[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Mark Milke, BC Director Cdn Taxpayers Federation
Category: Category 1
Date: 14 Apr 2000
Time: 00:55:39
Remote Name: 24.113.31.224
The recent BC budget, while more honest than most recent ones, still played a few games. For example, in the individual inter-provincial tax comparisons, no mention was made of tobacco taxes (which take in $470 million annually.) And the government included property taxes, even though a good chunk of those are the responsibility of municipalities, not the province.
Here then, after comparing provincial government-only taxes, yet still using BC’s assumptions except for tobacco and fuel taxes, are some estimates of the various provincial tax differences.
Do you and your spouse both work, have a family income of $30,000, with two kids? You would pay $680 less in tax in Alberta or $611 less in Ontario ($880 less and $1,028 less respectively if one spouse smokes.) Retired at the same income? You and your spouse would pay $1,016 less in taxes in Alberta and $1,322 less in Ontario ($1,216 less and $1,739 less respectively where one senior lights up.)
Are you a computer programmer earning $80,000 without a spouse or family – the kind of worker the BC government says it wants to attract? Again, using just the BC assumptions (which should be taken warily) the provincial government tax load would be $1,721 lighter in Alberta, $1,921 lighter if you smoke. The same income would pay $622 more in Ontario, though only $205 more if one uses cancer sticks.
The above though should be seen as rough guide, not gospel, since different provinces use various assumptions. In Alberta’s budget for example, and in contrast to BC’s claim, Alberta estimates a high-income resident of Ontario is more lightly taxed in Ontario vis-à-vis BC.
One final note regarding budget numbers: Both Alberta and Ontario are planning to slash taxes further next year at a much faster pace. BC risks seeing some of the above-mentioned comparisons become even wider.
The BC Liberals, like the NDP who set up the Forest Renewal BC (FRBC) slush fund, are playing politics on the issue by arguing FRBC workers should be forgiven both their federal and provincial taxes.
The workers were thumped by a government that destroyed forestry jobs and then lied to them about whether their FRBC income was taxable, but the workers were not the only victims. And they did after all make some money out of the mess. Taxpayers saw $2 billion worth of their money badly managed by FRBC and will now be additionally penalized as the province has agreed to forego the over $3 million in provincial taxes owed by FRBC workers.
Partial tax forgiveness is a more than fair compromise since no other taxpayer would get to forego paying provincial taxes just because their employer was dumb enough to say salaries would not be taxed. Workers, politicians, and taxpayers will have to call a truce on this one, though no one – especially taxpayers – should be happy about it.
It is amazing the proposed $500,000 sweetheart deal between CUPE and the province hasn’t garnered more critical comment and outrage in both BC and across Canada. In essence, and regardless of the ridiculous justifications by the government, that $500,000 was as near to a legal bribe as one can get.
Imagine if the BC Liberals were in power and they offered $500,000 to a forestry company who had been openly and effectively critical of forest policy. Either British Columbians are so used to scandals from this government that they no longer blink, or they have lost their capacity for moral outrage in general. Neither is positive as regards the political vital signs in British Columbia.
Mark Milke British Columbia Director Canadian Taxpayers Federation http://www.taxpayer.com