mills used to campaign vigorously for the flat tax, complete with postcard-sized tax form. A corollary would be reform of EI and social assistance, along the lines recommended by the impeccably Liberal Macdonald commission: a simplified, streamlined universal income guarantee.
• The party of the environment. Yes, that means a carbon tax. It’s a good idea, the only way Canada is ever going to come close to meeting its carbon emissions targets, and everyone knows it. Was it the carbon tax, as myth holds, that doomed the Liberals in the last election? Or was it because it was poorly designed and poorly presented? A better plan, better presented—a real “tax shift,” as implemented by Gordon Campbell’s Liberal government in B.C. - might be a winner.
True, that last.
Although the BC NDP tried to incite electors against the BC carbon tax, James & Company failed abysmally. In fact, the party's disingenuous (to put it politely) Axe the Tax™ campaign was among the reasons the party failed to defeat the Liberals in May 2009. British Columbians essentially agreed that a carbon tax was necessary. While the majority of us dislike the Liberals (again, putting it mildly), we are perfectly capable of separating the person or party from the essential principle.
Will the LPC re-brand itself with any or all of Coyne's suggestions? Not unless it's grown a spine, the lack of which has been evident these past few years.
I strongly recommend that all members of the LPC read Coyne's article in full.
Recommend this post
06 April 2010
Tweeting the HST
The opposition NDP in British Columbia has been making a concerted effort, joined now by former premier Bill Vander Zalm, to organize British Columbians against the coming Harmonized Sales Tax. Vander Zalm is trying to get enough signatures to require the Liberal government to hold a referendum on the tax.
Am putting this out there because I just don't get why certain progressives are against the HST.
Or maybe I do.
Here's a series of tweets I posted a few minutes ago:
Re BC-HST, 1) ppl will ALWAYS protest a new/chg'd tax 2) NDP = big gov, more services/progs, more taxes 2 pay 4 same 3) HST gd 4 very poor
4) w/ rebate, HST gd for lowest 2 economic classes. Only 'bad' for incomes above mid-range & only if u BUY STUFF.
5) HST - like PST/GST - is a consumption tax. IMO, that's better than inc. taxes. W/ cons. tax, u get more stuff, u pay more tax.
So, Y is NDP against this tax, if not due 2 opportunism, to take advantage of knee-jerk reaction against all tax?
If you've trouble reading Twitter-ese, the long version goes like this:
As night follows day, people will always protest the introduction of a new tax. It doesn't matter that the proposed tax is meant to cover the costs of providing new or enhanced services x, y and z. People just hate taxes, period.
The NDP supports the provision of public services by government; not, or much less so, by business. It supports tighter and more regulation, a flatter incline among classes, and so on. The party therefore supports bigger government, and less business or corporate influence, control and interference in public affairs. (So far, so good; am pretty much in agreement with this.)
For government to provide more or enhanced public services, it must raise revenue. That means raising taxes - or fees, which amounts to the same thing.
The proposed HST comes with a rebate for the lowest two economic classes. The poorest in the province will get the most.
I, for one, am really looking forward to my quarterly rebates. Am already better off thanks to the carbon tax, which the NDP also protested in its failed 'Axe the Tax' campaign.
The NDP is purportedly the champion of the underdog, the homeless, and the desperately poor.
I don't consider upper middle-income earners and the wealthy to be underdogs. Yet they are the only ones who ultimately may pay more under the HST. It all depends on HOW MUCH STUFF THEY BUY.
The HST, like the PST and GST, is a consumption tax. So is the BC carbon tax. The more you buy, the more you pay in tax.
Well, boo hoo!
Unlike income taxes - which I prefer to see axed - consumption taxes are useful sticks to curb people's behaviour. That's the fundamental principle behind a carbon tax, which most industry leaders support.
It's no accident that the majority of politicians don't support a carbon tax ... publicly, that is. They haven't the courage. Former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion was one of those rare exceptions. Too bad the party elite lacked the spine to support him.
Anyway, given the foregoing arguments regarding the HST, it begs the question why the NDP is so against it. Unless that party's protestations have nothing to do with the tax at all and everything to do with political opportunism.
[cross-posted at economicus ridiculous]
Recommend this post
Am putting this out there because I just don't get why certain progressives are against the HST.
Or maybe I do.
Here's a series of tweets I posted a few minutes ago:
Re BC-HST, 1) ppl will ALWAYS protest a new/chg'd tax 2) NDP = big gov, more services/progs, more taxes 2 pay 4 same 3) HST gd 4 very poor
4) w/ rebate, HST gd for lowest 2 economic classes. Only 'bad' for incomes above mid-range & only if u BUY STUFF.
5) HST - like PST/GST - is a consumption tax. IMO, that's better than inc. taxes. W/ cons. tax, u get more stuff, u pay more tax.
So, Y is NDP against this tax, if not due 2 opportunism, to take advantage of knee-jerk reaction against all tax?
If you've trouble reading Twitter-ese, the long version goes like this:
As night follows day, people will always protest the introduction of a new tax. It doesn't matter that the proposed tax is meant to cover the costs of providing new or enhanced services x, y and z. People just hate taxes, period.
The NDP supports the provision of public services by government; not, or much less so, by business. It supports tighter and more regulation, a flatter incline among classes, and so on. The party therefore supports bigger government, and less business or corporate influence, control and interference in public affairs. (So far, so good; am pretty much in agreement with this.)
For government to provide more or enhanced public services, it must raise revenue. That means raising taxes - or fees, which amounts to the same thing.
The proposed HST comes with a rebate for the lowest two economic classes. The poorest in the province will get the most.
I, for one, am really looking forward to my quarterly rebates. Am already better off thanks to the carbon tax, which the NDP also protested in its failed 'Axe the Tax' campaign.
The NDP is purportedly the champion of the underdog, the homeless, and the desperately poor.
I don't consider upper middle-income earners and the wealthy to be underdogs. Yet they are the only ones who ultimately may pay more under the HST. It all depends on HOW MUCH STUFF THEY BUY.
The HST, like the PST and GST, is a consumption tax. So is the BC carbon tax. The more you buy, the more you pay in tax.
Well, boo hoo!
Unlike income taxes - which I prefer to see axed - consumption taxes are useful sticks to curb people's behaviour. That's the fundamental principle behind a carbon tax, which most industry leaders support.
It's no accident that the majority of politicians don't support a carbon tax ... publicly, that is. They haven't the courage. Former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion was one of those rare exceptions. Too bad the party elite lacked the spine to support him.
Anyway, given the foregoing arguments regarding the HST, it begs the question why the NDP is so against it. Unless that party's protestations have nothing to do with the tax at all and everything to do with political opportunism.
[cross-posted at economicus ridiculous]
Recommend this post
07 January 2010
I Support the HST - P2
... but, as I wrote previously, I don't support the way our Liberal government foisted its particular brand of the HST onto British Columbians.
Now my support for the HST is supported by the typically NDP-friendly Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, to whit:
This jibes precisely with my experience of the BC government's 'revenue-neutral' carbon tax. While the tax needs improvement, certainly in terms of its impact on climate change measures, it has helped this low income household, not harmed it.
I expect similar experience with the HST, given the rebates I will be getting.
All of which leaves me wondering... Just who does the NDP, the party that holds itself up as champion of the poor, actually represent? And why is it working so hard to mislead the public, especially people of low income, about these taxes?
ETA: I realize that this CCPA report assesses specifically the Ontario HST program. However, the issues are similar enough to the BC situation to make the report also relevant here.
Recommend this post
Now my support for the HST is supported by the typically NDP-friendly Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, to whit:
the central result [of our analysis] - that the tax credits and tax cuts have the effect of offsetting the impact of the increased HST revenue for low-income and moderate-income families and of moderating the impact for other families - holds.
This jibes precisely with my experience of the BC government's 'revenue-neutral' carbon tax. While the tax needs improvement, certainly in terms of its impact on climate change measures, it has helped this low income household, not harmed it.
I expect similar experience with the HST, given the rebates I will be getting.
All of which leaves me wondering... Just who does the NDP, the party that holds itself up as champion of the poor, actually represent? And why is it working so hard to mislead the public, especially people of low income, about these taxes?
ETA: I realize that this CCPA report assesses specifically the Ontario HST program. However, the issues are similar enough to the BC situation to make the report also relevant here.
Recommend this post
14 October 2009
I Support the HST
... but I don't support the way our Liberal government foisted its particular brand of the HST onto British Columbians.
In principle, I consider taxes on consumption to be a good idea and a harmonized sales tax an improvement over two or more separate taxes. Simplicity is better; additional paperwork and process for the collection of money from the same source introduces needless complication.
However, the HST being rammed down the throats of British Columbians now, wouldn't likely have been the HST British Columbians ultimately got - and supported - had the process been vastly different. Indeed, had the May 2009 election been decided in a different manner, then the process surrounding the HST decision WOULD, in fact, have been vastly different; and so, likely, would the election campaign itself.
I am referring to the way the Liberals and other MLAs were elected.
Had BC-STV been the system by which voters elected their government, the likely result (all else being equal) would have been a coalition of the Liberals and Greens.
In a coalition government, one political party cannot arbitrarily ram through its favoured policy in a legislature. It must negotiate with MLAs of other parties. They, no less than MLAs who are members of the party who got the most votes, are elected to represent their constituents; and in a coalition government, they can do so more effectively.
In the present case, the BC Greens have come out in support of the HST, but say it should have been set at 10 percent.
Had our political representatives been elected in a fairer manner, closer to proportionally representing British Columbians' voting preferences in the legislature, our government's policies would likely have better reflected the majority's own values. We'd likely still have the HST starting in July 2010. But it's form and the process by which it was implemented and presented to the public would likely have been considerably different.
Recommend this post
In principle, I consider taxes on consumption to be a good idea and a harmonized sales tax an improvement over two or more separate taxes. Simplicity is better; additional paperwork and process for the collection of money from the same source introduces needless complication.
However, the HST being rammed down the throats of British Columbians now, wouldn't likely have been the HST British Columbians ultimately got - and supported - had the process been vastly different. Indeed, had the May 2009 election been decided in a different manner, then the process surrounding the HST decision WOULD, in fact, have been vastly different; and so, likely, would the election campaign itself.
I am referring to the way the Liberals and other MLAs were elected.
Had BC-STV been the system by which voters elected their government, the likely result (all else being equal) would have been a coalition of the Liberals and Greens.
In a coalition government, one political party cannot arbitrarily ram through its favoured policy in a legislature. It must negotiate with MLAs of other parties. They, no less than MLAs who are members of the party who got the most votes, are elected to represent their constituents; and in a coalition government, they can do so more effectively.
In the present case, the BC Greens have come out in support of the HST, but say it should have been set at 10 percent.
Had our political representatives been elected in a fairer manner, closer to proportionally representing British Columbians' voting preferences in the legislature, our government's policies would likely have better reflected the majority's own values. We'd likely still have the HST starting in July 2010. But it's form and the process by which it was implemented and presented to the public would likely have been considerably different.
Recommend this post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)